Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#381

Post by ksec »

>you don’t get to double dip and also sell my data to your advertisers and earn more on the side.

1. Placing an Ad on the page has absolutely nothing to do with selling your data. Just like a magazine decide to place a print ad.

2. Ad can sometimes function as news. New Product launch, marketing notes. etc.

3. Even an internet targeting Ad, which the author is likely referring to, does not necessarily sell your data to advertiser. Your data, however may likely be gathered elsewhere that the Ad company uses for targeting.

4. There is no such thing as double dip when your data isn't even involved. Which means you are only paying once. And not twice.

5. Placing an Ad, an additional revenue generation function on the site is not double dipping. Even if the ad is inside your subscription. You are free to cancel or sue if the subscription originally promised zero ads.

6. The correct amount of ads is when Ad does not feel like an ad. The answer is very likely to be non zero but minimal.

Final Note: I Notice HN has swing back enough to allow decent discussions on these sort of topics. Ads were nearly forbidden to talk about from 2013 - 2023.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#382

Post by ChrisRR »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

Exactly. This has been the case for decades. Newspapers have had advertising despite no being free, but if they didn't they would be so much more expensive

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#383

Post by heresie-dabord »

0x0203 wrote: post #364
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

I've said it before, but I feel like I need to keep saying it: If the people actually using/consuming a product aren't willing to pay the cost required to make/produce said product, then that's probably a good indicator that the product doesn't have enough value to justify its existence. If the Verge can't convince enough people to pay for their output, I'd argue it's not worth keeping around. Advertising ruins the p…

> If the people actually using/consuming a product aren't willing to pay the cost required to make/produce said product, then that's probably a good indicator that the product doesn't have enough value to justify its existence.

This is not true. In many cases, we can see that people value a service by their returning usage, but... they often want other people to pay for it.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#385

Post by kasey_junk »

0x0203 wrote: post #364
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

I've said it before, but I feel like I need to keep saying it: If the people actually using/consuming a product aren't willing to pay the cost required to make/produce said product, then that's probably a good indicator that the product doesn't have enough value to justify its existence. If the Verge can't convince enough people to pay for their output, I'd argue it's not worth keeping around. Advertising ruins the p…

“Eventually” is doing a ton of heavy lifting in your argument.

Ads have been a primary revenue driver for news media going back hundreds of years, including to when the US was codifying the civic value of news into its governing principles.

The idea that revenue choice is binary or that if you have to use ads you shouldn’t be in business is a very modern one, and one that’s outside of historical norms.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#386

Post by kshahkshah »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

Don’t care. One or the other not those figure way a way to make it work. I’m furious when I pay for add free and I still am subject to ads.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#387

Post by ksec »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

This feels such a breath of fresh air, especially being the top comment and coming from a 2009 account.

>This feels like a situation where an organization tries doing something laudable, but still gets criticized for it.

Ads is evil has been a thing on HN for a very very long time.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#388

Post by chrisrhoden »

madeofpalk wrote: post #367
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

"Less ads" is the easy way to describe what they're offering, but I believe what they're doing is not just 50% less ad spots, but rather paying will remove all third party ad networks from the site, leaving first party ads only. > we’ll get rid of all the chumboxes and third-party programmatic ads, cut down the overall number of ad units, and only fill what’s left with high-quality ads directly sold by Vox Media If y…

In various contexts, you would draw the distinction here between `ads` (that is, marketing sold against large swaths of content) and `sponsorships` (marketing sold against a small targeted set of content) but the distinction is subtle and the terms are pretty overloaded.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#389

Post by renegat0x0 »

9o1d wrote: post #116
renegat0x0 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some YouTubers scream in panic that you dare to install ad blocker. Well nobody told them to build their business around such ad-driven solution. There are thousands, and thousand of useful places, each for free. Take a look at awesome lists at github. These provide so much value to the society. It does not require any subscriptions, nor money. There are millions of people who share education, and knowledge for free.…

Did you know that YouTube does not make a profit, but only covers its own expenses? What if it becomes unprofitable because of ad blockers? What will remain? Paid cinemas? Do you want to pay money from your own pocket? And you will remember the times when you could pay by watching ads without money. Think about it! No one will do anything for you for free. Try to take a taxi or a train without money? Try to steal bre…

Extensions for blocking are not only about ads. If you take a look at ublock site it does say it uses privacy and malware lists.

Therefore it is quite easy to understand and follow, and was suggested by FBI that we should use such extensions for our own protection.

Anyone saying, or implying that we should not use commonly named 'ad blocking' is spreading real harm to people.

When it comes to YouTube it is easy to understand the throwback. It always has been free. Now it is changing, but people are accustomed to this, and it is very bad to shame people for wanting things to keep that way. I agree, that if YouTube TOS say you should not be using them, then fine by me. YouTube goes bye bye. This is the only reason why they did not close all the loopholes, because that is how you loose your viewers, publicity, eyes, and eventually shareholders, and entire ad business. Microsoft for years tolerated piracy to keep them the most popular operating system. That still allows them to shame everybody for what they allow.

Post reply on HN