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

431–440 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#431

Post by bogwog »

knorker wrote: post #419
bogwog wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass. The free market is great. But we should not deny it…

The fake news situation, like all (well, most at least) failures of the free market are solvable with regulations. I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. We banned selling cigarettes to minors, we banned drugs, we (theoretically) banned monopolies, and we should be able to ban fake news.

But it is currently a political weapon being wielded by a political party. I don't expect that problem will be solved any time soon, but it's not fair to blame that on capitalism. Politicians ruin everything no matter what economic system they're in.

> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want.

But I don't want ad supported journalism!

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#432

Post by conductr »

bogwog wrote: post #404
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…

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

> its the free market working as intended.

As is the verge’s pricing and ad strategy, you think they didn’t expect some churn by making a pricing change? The author is free to shout it from their soapbox but chances are the verge already expected some of this sentiment and is totally ok with a “ok losing these customers” approach

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#433

Post by wat10000 »

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…

There are plenty of subscription services out there that are ad-free. YouTube does it, I think all the various music streaming services do it, most if not all of the video streaming services have an ad-free tier. Beyond the media realm, my cell phone service doesn’t package ads with my monthly subscription, nor my home internet service. I could go on.

What narrow idea of “a media business” must have ads even when you pay, and why do they have to be different from everything else?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#434

Post by whereismyacc »

deergomoo wrote: post #343
whereismyacc wrote: post #294

My biggest frustration right now is paying for Spotify and not getting any ads in music, but getting ads in podcasts. Not even just the ads embedded in the audio stream, which I can understand Spotify can't do much about, but Spotify actively injecting more ads into the shows.

Please do yourself a favour and download a proper podcast client. There are so many great ones out there, they’re often from independent developers, and podcasts are one of the last parts of the modern web that actually work how the web was supposed to work: decentralised* and open access. Don’t let media giants turn it into a closed system. * the elephant in the room being that the iTunes podcast directory is the de…

I agree with you, I've just struggled to find one that worked well on Android but also synced to desktop. I'm on iOS now, so maybe it's time to look through the options again.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#435

Post by jnsie »

bogwog wrote: post #404
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…

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

> Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier?

You presumably want access to the Verge's content. This is unsustainable without some revenue. You're compromising to continue to get what you want, not to make some MBA's life easier.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#436

Post by wat10000 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #351
eterevsky wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is always possible to have several tiers of subscriptions, a cheap tier with some additional feature and ads, and a higher tier with no ads at all. I am perfectly willing to pay extra to support a website or service that I'm using, but only if it removes all ads.

The problem is: advertisers will argue that if you're offering a tier of service that removes ads, that's specifically going to be the most appealing to the group of your user-base that has the most money to spend and whom is most ready to spend it, evidenced by the fact that they have subscribed to your ad-free tier, and is therefore worth the most in terms of reaching with ads. Those people are self-selecting as th…

YouTube and Spotify both do “subscribe to remove ads.” If they’re not big, who is?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#437

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

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…

>Most companies do not offer a reduced ad load in exchange for your subscription money.

And the never ending struggle to increase/maintain subscriptions for some companies probably has something to do with that.

For me personally, and I expect a not insignificant portion of users, paying for a subscription is primarily to remove advertising completely. Anything else means its not worth subscribing, so not offering that level of option rules us out as customers.

I've spent a minor amount of time and energy reducing the amount of advertising I see, from (pre-streaming) downloading shows I already pay for legal access to with commercials removed with automated systems, to being an early adopter of streaming services and dropping cable, locally running pi-hole on top of ad-blockers and using VPN's, privacy focused browsers etc.

The payoff has been immense for my family, to the point watching TV in other locations and being bombarded by advertising is jarring and uncomfortable, and the manipulation tactics become more obvious and gross the less you inundate yourself with them. Obviously you can't get away from all advertising, indirect, product placement etc. is everywhere, but I found a significant improvement in quality of life.

I would also make the argument that social media engagement hacking at its root traces to advertising and we blame social media for the problems when advertising was the true problem. Advertising as a revenue stream results in trying to optimize and improve engagement, often by gamifying or moving towards sensationalism to drive up numbers to increase revenue, most of which is negative for the user and little actually positive.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#438

Post by wat10000 »

nubinetwork wrote: post #354
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…

Freemium gets abused, just look at YouTube... give them money and they still run ads...

No they don’t.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#439

Post by wat10000 »

ksec wrote: post #387
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.

Ads is evil has been a human thing for many times longer. Everybody hates them. At best, some accept ads as a necessary evil. It’s a dire combination: tremendously irritating and adding absolutely zero value to the world.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#440

Post by conductr »

Tade0 wrote: post #398
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…

> It also reduces the cost of the subscription for you, the end user. But I don't want to pay less. I want my data to not be sold to the highest bidder, that's all. As it stands there's no option for people like me other than not subscribing. This is very much like the situation with smartphones these days: they cost less because you get a bunch of bloatware that you can't uninstall. I don't want that on my device, s…

The fact is people like you are in the minority and there’s no reason for a company to ever even entertain modifications to their product/service to cater to your wants

This might seem common on HN but IRL people don’t give much attention to ad related privacy and are probably much more concerned with the fact they have to fork over a CC and a few bucks

Post reply on HN