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

461–470 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#461

Post by adamc »

shortformblog wrote: post #452
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…

That folks think it’s an MBA that benefits from building a sustainable media business and not the people who work there, who get paychecks and better resourcing, is one of the great misunderstandings of the journalism business and the reason why I pipe up in threads like these.

No doubt the people who work for the mob benefit from murder, drug-running, and extortion, but it doesn't follow that having them around is worthwhile.

Ads are a scourge.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#462

Post by mikeryan »

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…

Infowars is an interesting example it’s (was) basically a health supplement company masquerading as a media company. Most of its ad load was selling supplements that it produced.

All shadiness aside it’s an interesting model. Cuts a lot of the middlemen out.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#463

Post by Kye »

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…

"I wish I could buy an article" is close to "I'd buy that on a t-shirt" on the sincere-not serious spectrum.

Most people won't do it when it's offered. The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#464

Post by galfarragem »

prepend wrote: post #373
galfarragem wrote: post #358

The correct amount of ads is one. As an indie web developer, after trying many "ad policies", I believe the sweet spot (not the revenue optimal spot!) is one ad, clear, not intrusive and highly targetted to your audience. This ad will not annoy readers and will keep your motivation at a decent level (instead of a zero ads policy). My take: https://www.slowernews.com/sponsor

Sorry, if I’m paying you for a service I want no ads. I don’t like ads. They don’t help me. They make my life harder. I’ll tolerate them in some situations, but if I pay you then I should not see an ad. If you want to show an ad, that you choice. I think it’s anti-user and I won’t buy your thing.

Most websites provide value - they have readers - but few of them provide enough value to convince people to pay directly for them. Often it is not even the money itself, is the hassle. That's why there are ads.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#465

Post by friendzis »

sofixa wrote: post #250
smcin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that'd be Apple News Premium, or whatever. But the curve of how many subscribers need to go premium, how much subscription to charge them and how many/few ads do both sides find acceptable has to be discovered by experimentation (like Netflix's 'Standard with ads' tier). See also recent articles on "Apple TV+ is a failure despite making great content and $20b investment, Apple is about to make cuts". (The compar…

> See also recent articles on "Apple TV+ is a failure despite making great content and $20b investment, Apple is about to make cuts". Does it make great content? I've only watched 3 series and then cancelled because it was annoying (but all three were fairly popular), and the more they progressed, the more underwhelming they got. The premise was always good, but scenario was meh and getting meh-er by the episode, eve…

Yep, they sit in this very, very weird spot. On one hand they (I suspect) don't want to tarnish Apple's brand, so production quality is very reasonable, which is cost. But they charge below market. Their content is above "play it in the background while scrolling" forgettables like Sex/Life, but below polished pearls like Band of Brothers.

Having watched Presumed Innocent on Apple TV, I have had very similar thoughts. Supposedly it is detective fiction, with some intertwined stories, so called unreliable narrator. But then instead of tying everything together they throw all those parallel stories and draw gotcha card. Cheap novel wrapped in shiny production.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#466

Post by adamc »

wat10000 wrote: post #433
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…

Youtube does not do it. You stop seeing youtube's ads, which are obnoxious, but you still see the actual content author's ads.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#467

Post by barnabee »

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…

The only laudable move is to reject all forms of tracking and targeted ads as a matter of principle and make sure there’s at least one completely ad-free option.

There are few (if any) media businesses I care about enough to compromise on my requirements just to help them stay in business. Certainly not The Verge.

As for me, I’m happy to either not see the content or use workarounds that let me see it for free with no ads, i.e. ad-blockers + reader mode and services like archive.ph.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#468

Post by sfn42 »

frotaur wrote: post #449
sfn42 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find these conversations strange. If you offer content for free I'm not going to pay for it. I don't tip, I don't buy micro transactions in games, I don't pay for discord nitro or buy "collector's edition" versions of games or twitch subscriptions or anything like that. Simply, if I don't have to pay I don't. And I certainly won't waste my life watching ads just so someone can earn a fraction of a cent. I do…

I hate ads as much as the next guy, but this way of thinking feels the most unsustainable of them all. You said it yourself; the only reason you get to watch content ad-free is because other people are either watching ads, or paying for the content. You justify with 'if you offer content for free, I'm not going to pay for it'. Agreed with microtransactions and stuff. But with youtube videos? The content is not actual…

Honestly I don't care. I wouldn't sit through a 30 second ad to earn a cent, and i definitely am not doing it so that someone else can earn a cent.

As long as I can use youtube for free with an ad blocker (and sponsorblock, amazing plugin) I will. If google doesn't like that they better figure out a solution. Not my problem.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#469

Post by jfengel »

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…

Those organizations that didn't do what it took to be in business, are already out of business. You are looking at the survivors.

The OP should indeed vote with their wallet. They will have to find some other source of news/entertainment. (I really wish that those two weren't the same thing, but that's another compromise that we haven't figured out how to avoid while still getting paid.) Maybe they'll get a deal elsewhere that is more to their liking.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#470

Post by hombre_fatal »

freetinker wrote: post #423
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…

From a UX perspective, there’s really no way to measure “fewer ads”. Customers with subscriptions aren’t doing A/B tests and feeling satisfied that they’re seeing fewer ads. They’re seeing ads. Still a subpar experience. The “fewer ads” narrative exists on some MBA/bean counter’s spreadsheet. This should be an absolute benefit, not a relative benefit. Who’s to say the number of ads won’t ratchet up in the future? Alm…

1. The Verge's post says they are paywalling some of their content, so the offering seems more than just reduced ads.

2. People do notice when $7/mo is cheaper than $16/mo which is possible because there are still ads.

Post reply on HN