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

491–500 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#491

Post by wkat4242 »

adamc wrote: post #466
wat10000 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah this is the problem. You still need sponsorblock to make it watchable even if you subscribe. Then you might as well go the full way and adblock.

If YouTube would force content creators to upload sponsor-free versions for premium subscribers, the subscription might actually be worth it.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#492

Post by carlosjobim »

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #107
racecar789 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay for YouTube premium if you can afford it. The cost is pretty reasonable and 55% of the subscription goes to content creators. It's not a huge amount but probably similar to what a creator would make if ads were shown.

But it is not possible to use it without creating a Google account. I should not need to sign in to watch videos, especially when that makes all efforts at avoiding tracking null.

There's always an excuse, right? (Looking forward to the multi paragraph reply on why it's outrageous that you should pay)

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#493

Post by ndriscoll »

adamc wrote: post #466
wat10000 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apparently you do also see youtube's ads

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42131778

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#495

Post by mgraczyk »

gambiting wrote: post #472
mgraczyk wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not what's happening. The sites I visit and the sort of information that is used for ads isn't sensitive. I'd happily share it Also, most people wouldn't actually be harmed by what you're describing. It just wouldn't be super valuable data (we already know where you shop because the store and credit card will sell that information)

I just think you and me have a different definition of harm.

Harm is when something bad happens to someone, and the someone is aware of it

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#496

Post by eterevsky »

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…

This entirely depends on the subscription fee, doesn't it? The amount of ad revenue that the service is getting for you is limited, even accounting for the fact that as a paying user you might push the price of ads up a bit.

If you set the subscription fee above this value, you as a service will be better off regardless of the advertizers.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#497

Post by wkat4242 »

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…

I don't really care if their business model is sustainable. If they go under so be it, someone else will offer it. Whether it's some hobby bob or whatever. I thought the internet was a lot better when it wasn't run by mega corporations anyway.

The thing with ads is: it's not free money. We pay for it. All of us. It's part of the price when we buy goods and services.

If advertising wasn't possible, items would be cheaper and we would have more money to pay for content directly. Cutting out the whole advertising industry out of the content payment loop would save so much money.

And yeah people would still buy stuff they need because they need it. And stuff they didn't need? Well good then that they're not buying it. Saving natural resources and money.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#498

Post by next_xibalba »

adamc wrote: post #459
jnsie wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't want any content enough to tolerate ads.

Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#499

Post by marcosdumay »

nltatsy wrote: post #395
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 difference is that newspapers had tasteful ads. I didn't mind seeing a Rolex or an expensive perfume, exquisitely photographed, in the Financial Times. Most of the Internet ads are medical issues, financial scams, weight loss scams etc. Most of these are accompanied by disgusting pictures. These ads combine the worst of classic Email spam and the yellow press. Give me better ads and I might switch off the adblock…

> I might switch off the adblocker

There's a high likelihood that your adblocker won't be able to block those anyway.

But no, you probably won't switch it off. That's because you can only know the ad quality after you've been exposed to them, and after your computer has run their code, and after you've faced the risk of them maintaining the universal, persistent eavesdrop on your life.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#500

Post by godshatter »

romanows wrote: post #318
shortformblog wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonna be straight up with you: I feel like you would have never thought about this had they not mentioned it, because so few media outlets are even thinking about reducing ad load for paid subscribers. As someone in media, I’m tired of well-intentioned media outlets try to strike a reasonable balance only to get yelled at for it like they aren’t already walking a tightrope. They have staffs of people to pay for, payr…

I've asked NYT, WaPo, and the non-profit Chicago Sun Times for an ad-free tier (no ads displayed in their apps) and they've all said "we don't offer an ad-free tier".

I'd be (relatively) fine with a "no tracking and no selling of your data" tier, even if it had ads.
Post reply on HN