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

The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#51

Post by bjelkeman-again »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #10
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #3

The interesting thing with the Economist is that they alone seem to be able to do what they do. A weekly editorial summary of news and relevant stories that people pay for, which is read by business people. Is there a competing magazine? I am not aware of it. Their content is unrivalled, although you really need to be aware of their biases. But I don't feel they try to hide them, rather the opposite. However, with so…

It's much less frequent of course, but Foreign Affairs is in the same space.

Yes, I occationally read it, but often I find it hard to deal with the perspective it is written from. Which is really why I should read it.

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#52

Post by 1123581321 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #39
bambax wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to meet someone who's aware of AdBlock's existence and doesn't use it...

Me. I don't use it, never have. Are ads annoying - sure. But so are paywalls, so are websites that are entirely VC funded and desperately growth hacking until they can sell out to a bigger company. The web is an expensive thing, very expensive. By not blocking ads I'm doing my bit to help fund it. I see ad blocking as a lot like piracy: understandable in some cases, but still basically freeloading on those of us who…

My semi-serious opinion is that by using Adblock, you are helping fund the web in the long run by collapsing bad ad-driven behavior and making more pastoral models compare favorably.

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#53

Post by 3pt14159 »

digi_owl wrote: post #20
3pt14159 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that at least 20 points of that 41 percent is due to Youtube. Which is ironic, given that it probably hurts Google the most. For a long time I held out but after learning about ad-malware and being bothered by Youtube's 15th ad when I just wanted to listen to music, I just said screw it.

Didn't know these blockers could handle youtube video ads. And if you really want to listen to music undisturbed, why not get a Spotify subscription?

Spotify doesn't (or at least didn't when I tried it) work that well in Canada. I had a paid Rdio subscription, but the service kept getting worse. The only thing that let me play what I wanted to play was Youtube.

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#54

Post by ghaff »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49
ghaff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that a while ago. It hasn't happened yet but that doesn't mean it won't. And even if it doesn't implode, it could certainly decline significantly. A HUGE amount of the "free" services and content that pretty much all of us take so much for granted around the web are directly or indirectly supported by online advertising. Take that away and, as you say, it will be interesting.

Gmail? I'd pay for. Netflix? I already pay for. Online content? Sure, I'll pay a few bucks a month for the Economist or the NY Times. I already pay for Evernote, Flickr, etc. What free services am I going to miss?

Search? Pretty much all content provided beyond the individual level (and even some of that)?

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#55

Post by pjc50 »

blumkvist wrote: post #46
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This model is used by any number of "business intelligence" micro-zines - which are basically market tip sheets, with some trend speculation. It can be very lucrative if you get a following. I've seen sites charging four or five figure annual subscription fees for something that probably only takes a day or two a week to put together. So IMV the Econo is really just industrialising that model, with some extra journo-…

You are comparing news to market research...

Is there a hard distinction?

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#56

Post by blumkvist »

pjc50 wrote: post #55
blumkvist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing news to market research...

Is there a hard distinction?

I'm not sure how to respond to that question, so I will just give a straight answer.

Yes. A very big one.

Re: The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of advertising

#57

Post by pjc50 »

blumkvist wrote: post #56
pjc50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a hard distinction?

I'm not sure how to respond to that question, so I will just give a straight answer. Yes. A very big one.

Let me try this again, since your answer contains no information. Why do people read news? What are they trying to get from it? Especially in the case of the Economist, a large fraction of the readers are going to be in the business of finance and investment. For the microsecond-to-microsecond data, there's Bloomberg. For longer views? The Economist. Their entire pitch is that it's information likely to be useful to your business.
Post reply on HN