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

531–540 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#531

Post by TeMPOraL »

carlosjobim wrote: post #516
xixixao wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The richest people, hence the most valuable for advertisers, would buy it. This significantly affects the whole ad business value. Such that the ad-free tier would have to be priced too high. It’s more profitable to “force” everyone to watch ads. I’m afraid.

- You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. - Expensive cars and cruises are advertised all the time on open TV channels and other ad-supported media.

> You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month.

It's not about being rich. It's about having disposable income and willing to spend it. A $10+/month subscription to some entertainment magazine? That's a clear sign you're open to spending money - a sign ads could make you spend on stuff in the first place.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#532

Post by gambiting »

mgraczyk wrote: post #510
gambiting wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like I said, you and I have very different definition. Using yours, you cannot harm someone who is in come or too young to understand what is happening to them. Similarily, if my personal information is being traded online for money a harm is being done to me, even if I'm not aware of these transactions taking place. I just don't expect we'll agree on this.

That's not what I said, you can harm somebody who is too young to understand. I'm claiming that nothing bad happens to you from information being traded about you, under whatever definition of "bad" you prefer

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

Well I mean that's pretty straightforward, is it not? Someone who is in a coma is not aware of what's happening to them = ergo, no harm is being done, no?

>>I'm claiming that nothing bad happens to you from information being traded about you

Ok let me follow this for couple more seconds then - any information? Or only specific kinds? Like if I take explicit pictures of my partner and put them on the internet(or sell them, to tick the "trading" box), but she _never_ finds out and it has zero impact on her life - was there harm being done?

>>"bad" you prefer

It's not a definiton of bad but a definition of harm we're differing on. You said no one was ever harmed by online tracking - I disagree on that point.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#533

Post by manuelmoreale »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #525
manuelmoreale wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ads are not the problem. I'll quote you "this is a bad take". What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. > Ads are a good way to make revenue when it is done right. In an ideal world, yes. That ideal world is long gone.

> I'll quote you "this is a bad take". What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. > What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. OK. Let's first examine…

> I don't have anything else to say than the fact that Ads are not going anywhere.

Why? You state that as if Ads are a product of the universe we live in and we need to accept them like gravity.

> And it should NOT be done with data surveillance but with curated and useful ads.

Agree in principle. The problem is that you don't even need to do data surveilance in this case.

I pay money to the verge. You can infer I have a) disposable income and 2) interest in tech With those two alone you can start showing me ads. You don't even need to profile me.

And that's wrong in my book.

> Do you think the problem is ads here? And you still haven't answered to my POV. How is paywall stopping data surveillance? The reality is they are making you pay and serving ads. Which is the problem? How is paying solving it?

The problem is the ambiguity. The old mantra says "If you're not paying for the product then i'm the product"

Well i'm paying. The transaction should be clear. I give you money, you give me content. But instead that's not what you get. Because you still get profiled, you're still served ads, and sure, BETTER, ads. That's my problem.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#534

Post by gambiting »

amelius wrote: post #520
gambiting wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like I said, you and I have very different definition. Using yours, you cannot harm someone who is in come or too young to understand what is happening to them. Similarily, if my personal information is being traded online for money a harm is being done to me, even if I'm not aware of these transactions taking place. I just don't expect we'll agree on this.

Even if you use a different definition you can acknowledge that someone else has a different view, and your original "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument does not hold for that person. Internet ads can in theory be turned on or off per user, it's no rocket science, so you could opt-in and everybody could be happy.

>>and your original "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument does not hold for that person

....I don't recall making such an argument? Maybe you replied to the wrong person?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#535

Post by carlosjobim »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #531
carlosjobim wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. - Expensive cars and cruises are advertised all the time on open TV channels and other ad-supported media.

> You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. It's not about being rich. It's about having disposable income and willing to spend it. A $10+/month subscription to some entertainment magazine? That's a clear sign you're open to spending money - a sign ads could make you spend on stuff in the first place.

Somebody spent ten dollars, so they must have a ton of disposable income that they're just itching to throw around?

Let's be honest what it's really about: Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free. They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online. Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold – thus a delicious target for advertisers.

Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#536

Post by ProfessorLayton »

wat10000 wrote: post #436
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

YouTube Premium costs 90% as much as a standard Netflix subscription, but with one major difference: Netflix needs to spend ~17B on content per year to collect that $15.49/mo.

Youtube gets content for free and pays out a revenue share. If they also had to spend billions on content, they would have to charge more than $13.99/mo.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#537

Post by paulcole »

nemomarx wrote: post #426
paulcole wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. I guarantee that the majority of these zealous anti-ad people will not subscribe to an ad-free service for The Verge. For the most part, their hobby is not subscribing to online publications, it’s complaining about the subscriptions at online publications that they wou…

but people already subscribe to ad free subscriptions at places like ars Technica, nebula, what have you. clearly it can be done and balanced, so why claim it's impossible or no one would buy it anyway?

I never said nobody would subscribe to them. I said that most of the people who cry about ads in a subscription product are habitual whiners who rarely will subscribe to the thing they’re crying about.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#538

Post by paulcole »

benj111 wrote: post #424
paulcole wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. I guarantee that the majority of these zealous anti-ad people will not subscribe to an ad-free service for The Verge. For the most part, their hobby is not subscribing to online publications, it’s complaining about the subscriptions at online publications that they wou…

Even if its 1% its still worth it. You already have billing set up, you already have 2 different tiers of ads. Its like saying most BMW drivers won't buy the top of the line model with all the options. They won't, doesn't mean its not worth offering it.

> Even if its 1% its still worth it.

You’re 100% certain of this?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#539

Post by wkat4242 »

wat10000 wrote: post #527
wkat4242 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t really care about sponsor segments. They’re quickly and easily skipped. Sponsor-free videos for premium subscribers would be nice but it’s a pretty small thing.

I do hate them, especially when it's more than one. And when skipping it's hard to find the end of them.

I have to say I find watching videos a chore anyway, I'll always prefer written content. But often it's not available or not as well suited (eg for a review it's good to see the product).

But I would never pay for premium if it means I still get ads, it doesn't matter where they come from.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#540

Post by Zak »

xixixao wrote: post #322
bambax wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, and probably true, but the difference with newspaper is, it would be prohibitively expensive to produce different versions of the same newspaper for different subscription options, while it's trivial to do on the web. Why not offer an ad-free tier?

The richest people, hence the most valuable for advertisers, would buy it. This significantly affects the whole ad business value. Such that the ad-free tier would have to be priced too high. It’s more profitable to “force” everyone to watch ads. I’m afraid.

I hadn't thought of that before reading this comment, and now it seems obvious.
Post reply on HN