Live data from Hacker News

I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

kirkville.com

81–90 of 192 posts

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT. Physical paper printed Ads! So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.

Wait until screens get cheap enough... you'll have 4k ads rolling on each screen that are tailored from your name in your ticket.

Passengers in airline seats seem to make advertisers drool as you can't get much more of a captive audience and for that long in nearly any other situation.

I know for a fact, this is all coming and has already started, and is going to get even more invasive.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#82
To everyone making the obvious point: yes, obviously, there is potentially money to be made from this richer demographic. But that doesn't explain why they have to make the ads so intrusive or site-breaking.

Remember, something stops Ferrari from blanketing the dash with ads. Why doesn't that same dynamic apply here?

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#84
post #16

The answer may not be pleasing, but it's true: because "paid subscribers" represent a valuable advertising demographic/segment. They are nearly certain you are human traffic, and you have enough disposable income that you pay for news.

You can pretty much make this argument for everything - Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads then. Business class airplanes filled with blinking video ads. Entrances to highend butiques crowded with people pushing ad leaflets into rich peoples hands.... Why is it acceptable on the web?

Re: Ferraris - Part of the product is the aesthetic and function. The other part is that there are other vehicles just as sexy or cool looking as Ferrari - meaning, if there aren't good alternatives that don't have the advertising then they perhaps could get away with it; what an advertiser would be willing to pay a single fixed ad on a vehicle doesn't really put much of a dent in the cost of that vehicle, however ad revenue in digital form certainly covers a much higher portion of the cost of serving web content. Content that requires a lot of effort to produce however fits less of a Facebook average level of post content. It seems the answer is creating a competitive environment for investigative journalism, and then people will have options - if content is equal - to pay a platform that doesn't have ads.

For free products online that have an ad model, it's the VC complex perpetuating that model heavily - where the money is available initially and to scale quickly (because it's an easy calculation). The mantra isn't just "Move fast and break things" but also seems to be "if I don't do it - someone else will get there first" as part of the desire to be first-to-market (by any means) as a means to reach/capture a few of the main defense mechanisms of economies of scale and network effects; you don't need defense mechanisms if you have a good product however, and have a reasonable cost structure - it sure will be more profitable in the short-term though, not sustainable however. Facebook, Cambridge Analytica et al, perhaps needed to happen to wake people up to understand the importance of accountability and of community, moderation, and such.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#85
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what does that mean? That we need to be shoved ads in our faces at every step of our life even if we pay for products? Just because someone wants to make even more money? What's your takeaway here?

I don't have a "takeaway", but the Bezos quote, "Your margin is my opportunity," comes to mind. We live in capitalism, and in this system, "good user experience" only matters insofar as it is profitable for whoever is providing that user experience. If ads for subscribers are so annoying that people stop subscribing, then companies might stop advertising to them. But if they are not annoying enough to affect those nu…

It's true - most news and magazine publishing companies are in a place of desperation. The internet has impacted the legacy publishing revenue model so severely that there hasn't been any clear model to pivot to despite two decades of attempts. Many major publishers have folded, many more will fold, and those that survive will eek by on meager subscriber revenue (which isn't as robust or easy to come by as some may think) and increasingly obtrusive programmatic advertising.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does happen in other places. Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? You've already paid for the flight. Your in-theater movie kicks off with trailers and previews -- you have already paid for the movie ticket. And so on.

Cable television being another completely obvious one, you literally pay to be advertised to, and for the ability to fast forward through ads.

Public media and TV in Europe, including the one with the largest budget on the entire planet - German, play and display ads even though are sponsored from compulsory per-household fees.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#87

There are ads in the paper newspaper I subscribe to as well. Real reporting and quality writing don't come cheaply, and that hasn't changed just because the delivery method did. Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a ballpark estimate for what a no-ad online subscription would cost if we assume the parent is true?

According to the New York Times latest earnings call, subscriptions account for 2/3 of their revenue. So ballpark roughly 50% more than the current subscription price would be necessary to maintain revenue at the same subscriber count sans other revenue streams.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But people have proven they are mostly OK with ads, they don't mind them (since so many services online are fueled by them and people use them). Let's remember that people generally have zero choice in the matter.

That's absolutely not true. You could just not use the service. I think what you mean is that you have no way to get the service without the ads, so you're willing to put up with the ads to get the service. Which is the whole point.

> I think what you mean is that you have no way to get the service without the ads, so you're willing to put up with the ads to get the service. Which is the whole point.

Well, that's what I mean. You often can't get the service without ads, as competitors show the same amount of ads.

Hell, these days you can't do anything, be it on-line or in meatspace, without being exposed to a steady stream of ads. There is no choice for ad-free life, unless you take the word "choice" so literally you accept moving to some remote location and living off land as a viable option for regular people.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#89
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a ballpark estimate for what a no-ad online subscription would cost if we assume the parent is true?

basically nothing. if you never click the ad you are making them a fraction of a cent each view. I doubt one person would even make the site a dollar after a lifetime of reading.

Surely you realize this is incorrect, considering that the Times makes on the order of $200 million/year in online ad revenue.

Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until screens get cheap enough... you'll have 4k ads rolling on each screen that are tailored from your name in your ticket.

Passengers in airline seats seem to make advertisers drool as you can't get much more of a captive audience and for that long in nearly any other situation. I know for a fact, this is all coming and has already started, and is going to get even more invasive.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the security theatre before boarding and advertisement brainwash after getting to the seats would start to provoke fury sprees among some at least passengers.
Post reply on HN