Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

news.ycombinator.com

1–10 of 50 posts

Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#1
We all hate ads, especially the ones that keep jumping at us while we are trying to read an article about Iron Man. The worst part: they are not even related to the article or the entire theme of the website. To counter this, we install ad blockers. Peace.

But the idea that I am probably not allowing the little money that the blog/website owner can make from those ads after putting in effort to write a good, well-researched and quality article feels bad. I disabled ads not because of that intention, I want them to make the money they can. I am not able to prevent any other tech giants from misusing my data anyway.

What is a resolution to this? I know many blogs have a donate option, but not everyone can donate. Not every website/blog can get a sponsorship. And ads are annoying, to the extent that a user might not visit again. Thus, the question: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#3

If they can't get users to pay directly via subscriptions or donations, or indirectly via ads, then it seems reasonable to expect that they just aren't financially viable.

Maybe someday, when the "new shiny" finally comes along, all the financial viability will go chase that and we can get the hobbyist web back?

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#4
Personal opinion --- a big part of the problem with ads is due to personalization.

It is fundamentally anti-consumer and is a proven, sure fire way to annoy your visitors and encourage them to use ad blocking --- which more than half now do according to some recent stats.

Personalized ads are the dumbest idea since the invention of advertising. When more than half of your target audience actively refuses to engage and cooperate, you might be doing something wrong.

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#5
Micropayments

A cryptocurrency plug-in that lets visitors purchase 1 USDT on your blog and then give 1 cent to every read they enjoy. It will be quick as you don't have to invoke your bank every time you donate to a blog and it will be fast barring the initial purchase of the cryptos because the plug-in is also a wallet which you can send from. This plug-in is powered by Cryptocurrency Micropayments Company and can be installed and used on all blogs.

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#6

Personal opinion --- a big part of the problem with ads is due to personalization . It is fundamentally anti-consumer and is a proven, sure fire way to annoy your visitors and encourage them to use ad blocking --- which more than half now do according to some recent stats. Personalized ads are the dumbest idea since the invention of advertising. When more than half of your target audience actively refuses to engage a…

One can imagine that the ad networks has data that says otherwise though.

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#7

Personal opinion --- a big part of the problem with ads is due to personalization . It is fundamentally anti-consumer and is a proven, sure fire way to annoy your visitors and encourage them to use ad blocking --- which more than half now do according to some recent stats. Personalized ads are the dumbest idea since the invention of advertising. When more than half of your target audience actively refuses to engage a…

One can imagine that the ad networks has data that says otherwise though.

One can also imagine that the ad networks really don't care as long as advertisers continue to buy into the ad auction ruse.

The ad networks are an opaque "black box". You only get to see what they allow you to see. It is essentially built around faith.

It's difficult for advertisers to compare to alternatives because they have effectively monopolized the market.

For consumers, the most sensible response is increasingly ad blocking. As this trend increases, advertisers will (hopefully) be forced to start abandoning the concept as ineffective.

In the long term, the big winner in all this is likely to Amazon --- where advertising is mostly context based.

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#9
A lot of well-researched deep technical dives I read are from non-commercial hobbyist sites, academic papers/reports, or blogs ran off the back of a company with some product/service to sell (like Raymond Chen's The Old New Thing, or malware investigations from antivirus vendors). Would even say that ad-supported articles commonly link back to one of these as their source.

Re: Ask HN: If not ads, then how are websites supposed to monetize?

#10
IIRC websites are best when they don't monetize.

And businesses are best when they do.

As long as consumers are getting their money's worth.

And the internet was better when most websites did not monetize, since there was no need.

For about the first decade, major ISPs automatically provided you with enough web space for a personal home page on their server, when you signed up to be on the internet with them.

Perfect for a text blog (nobody called them that yet) or something like that, and the normal state of affairs, as intended, was that most people with an internet account could post a web page at no additional cost, so there was no need to monetize anything. If all you wanted to do was have a website, that was expected of everybody eventually once they were on the internet to begin with. All you had to do was upload a well-formed index.html file to your personal web address space according to your ISPs generic procedure.

The main reason to monetize a website (a good one too) would be for online business use. Almost all other websites were never supposed to rely on a monetization strategy just to cover costs. That way an online outreach or business could at least be launched without the need for any further financial resources. Obviously the right thing to do. It was expensive enough just being on the internet.

And there was no need for ads or financial consideration at all on non-business websites, which made up the vast majority for a while there, and coexisted perfectly with Amazon when it came along as a purely commercial website. When ads show up on websites that otherwise have nothing unique to sell, it still instinctively feels so unnecessary. Rather than triggering positive consumer response, it feels more like you're not getting your money's worth for some reason before you even buy, reducing your inclination for spending even further below the non-motivated level you had when you first came to the non-business website.

When it comes to monetized websites worth visiting, I still enjoy the ones best that are the online part of an ambitious business, rather than having the website be the business itself.

Either way, as long as consumers are getting their money's worth, I can't complain.

But there used to be so much more refuge for non-consumers and information surfers.

And by now with the cumulative joy that has been lost on the path to a fully-monetized online experience, it's quite disgraceful by comparison.

Post reply on HN