5 ms·

I love the mantra of "the web is supported by advertising" that every one of these sorts of articles at least quotes. It's not. Shitty business models are suppo

by buffoon 11y ago

I love the mantra of "the web is supported by advertising" that every one of these sorts of articles at least quotes. It's not. Shitty business models are supported by advertising. There are plenty of us who provide non-advertising driven services that are profitable and can afford transit costs. As for blocking, the technology allows it so I will use it. If it doesn't allow it, I have no ethical qualms about breaking it until it does. If I'm paying for the portal device be it tablet, desktop, smartphone, TV, I will be in control of it. If it's subsidy-driven, their funeral.

sangnoir 11y ago
> Shitty business models are supported by advertising. Just because you do not like it doesn't make it a shitty business model: most sports are supported by advertising (e.g. NFL, UEFA). Endorsement deals, sponsoring teams/stadia/leagues and TV rights are just various forms of advertising. TV shows are also funded by advertising, as is most journalism that is not state-funded (a.ka. propaganda).
- buffoon 11y ago
  TV doesn't have ad blockers though.
  - tertius 11y ago
    Tivo?
jgianakopoulos 11y ago
The mantra? This is how the majority of the web is monetized. It's not a mantra, it's a fact. People contribute content to the web and you pay with viewing ads. I don't know how you can rationalize that as being a "shitty" business model just because you purchase a device that is capable of connecting to the internet. If what you really mean to say is that it's a bad business model because people like yourself can install ad-blocking software and consume content without paying for it, then I see what you're saying although you come off as entitled and naive.
- buffoon 11y ago
  Thats really not how it works. Content providers like that ideal but it's incorrect. It never has operated that way. I pay for a connection and a device. I don't pay for an advertising subsidy. If you choose to use advertising as a capital model for your business in a market so easily destroyed by technology then that by definition is a shitty business model due to the massive risk of a technological shift destroying your only income. Not only that, the consumers merely tolerate your model, not engage it. It is a plague upon them most of the time. The only way this model works is if you provide a device which consumes advertising. That in itself is being eroded as well due to the number of services which offer utility without advertising even on the advertiser's territory. Content isn't worth much on its own which is the problem. Authors rarely get paid anything significant from publishing; same with content driven advertising. I don't see how you're going to milk it in a decaying market. The web will shrink, content will have to stand alone and be free of advertising ties and you'll have to put some cash down for services. Back to 1995 again. I fully expect these dying markets to throw a few turds yet however. That will merely bury them deeper.
  - jgianakopoulos 11y ago
    If ad blocking keeps growing at the rate it has been, then you're correct and the web will shrink. Maybe people will pay for services or news, and maybe they won't. I do agree that some ads are intrusive and annoying, but the model of publishers using advertising as a revenue source isn't going away any time soon. What I think is disappointing is that the quantity and quality of original content would suffer without advertising-based business models. Individual bloggers, niche news outlets, and other small publishers will be unable to monetize their content. Even the New York Times (one of the most respected and largest news outlets in the entire world) can barely get over 800,000 paying online subscribers, and that includes subscriptions for a slimmed-down NYT Now app. If you want a web that is rich in information, then advertising is a devil you have to accept.
  - tertius 11y ago
    So what you're suggesting is one of two things. 1. Support model. I.e. I donate to your site and then consume your content. 2. Netflix (walled garden) model: I pay a central place, think AOL, or Facebook and they track my views and pay those producing content.

by buffoon 11y ago

sangnoir 11y ago

> Shitty business models are supported by advertising. Just because you do not like it doesn't make it a shitty business model: most sports are supported by advertising (e.g. NFL, UEFA). Endorsement deals, sponsoring teams/stadia/leagues and TV rights are just various forms of advertising. TV shows are also funded by advertising, as is most journalism that is not state-funded (a.ka. propaganda).

buffoon 11y ago
TV doesn't have ad blockers though.
- tertius 11y ago
  Tivo?

jgianakopoulos 11y ago

The mantra? This is how the majority of the web is monetized. It's not a mantra, it's a fact. People contribute content to the web and you pay with viewing ads. I don't know how you can rationalize that as being a "shitty" business model just because you purchase a device that is capable of connecting to the internet. If what you really mean to say is that it's a bad business model because people like yourself can install ad-blocking software and consume content without paying for it, then I see what you're saying although you come off as entitled and naive.

buffoon 11y ago
Thats really not how it works. Content providers like that ideal but it's incorrect. It never has operated that way. I pay for a connection and a device. I don't pay for an advertising subsidy. If you choose to use advertising as a capital model for your business in a market so easily destroyed by technology then that by definition is a shitty business model due to the massive risk of a technological shift destroying your only income. Not only that, the consumers merely tolerate your model, not engage it. It is a plague upon them most of the time. The only way this model works is if you provide a device which consumes advertising. That in itself is being eroded as well due to the number of services which offer utility without advertising even on the advertiser's territory. Content isn't worth much on its own which is the problem. Authors rarely get paid anything significant from publishing; same with content driven advertising. I don't see how you're going to milk it in a decaying market. The web will shrink, content will have to stand alone and be free of advertising ties and you'll have to put some cash down for services. Back to 1995 again. I fully expect these dying markets to throw a few turds yet however. That will merely bury them deeper.
- jgianakopoulos 11y ago
  If ad blocking keeps growing at the rate it has been, then you're correct and the web will shrink. Maybe people will pay for services or news, and maybe they won't. I do agree that some ads are intrusive and annoying, but the model of publishers using advertising as a revenue source isn't going away any time soon. What I think is disappointing is that the quantity and quality of original content would suffer without advertising-based business models. Individual bloggers, niche news outlets, and other small publishers will be unable to monetize their content. Even the New York Times (one of the most respected and largest news outlets in the entire world) can barely get over 800,000 paying online subscribers, and that includes subscriptions for a slimmed-down NYT Now app. If you want a web that is rich in information, then advertising is a devil you have to accept.
- tertius 11y ago
  So what you're suggesting is one of two things. 1. Support model. I.e. I donate to your site and then consume your content. 2. Netflix (walled garden) model: I pay a central place, think AOL, or Facebook and they track my views and pay those producing content.