4 ms·

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.

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.
  - buffoon 11y ago
    I'm not really suggesting, just acknowledging the inevitability of.
jay_kyburz 11y ago
I'm with Buffoon on this one. Trying to convince somebody they want to buy something by bombarding them with ads on every web page is shitty. I don't want to be exposed to it. I don't want my kids exposed to it. Then to build your content business on top of the shitty advertising industry that seems kind of a bad idea. I think if people want your content they will pay. Publishers just need to bundle it the right way. And I've said it a few times here on HN, but if we as a society think news and current affairs is important, we shouldn't trust it to commercial organisations driven by profit, we need independent, publicly funded news like Australia's ABC.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > I think if people want your content they will pay. Publishers just need to bundle it the right way. This is incredibly difficult to do and all the attempts I am aware of have 'failed' by varying degrees (paywalls, app.net). If ad-blocking becomes a trend, I hope the websites as the blockers to pay instead of resorting to "native ads" or going out of business. Hopefully, the internet won't be stratified (rich vs. poor peoples versions of the web), but who am I kidding - happens in all other industries. However, my opinion is likely coloured by my circumstances: I am a biased 3rd-worlder. I'd prefer the status-quo and have the content I consume subsidised by ads targeted at the western middle class. I would not afford to pay for all the content I find interesting on the internet, especially now with the horrendous USD exchange rate.
  - jay_kyburz 11y ago
    So Paywalls and app.net failed. I can think of heaps of better ideas for packaging news and other content. I would like to see some of the lessons we have learnt about Freemium applied to news. First you have a base level of great content available for free for everybody. You build a very large user base. Then for those people who want to dig deeper, you have premium content. Those users who really value your service won't mind spending a little money to engage more. Those who engage a lot - pay a lot, but it's their hobby, their past time. they don't mind. It sound horrible when you spell it out explicitly, but like everything you need present well. 10c to read an article 1 hour earlier than everybody else. 10c to comment on an article. 5c to read the full transcripts of interviews. 10c to download full res photos. 5c to read full bio's of the people involved in the article. You could spend $20 a day interacting / socialising / enjoying your news and entertainment.

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.
- buffoon 11y ago
  I'm not really suggesting, just acknowledging the inevitability of.

jay_kyburz 11y ago

I'm with Buffoon on this one. Trying to convince somebody they want to buy something by bombarding them with ads on every web page is shitty. I don't want to be exposed to it. I don't want my kids exposed to it. Then to build your content business on top of the shitty advertising industry that seems kind of a bad idea. I think if people want your content they will pay. Publishers just need to bundle it the right way. And I've said it a few times here on HN, but if we as a society think news and current affairs is important, we shouldn't trust it to commercial organisations driven by profit, we need independent, publicly funded news like Australia's ABC.

sangnoir 11y ago
> I think if people want your content they will pay. Publishers just need to bundle it the right way. This is incredibly difficult to do and all the attempts I am aware of have 'failed' by varying degrees (paywalls, app.net). If ad-blocking becomes a trend, I hope the websites as the blockers to pay instead of resorting to "native ads" or going out of business. Hopefully, the internet won't be stratified (rich vs. poor peoples versions of the web), but who am I kidding - happens in all other industries. However, my opinion is likely coloured by my circumstances: I am a biased 3rd-worlder. I'd prefer the status-quo and have the content I consume subsidised by ads targeted at the western middle class. I would not afford to pay for all the content I find interesting on the internet, especially now with the horrendous USD exchange rate.
- jay_kyburz 11y ago
  So Paywalls and app.net failed. I can think of heaps of better ideas for packaging news and other content. I would like to see some of the lessons we have learnt about Freemium applied to news. First you have a base level of great content available for free for everybody. You build a very large user base. Then for those people who want to dig deeper, you have premium content. Those users who really value your service won't mind spending a little money to engage more. Those who engage a lot - pay a lot, but it's their hobby, their past time. they don't mind. It sound horrible when you spell it out explicitly, but like everything you need present well. 10c to read an article 1 hour earlier than everybody else. 10c to comment on an article. 5c to read the full transcripts of interviews. 10c to download full res photos. 5c to read full bio's of the people involved in the article. You could spend $20 a day interacting / socialising / enjoying your news and entertainment.