5 ms·
> remove sources of income that people find relevant in exchange for ads that some higher up in marketing thinks relates to its users. Yes, that's a move towar
by t2015_08_25 11y ago
> remove sources of income that people find relevant in exchange for ads that some higher up in marketing thinks relates to its users.
Yes, that's a move toward integrity and away from endangerment and excess income.
If "some higher up in marketing" doesn't understand their users, the problem is they're out-of-touch and that should be corrected, as opposed to endangering user's privacy.
Currently, my tiny site operates this way, with hand-chosen Amazon ads and no google Adwords.
- wcummings 11y ago>excess income I don't think this a problem most small publishers have.
- tertius 11y agoThey need to realize that eventually the market will drive their users elsewhere. Content is king and there is more content elsewhere. If you provide a worse user experience with the same content as another, then income will dwindle altogether. Innovate, move forward.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- wcummings 11y agoIf you have an interest in the 3rd party web, you should have an interest in a functional ad technology industry. The market might just drive small publishers out of business. Or drive them and their customers to walled-gardens, so we'll be reading their content on Facebook, being served Facebook ads.
- tertius 11y agoAnd I'm not a fan of going back to AOL. But the ad tech industry and the "small publishing" industry is lazy and greedy. And I won't support them if they treat me like a product. If they don't I will support them. I'd like to see Netflix for written content and I'd pay for it.