4 ms·

For the ~price of Netflix subscription, I only get 25-50% fewer ads? Nah...too expensive.

by xbryanx 11y ago

onion2k 11y ago
If it was any cheaper then people would believe ads have very little value which leads to thinking an ad-blocker isn't really harming anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if this product is really, at least in part, a PR move to get people to think seeing adverts is the equivalent of 'saving' $20/month for web content.
- btown 11y ago
  And it actually is the equivalent of saving that money! If you want quality journalism, or even just an ops budget for the hosting site for your cat pictures, someone needs to pay at some point. There's a very close analogy to print publications: if magazines and newspapers didn't have ads, the newsstand price would be significantly higher due to the loss of impressions. Now, imagine if your Sunday newspaper had a magical printing press that could print, on-demand, a customized version for you without ads. If everyone switched to that option, they'd lose all their ad revenue, so they'd need to raise the newsstand price accordingly!
- bargl 11y ago
  Which is interesting because of how many people mention that adds really only contribute a small fraction of that. From what I can find $1 per 1000 impressions seems to be about average for ad revenue. That means that if I go to 1000 websites in a month I'd expect to pay about $1. I'd be interested to see how many impressions I make per month and find out how much money I actually generate for these websites. I'd also be interested in a focused ad session to reduce the cost of my browsing. I.E. you show me products and I actually click on them to check them out, and you add money to my pool for browsing. It would have to be an opt-in scenario, but that would be an alternative to paying and seeing ads while you browse.
  - sago 11y ago
    If there are 6 ads on a page, do you visit 5 pages on average a day? I don't think that is many. These things multiply quickly.
    - bargl 11y ago
      Ha good point. I'm going to circle back to the comment above mine though. I'm going to change his $20 to $15 because that is the highest amount listed on their site. I'm also going to factor in that this only removes at most 50% of the ads. we are talking about vising something like 166 (15000/30/6 *2(for the 50%)) pages on an average day. And those are pages with google ads only. So do I visit 166 pages with 6 google ads on it a day? I don't honestly know but I doubt it. Now if I could pay $15 a month to remove ALL ads, I think that would be worth my money, even though I still doubt that I visit 166 pages a day.
- enlightenedfool 11y ago
  Ad blockers are NOT harming anyone. I don't want ads. Content providers need to decide whether they want to provide content for free or charge. If I like their content enough to pay, I might pay. If they provide free content with ads, I'll block them.
eecks 11y ago
The idea is a joke.
bowlich 11y ago
I was on board until I got down to that figure. No way am I going to whitelist google's ads, pay $15/mo just so I can see 75% more ads! Just cut out 100% of the ads and divide the $15 among the sites a viewed. If that comes out to a couple of cents for each that's still better than nothing.

For the ~price of Netflix subscription, I only get 25-50% fewer ads? Nah...too expensive.

by xbryanx 11y ago

For the ~price of Netflix subscription, I only get 25-50% fewer ads? Nah...too expensive.

If it was any cheaper then people would believe ads have very little value which leads to thinking an ad-blocker isn't really harming anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if this product is really, at least in part, a PR move to get people to think seeing adverts is the equivalent of 'saving' $20/month for web content.

btown 11y ago
And it actually is the equivalent of saving that money! If you want quality journalism, or even just an ops budget for the hosting site for your cat pictures, someone needs to pay at some point. There's a very close analogy to print publications: if magazines and newspapers didn't have ads, the newsstand price would be significantly higher due to the loss of impressions. Now, imagine if your Sunday newspaper had a magical printing press that could print, on-demand, a customized version for you without ads. If everyone switched to that option, they'd lose all their ad revenue, so they'd need to raise the newsstand price accordingly!
bargl 11y ago
Which is interesting because of how many people mention that adds really only contribute a small fraction of that. From what I can find $1 per 1000 impressions seems to be about average for ad revenue. That means that if I go to 1000 websites in a month I'd expect to pay about $1. I'd be interested to see how many impressions I make per month and find out how much money I actually generate for these websites. I'd also be interested in a focused ad session to reduce the cost of my browsing. I.E. you show me products and I actually click on them to check them out, and you add money to my pool for browsing. It would have to be an opt-in scenario, but that would be an alternative to paying and seeing ads while you browse.
- sago 11y ago
  If there are 6 ads on a page, do you visit 5 pages on average a day? I don't think that is many. These things multiply quickly.
  - bargl 11y ago
    Ha good point. I'm going to circle back to the comment above mine though. I'm going to change his $20 to $15 because that is the highest amount listed on their site. I'm also going to factor in that this only removes at most 50% of the ads. we are talking about vising something like 166 (15000/30/6 *2(for the 50%)) pages on an average day. And those are pages with google ads only. So do I visit 166 pages with 6 google ads on it a day? I don't honestly know but I doubt it. Now if I could pay $15 a month to remove ALL ads, I think that would be worth my money, even though I still doubt that I visit 166 pages a day.
enlightenedfool 11y ago
Ad blockers are NOT harming anyone. I don't want ads. Content providers need to decide whether they want to provide content for free or charge. If I like their content enough to pay, I might pay. If they provide free content with ads, I'll block them.

eecks 11y ago

The idea is a joke.

bowlich 11y ago

I was on board until I got down to that figure. No way am I going to whitelist google's ads, pay $15/mo just so I can see 75% more ads! Just cut out 100% of the ads and divide the $15 among the sites a viewed. If that comes out to a couple of cents for each that's still better than nothing.