5 ms·

Hold on... Economist wants both subscription fee and to serve 3rd party malware (a.k.a. ads) to me?

by aexaey 11y ago

rglullis 11y ago
Just like cable TV? Just like any sports broadcaster that charge for tickets AND have billboards? How long is it going to take people to realize that ads vs paid content is not an either/or proposition, and that we should get rid of any ad-supported economy?
- manigandham 11y ago
  How long is it going to take people to realize there is nothing wrong with an ad supported economy and many products, services and media would go away without it, even if relying solely on subscriptions.
  - rglullis 11y ago
    "Nothing wrong"? - The ads are almost never useful for the consumers - Companies keep shoveling money into ad campaigns just so that marketing teams can justify their budgets - Ad publishers are incentivized to completely undermine the idea of private data - Thomas Watson is often mocked for saying "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". If we look today at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple, we are not that far from that reality. The "ad economy" is at direct odds against an open web. I'll give you that Google's breakthrough came because they could find a way to revenue, and that without ads they would never bring many useful things for fruition. But the best way to justify their wealth creation is that they manage to make the social function of advertising (connect producers and consumers) and make it more effective. There was almost zero progress in that regards afterwards. It is just a race to the bottom. I can actually bet that we would be better off without these products, services and media if they were gone. Case in point: one of the links on the front-page right now is http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/no-spooning-isn-t-sexist-the-internet-is-just-broken.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/no-spooning...
    - scintill76 11y ago
      > The ads are almost never useful for the consumers My favorite thing about this is that I occasionally see an ad I am interested in, just as the page is reloading. I go back to try to see it again, and I get a different ad. I refresh several times, getting more ads but not the one I saw first. Oh well, I guess I won't buy that after all. :D If it makes them feel better, I'm probably most interested when it's a promotion, so they didn't lose as much money.
    - eli 11y ago
      "The ads aren't relevant" could just as well be an argument for better ad targeting.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      I've heard all this arguments and more a 1000 times, it's nothing new and usually based on emotions and opinions rather than any objective study. 1) Ads are useful for consumers as it leads to them solving their problem. Whether that's a discovering a new service or buying a product, they needed something and they got it. It's still ultimately their decision. 2) Do you know the best thing about digital ads? It's the data. These aren't billboards that are bought without any idea who's seeing them or giant print ads bought on ego, we can tell exactly who's clicking on what and what they do after all the way to purchase. It's not just money thrown around, it leads to real bottom line results. The ad industry is one of the biggest data-driven industries in the world, contrary to what many might think. 3) Not sure how you came to this conclusion. There is no such thing as the "ad economy"... it's just a business model and industry, not some major paradigm of society. It will always exist because it works and serves and need, and outside of the direct monetization, it's the best form of payment there is. It's quick, passive and requires no decision willpower and is the primary reason for so many websites and such a large open web. We wouldn't have nearly as many sources on the internet if it weren't for ads. The monopolies you mentioned exist in every industry because that's the most efficient way to scale and run a business, it's got nothing to do with ads specifically. 4) I don't get the last point - are you saying that article isn't worth anything? Why? because you don't like it? So you're the judge of good content? I'm not a fan of celeb news but it's a huge market and draw for readers online so who am I to judge? There are billions of people with their own interests and needs, nobody get's to just set the baseline here. Yes there are scams and fraudulent stuff and arguably 'low-quality' bits out there but this exists in every field and is a constant battle. It doesn't mean we devalue everything because of it.
mrweasel 11y ago
Well, there's ads in the paper version as well. There aren't many ads, but they're there. I believe that The Economist once explained that the digital and paper version of are equally price, even if digital distribution is cheaper, simply because online/digital ads are worth less, a lot less.

Hold on... Economist wants both subscription fee and to serve 3rd party malware (a.k.a. ads) to me?

by aexaey 11y ago

Hold on... Economist wants both subscription fee and to serve 3rd party malware (a.k.a. ads) to me?

Just like cable TV? Just like any sports broadcaster that charge for tickets AND have billboards? How long is it going to take people to realize that ads vs paid content is not an either/or proposition, and that we should get rid of any ad-supported economy?

manigandham 11y ago
How long is it going to take people to realize there is nothing wrong with an ad supported economy and many products, services and media would go away without it, even if relying solely on subscriptions.
- rglullis 11y ago
  "Nothing wrong"? - The ads are almost never useful for the consumers - Companies keep shoveling money into ad campaigns just so that marketing teams can justify their budgets - Ad publishers are incentivized to completely undermine the idea of private data - Thomas Watson is often mocked for saying "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". If we look today at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple, we are not that far from that reality. The "ad economy" is at direct odds against an open web. I'll give you that Google's breakthrough came because they could find a way to revenue, and that without ads they would never bring many useful things for fruition. But the best way to justify their wealth creation is that they manage to make the social function of advertising (connect producers and consumers) and make it more effective. There was almost zero progress in that regards afterwards. It is just a race to the bottom. I can actually bet that we would be better off without these products, services and media if they were gone. Case in point: one of the links on the front-page right now is http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/no-spooning-isn-t-sexist-the-internet-is-just-broken.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/no-spooning...
  - scintill76 11y ago
    > The ads are almost never useful for the consumers My favorite thing about this is that I occasionally see an ad I am interested in, just as the page is reloading. I go back to try to see it again, and I get a different ad. I refresh several times, getting more ads but not the one I saw first. Oh well, I guess I won't buy that after all. :D If it makes them feel better, I'm probably most interested when it's a promotion, so they didn't lose as much money.
  - eli 11y ago
    "The ads aren't relevant" could just as well be an argument for better ad targeting.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    I've heard all this arguments and more a 1000 times, it's nothing new and usually based on emotions and opinions rather than any objective study. 1) Ads are useful for consumers as it leads to them solving their problem. Whether that's a discovering a new service or buying a product, they needed something and they got it. It's still ultimately their decision. 2) Do you know the best thing about digital ads? It's the data. These aren't billboards that are bought without any idea who's seeing them or giant print ads bought on ego, we can tell exactly who's clicking on what and what they do after all the way to purchase. It's not just money thrown around, it leads to real bottom line results. The ad industry is one of the biggest data-driven industries in the world, contrary to what many might think. 3) Not sure how you came to this conclusion. There is no such thing as the "ad economy"... it's just a business model and industry, not some major paradigm of society. It will always exist because it works and serves and need, and outside of the direct monetization, it's the best form of payment there is. It's quick, passive and requires no decision willpower and is the primary reason for so many websites and such a large open web. We wouldn't have nearly as many sources on the internet if it weren't for ads. The monopolies you mentioned exist in every industry because that's the most efficient way to scale and run a business, it's got nothing to do with ads specifically. 4) I don't get the last point - are you saying that article isn't worth anything? Why? because you don't like it? So you're the judge of good content? I'm not a fan of celeb news but it's a huge market and draw for readers online so who am I to judge? There are billions of people with their own interests and needs, nobody get's to just set the baseline here. Yes there are scams and fraudulent stuff and arguably 'low-quality' bits out there but this exists in every field and is a constant battle. It doesn't mean we devalue everything because of it.

mrweasel 11y ago

Well, there's ads in the paper version as well. There aren't many ads, but they're there. I believe that The Economist once explained that the digital and paper version of are equally price, even if digital distribution is cheaper, simply because online/digital ads are worth less, a lot less.