4 ms·

Yea, I'm ready for websites who can't find a viable monetization strategy to just go bankrupt already and stop blaming me for their shitty business plan.

eli 11y ago
You won't miss them? Quite a few of the sites I enjoy are struggling to remain ad supported and I would be sad if they can't find a way to make it work.
- trolly 11y ago
  Out of curiosity could you give a couple examples?
  - eli 11y ago
    Well, first off: full disclosure that my startup is ad-supported business news sites. So feel free to consider me biased, but the reason I started the company with this model is because I really believe news websites work best when anyone can read the articles without paying a fee or signing up for an account. Off the top of my head maybe a good example is http://popville.com/ http://popville.com/ which is a local DC blog. The guy who runs it is a little controversial, but the site is extremely well-read and useful and 100% ad supported. http://arstechnica.com/ http://arstechnica.com/ is great too. And then, ya know, stuff like Twitter wouldn't really work if you had to pay to use it. Or do Twitter ads not count?
    - spacehome 11y ago
      So considered. I have no real issue with people who want to put ads on sites. My tolerance ends, however, when they try to moralize to me about how I render hypertext on my own machine. My attention and mental health are worth more to me than the ad impression ever could ever be to the marketer. Occasionally a site will refuse to serve articles unless I turn off my adblocker, and every time I just close the tab with no regrets.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        Not only that, but I'd suggest that the parent you are replying to doesn't have highly intrusive ads...
- ams6110 11y ago
  Do you enjoy them enough to pay for them?
  - eli 11y ago
    Sure, sometimes. But it's not easy or possible to pay directly. Paywalls are very tricky to get right and IMHO make the whole site less valuable -- just look at how many complaints there are on HN when someone posts a WSJ.com link. And frankly, I'd rather look at contextually relevant ads than pay money for most sites.
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      > Sure, sometimes. But it's not easy or possible to pay directly. Patreon seems to be having a positive effect here, at least with some sites. Webcomics, personal blogs, and other small sites can really thrive on donations alone, and it's heartening that systems are finally arriving to facilitate that specific business model.
- spacehome 11y ago
  I don't think so, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure because I've been using an adblocker and noscript so long and so consistently that I haven't the slightest idea what (if any) ads show up on my favorite sites. I do know that I've been quite happy to stop visiting any site that refuses to show content to browsers that adblock. Such sites are almost always low value, and their refusal to serve webpages is a good reminder that the content isn't really a good use of my time, anyways. If more websites I value more highly start doing this, I'll probably just end up buying subscriptions to turn off ads.

eli 11y ago

You won't miss them? Quite a few of the sites I enjoy are struggling to remain ad supported and I would be sad if they can't find a way to make it work.

trolly 11y ago
Out of curiosity could you give a couple examples?
- eli 11y ago
  Well, first off: full disclosure that my startup is ad-supported business news sites. So feel free to consider me biased, but the reason I started the company with this model is because I really believe news websites work best when anyone can read the articles without paying a fee or signing up for an account. Off the top of my head maybe a good example is http://popville.com/ http://popville.com/ which is a local DC blog. The guy who runs it is a little controversial, but the site is extremely well-read and useful and 100% ad supported. http://arstechnica.com/ http://arstechnica.com/ is great too. And then, ya know, stuff like Twitter wouldn't really work if you had to pay to use it. Or do Twitter ads not count?
  - spacehome 11y ago
    So considered. I have no real issue with people who want to put ads on sites. My tolerance ends, however, when they try to moralize to me about how I render hypertext on my own machine. My attention and mental health are worth more to me than the ad impression ever could ever be to the marketer. Occasionally a site will refuse to serve articles unless I turn off my adblocker, and every time I just close the tab with no regrets.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Not only that, but I'd suggest that the parent you are replying to doesn't have highly intrusive ads...
ams6110 11y ago
Do you enjoy them enough to pay for them?
- eli 11y ago
  Sure, sometimes. But it's not easy or possible to pay directly. Paywalls are very tricky to get right and IMHO make the whole site less valuable -- just look at how many complaints there are on HN when someone posts a WSJ.com link. And frankly, I'd rather look at contextually relevant ads than pay money for most sites.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    > Sure, sometimes. But it's not easy or possible to pay directly. Patreon seems to be having a positive effect here, at least with some sites. Webcomics, personal blogs, and other small sites can really thrive on donations alone, and it's heartening that systems are finally arriving to facilitate that specific business model.
spacehome 11y ago
I don't think so, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure because I've been using an adblocker and noscript so long and so consistently that I haven't the slightest idea what (if any) ads show up on my favorite sites. I do know that I've been quite happy to stop visiting any site that refuses to show content to browsers that adblock. Such sites are almost always low value, and their refusal to serve webpages is a good reminder that the content isn't really a good use of my time, anyways. If more websites I value more highly start doing this, I'll probably just end up buying subscriptions to turn off ads.