4 ms·

Maybe...just maybe...ads aren't a good business model for journalism any more.

by nihonde 10y ago

a_imho 10y ago
Seeing an accurate valuation of your product is a bitter pill to swallow if you are accustomed to an inflated market. I don't think it is a business model problem and changing your monetization strategy won't help you much unless you can convince your customers about the (perceived) quality of your content. I don't think adblock shaming is very effective here. There are many many sites without adverts doing just fine, even receiving donations and volunteer work.
mtkd 10y ago
The combination of populist/sensationalist/clickbait articles with subtle marketing seems to have some merit - see the Daily Mail with their "buy a dress like this for less" panels on the celeb articles - but that forces the content into a certain direction and is not sustainable without massive traffic volumes
- nihonde 10y ago
  One thing I have learned in this life: the more you cater to the lowest common denominator in society, the more everyone plays by their rules. I understand the "Buzzfeed" concept of using populist, knuckle-dragging content to sell ads in order to fund content for people who prefer to use their brains, but I think it's an epic example of the snake eating its own tail, and a wildly pessimistic, fatalistic vision of the future.
antisthenes 10y ago
I would be happy if 90% of the "journalism" died out, and the rest remained as quality investigative content behind paywalls (which I would gladly pay for and already do for 2 sites) and government subsidized strictly informational reporting (sort of like we already have from NOAA, Orange alerts, emergencies, closures, etc.)
- javajosh 10y ago
  I'm sure that most everyone would be fine if 90% of X died out - but it's usually a wildly different 90%. This is a corollary to Sturgeons Law (90% of everything is crap). Interestingly, we sort of know what this conflict is: it's yellow journalists vs muckrackers. * There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.* — Theodore Roosevelt
bogomipz 10y ago
Were they ever though? I don't that its recently hit some kind of tipping point.
danneu 10y ago
Of course ads are a good business model for journalism. The dying business model is easily-detectable, obvious ads that can get defeated by NoScript or a regular expression.

Maybe...just maybe...ads aren't a good business model for journalism any more.

by nihonde 10y ago

Maybe...just maybe...ads aren't a good business model for journalism any more.

Seeing an accurate valuation of your product is a bitter pill to swallow if you are accustomed to an inflated market. I don't think it is a business model problem and changing your monetization strategy won't help you much unless you can convince your customers about the (perceived) quality of your content. I don't think adblock shaming is very effective here. There are many many sites without adverts doing just fine, even receiving donations and volunteer work.

mtkd 10y ago

The combination of populist/sensationalist/clickbait articles with subtle marketing seems to have some merit - see the Daily Mail with their "buy a dress like this for less" panels on the celeb articles - but that forces the content into a certain direction and is not sustainable without massive traffic volumes

nihonde 10y ago
One thing I have learned in this life: the more you cater to the lowest common denominator in society, the more everyone plays by their rules. I understand the "Buzzfeed" concept of using populist, knuckle-dragging content to sell ads in order to fund content for people who prefer to use their brains, but I think it's an epic example of the snake eating its own tail, and a wildly pessimistic, fatalistic vision of the future.

antisthenes 10y ago

I would be happy if 90% of the "journalism" died out, and the rest remained as quality investigative content behind paywalls (which I would gladly pay for and already do for 2 sites) and government subsidized strictly informational reporting (sort of like we already have from NOAA, Orange alerts, emergencies, closures, etc.)

javajosh 10y ago
I'm sure that most everyone would be fine if 90% of X died out - but it's usually a wildly different 90%. This is a corollary to Sturgeons Law (90% of everything is crap). Interestingly, we sort of know what this conflict is: it's yellow journalists vs muckrackers. * There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.* — Theodore Roosevelt

bogomipz 10y ago

Were they ever though? I don't that its recently hit some kind of tipping point.

danneu 10y ago

Of course ads are a good business model for journalism. The dying business model is easily-detectable, obvious ads that can get defeated by NoScript or a regular expression.