3 ms·
"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down." He makes it sound easy. As th
by isleyaardvark 17y ago
"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down."
He makes it sound easy. As though there weren't a multitude of websites facing the same problem with covering their operating costs.
TV before cable faced a similar dilemma. Anyone could access it, but how do you pay for it? Ads did. Cable TV came along with commercial-free channels, but the consumer would pay for those directly. That solution has been discussed with some websites, and it's generally ill-received (e.g. NYT, Hulu).
I think ads can work, I wish they were done better in many cases. What I won't do is criticize them for their business model without offering a suggestion of my own.
- petercooper 17y agoA key here is that Ars is trying to find another way - their $50/year subscriptions. See http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/ Clearly not enough people value what they do enough to warrant paying $50 a year (I don't, but I only go on their site a few times a year and am totally cool with seeing the ads so I consider it great value).