2 ms·

Hey Jacques. I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service. This was thought of independently. But if Patri

by ErrantX 17y ago

Hey Jacques. I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service. This was thought of independently. But if Patrick is thinking the same way I'm even more convinced it's a good idea :D > I don't think it will fly, people that go for freebies are not going to be turned in to people that pay. The thing that sparked this thought is that a lot of people here defending the ad blocking practice (me included to an extent) claim they would happily pay for content they enjoy - just dont like to be intruded with ads. I realise that it is most probably an excuse in many cases and they wouldn't follow through. But would enough do so to make it worthwhile? As I said: as your not monetizing those readers anyway is it not a net positive to give them the option?

jacquesm 17y ago
I think you are monetizing those readers, you just don't realize it. People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine that drives the 'buzz' around a website. If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting. I don't completely go for the 'eyeballs' theory, but I think that there is no such thing as a user that is not worth having, even if they never pay in a $ sense. They're paying with their time, which is worth a lot more than that click, if you can get them to be productive in some way that is 'free' to them but worth something to you you also come out ahead. Wikipedia is a nice example, HN is another, I use people on my site to supply me with an endless stream of content and in return they get stuff that those that don't have to pay for. Shifting the game around like that makes it possible to create value without having to take money from the pockets of all (or a large portion of) your visitors. I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine that drives the 'buzz' around a website. Absolutely agreed. Indeed I think that if they notice you showing a willingness to give them the web they want (ad free) you'll get more coming back! > If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting. I'm not suggesting that. It's not a paywall or anything - the initial/actual experience would be just the same for a blocker as it is now. Just with the option to pay... I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost. I cant disagree with that (I did try, actually, but I can't :)).

by ErrantX 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

I think you are monetizing those readers, you just don't realize it. People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine that drives the 'buzz' around a website. If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting. I don't completely go for the 'eyeballs' theory, but I think that there is no such thing as a user that is not worth having, even if they never pay in a $ sense. They're paying with their time, which is worth a lot more than that click, if you can get them to be productive in some way that is 'free' to them but worth something to you you also come out ahead. Wikipedia is a nice example, HN is another, I use people on my site to supply me with an endless stream of content and in return they get stuff that those that don't have to pay for. Shifting the game around like that makes it possible to create value without having to take money from the pockets of all (or a large portion of) your visitors. I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost.

ErrantX 17y ago
> People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine that drives the 'buzz' around a website. Absolutely agreed. Indeed I think that if they notice you showing a willingness to give them the web they want (ad free) you'll get more coming back! > If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting. I'm not suggesting that. It's not a paywall or anything - the initial/actual experience would be just the same for a blocker as it is now. Just with the option to pay... I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost. I cant disagree with that (I did try, actually, but I can't :)).