5 ms·

If someone needs to have an ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's like we say restaurant owners should support

If someone needs to have an ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's like we say restaurant owners should support the mafia because otherwise they cannot make money in the neighborhood. Or any other criminal(ish) activity. "Without advertising we wouldn't be able to run this" MAYBE it really means you shouldn't run it at all, but don't force advertising(+malware) down your users throat just to justify an unsound business decision. Edit: reworded to avoid confussion

lazyjones 10y ago
> If someone needs to have an obscure ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's not a simple black/white choice in most cases. As a top 10K website publisher, you have many advertising options. Some are considered safe and user-friendly (Google, DoubleClick - IMHO no longer justified) and others less so (pop-ups, various auctioned stuff). You then get to decide on these options by estimating the potential revenue vs. negative effect on users for each. Some sites are greedier than others, some marketing folks more convincing than UX managers, many people just don't know what to expect until they get their first sh*tstorm from users. OTOH there are thousands of worthless sites that obviously only exist to serve ads, some major publishers included.
- archon810 10y ago
  Pertaining to the same quote, obscure isn't part of the equation here. Almost all ad networks are guilty, including the biggest (i.e. the least obscure by definition) ones, like AdSense/AdX.
- franciscop 10y ago
  Sorry I probably explained it wrong (not native English speaker). The important part of the quote is not "obscure", you could remove it and keep my original meaning. What I mean is that if it's not a sustainable business then you'd need to add advertising to make it so. So maybe it shouldn't be called a business at all. But don't force advertising on your users just because you made an unsound business decision.
spiderfarmer 10y ago
Do you mean publishers as well as advertisers?
- franciscop 10y ago
  I mean publishers
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    As a (former) marketer I can tell you that without affordable ways to advertise their services, a lot of SMB's would go bust and even more power would end up in the hands of large corporations. Advertising serves a purpose for both parties.
    - franciscop 10y ago
      That is a totally fair point and one I didn't consider. The alternative for SMB's would be to have good SEO and recognition. But that is built over time, it's difficult to get the initial burst of people needed initially otherwise. There's still YC's mantra, doing something people want and letting those people spread the word, but that's just one more way (and probably shouldn't be the only one).
      - spiderfarmer 10y ago
        As a marketer, that was my mantra as well. Give us a year and we'll turn your website into the expert in it's field. Without that ambition your site is just one the 1.000.000 search results. After that year, you only have to maintain your reputation and make sure you keep up with changing technology. But most people are focused on the short term. You can pretty much switch on traffic with an advertising campaign. Wooha, but once the CPC start to increase and you'll have to stop, your business is dead as well.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
But a lot of niche forums - games, hobbies and so forth are unlikely to monetise any other way. Should they die too? Or have to rely on a rich benefactor deciding to host a motorcycling (or whatever) site? Few are going to pay a subscription to chat on a Civilization or fishing forum a few hours a week. Advertising should be the appropriate model for this. Trouble is it's being poisoned by the greed of Buzzfeed and Wired etc.
- Faaak 10y ago
  Come on, hosting a simple website/forum is really cheap nowadays. Some websites (wikipedia being the main one) simply ask for donations at the end of the year.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Wikipedia is in different position than other sites. Every time someone posts a link to paywall, everyone discusses how to bypass it. And the people reading HN are wealthy Silicon Valley people. Well, not me but you get the idea. Everyone talking about charging people instead ads - have you ever tried it? Tell me your success stories.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      My forum runs on yearly donations. The shared hosting plan and domain cost $48/y, so about six people usually cover the costs for the whole year for the price of a fast-food lunch. If you're trying to pay salaries, good luck, but hosting costs are very low nowadays.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Yes it is, but plenty of sites have struggled to get donations, and disappeared as a result - Wikipedia is a bit exceptional on that score. I don't begrudge people trying to make a bit of pocket money from their sites either. They often put quite a few hours of admin after all, but as is, advertising is fairly broken - for everyone it seems.
- 10y ago

lazyjones 10y ago

> If someone needs to have an obscure ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's not a simple black/white choice in most cases. As a top 10K website publisher, you have many advertising options. Some are considered safe and user-friendly (Google, DoubleClick - IMHO no longer justified) and others less so (pop-ups, various auctioned stuff). You then get to decide on these options by estimating the potential revenue vs. negative effect on users for each. Some sites are greedier than others, some marketing folks more convincing than UX managers, many people just don't know what to expect until they get their first sh*tstorm from users. OTOH there are thousands of worthless sites that obviously only exist to serve ads, some major publishers included.

archon810 10y ago
Pertaining to the same quote, obscure isn't part of the equation here. Almost all ad networks are guilty, including the biggest (i.e. the least obscure by definition) ones, like AdSense/AdX.
franciscop 10y ago
Sorry I probably explained it wrong (not native English speaker). The important part of the quote is not "obscure", you could remove it and keep my original meaning. What I mean is that if it's not a sustainable business then you'd need to add advertising to make it so. So maybe it shouldn't be called a business at all. But don't force advertising on your users just because you made an unsound business decision.

spiderfarmer 10y ago

Do you mean publishers as well as advertisers?

franciscop 10y ago
I mean publishers
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  As a (former) marketer I can tell you that without affordable ways to advertise their services, a lot of SMB's would go bust and even more power would end up in the hands of large corporations. Advertising serves a purpose for both parties.
  - franciscop 10y ago
    That is a totally fair point and one I didn't consider. The alternative for SMB's would be to have good SEO and recognition. But that is built over time, it's difficult to get the initial burst of people needed initially otherwise. There's still YC's mantra, doing something people want and letting those people spread the word, but that's just one more way (and probably shouldn't be the only one).
    - spiderfarmer 10y ago
      As a marketer, that was my mantra as well. Give us a year and we'll turn your website into the expert in it's field. Without that ambition your site is just one the 1.000.000 search results. After that year, you only have to maintain your reputation and make sure you keep up with changing technology. But most people are focused on the short term. You can pretty much switch on traffic with an advertising campaign. Wooha, but once the CPC start to increase and you'll have to stop, your business is dead as well.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

But a lot of niche forums - games, hobbies and so forth are unlikely to monetise any other way. Should they die too? Or have to rely on a rich benefactor deciding to host a motorcycling (or whatever) site? Few are going to pay a subscription to chat on a Civilization or fishing forum a few hours a week. Advertising should be the appropriate model for this. Trouble is it's being poisoned by the greed of Buzzfeed and Wired etc.

Faaak 10y ago
Come on, hosting a simple website/forum is really cheap nowadays. Some websites (wikipedia being the main one) simply ask for donations at the end of the year.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Wikipedia is in different position than other sites. Every time someone posts a link to paywall, everyone discusses how to bypass it. And the people reading HN are wealthy Silicon Valley people. Well, not me but you get the idea. Everyone talking about charging people instead ads - have you ever tried it? Tell me your success stories.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    My forum runs on yearly donations. The shared hosting plan and domain cost $48/y, so about six people usually cover the costs for the whole year for the price of a fast-food lunch. If you're trying to pay salaries, good luck, but hosting costs are very low nowadays.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Yes it is, but plenty of sites have struggled to get donations, and disappeared as a result - Wikipedia is a bit exceptional on that score. I don't begrudge people trying to make a bit of pocket money from their sites either. They often put quite a few hours of admin after all, but as is, advertising is fairly broken - for everyone it seems.
10y ago