3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoPertaining 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 agoSorry 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.