4 ms·

Every time this debate pops up, I find myself asking the same question: why aren't media companies creating ads I want to consume? This is a trick question:

Every time this debate pops up, I find myself asking the same question: why aren't media companies creating ads I want to consume? This is a trick question: they are. It's called native advertising. Ad blockers block the scummy ads. It's still possible to make a living by serving ads, but it implies that one can't be lazy in his monetization strategy.

pmontra 10y ago
I think it's quite difficult. There are some ads that there only for brand building. Not sure if we want to see them. Let's count them out because they are not for things we want to buy right now ("buy" a product could be "vote" for a candidate, etc.) We're left with ads for items we didn't know and we discover we want to buy. Or for items we know and the ad remembers we want to buy them. We follow the link and buy them. The problem is: how many things of that kind are we buying every day right now? One, maybe not even one. So this leaves us with a handful or ads to be served to us per week or per month, with the assumption of an omniscient ad server that knows what we will buy. We're still not there. Luckily, I'd say. Then there is the malware thing: they don't care to send us ads we want to consume, they just send as many ads as they can to maximize the infection rate.
- omginternets 10y ago
  Hmm I think you've missed my point (or perhaps my point was poorly stated). The point is that serving up sidebar/header/pop-up ads is no longer effective because these forms of advertising are intrusive and subject to blocking. What seems to be effective is the "sponsored content" or "native advertising" model whereby ads are served in a form that mimics desirable content. The crucial point here is that the advertisement is useful and relevant to the consumer, and so is not interpreted as an interruption or distraction. Moreover, these ads don't tend to carry malware because they're media produced by the media company in question, often hosted on the same domain. This is a model that presently works. My point is that ad-blockers block obsolete ads, whose monetization is increasingly malware-driven, precisely because the content is no longer relevant to consumers.
  - pmontra 10y ago
    Ok, I got it now. Sponsored content has been done on the web, explicitly or not. I agree that it is less annoying than ads. It probably doesn't scale as well because it must be customized for every site. Current ads are the same for everybody.
    - madeofpalk 10y ago
      This is it. Buzzfeed can afford to not use display advertising and instead use native advertising for all their revenue, but because they have massive sales and advertorial teams. But because everyone feels entitled they have a unique story to tell and want to start up their own media property, we have ad networks they can use to make money to try and fund it.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      I'd argue that it scales well, albeit not as well. Articles, for instance, don't take much effort or money to produce. The trick is to segment your population into clusters and write articles targeting relevant clusters. Write once; serve many times.
alkonaut 10y ago
Native advertising is also scummy and often bordeline illegal. Where I live ads have to be clearly distinguishable from other content, and the native ads which are often in the form of feature articles with some slightly different background color etc., are often found not to be, resulting in fines. I just want print ads online. I want them to be simple, static, non-trackable and non-targeted ads that clearly stand out from the rest of the content. Targeted ads should be limited to showing boat ads on a boat site, or golf gear ads on a golf magazine site. Sites with a broader audience must simply accept that just like in print they are forced to show broad brand building ads.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >Native advertising is also scummy and often bordeline illegal True, but in a very different way. Native ads don't serve malware and assault your senses.

pmontra 10y ago

I think it's quite difficult. There are some ads that there only for brand building. Not sure if we want to see them. Let's count them out because they are not for things we want to buy right now ("buy" a product could be "vote" for a candidate, etc.) We're left with ads for items we didn't know and we discover we want to buy. Or for items we know and the ad remembers we want to buy them. We follow the link and buy them. The problem is: how many things of that kind are we buying every day right now? One, maybe not even one. So this leaves us with a handful or ads to be served to us per week or per month, with the assumption of an omniscient ad server that knows what we will buy. We're still not there. Luckily, I'd say. Then there is the malware thing: they don't care to send us ads we want to consume, they just send as many ads as they can to maximize the infection rate.

omginternets 10y ago
Hmm I think you've missed my point (or perhaps my point was poorly stated). The point is that serving up sidebar/header/pop-up ads is no longer effective because these forms of advertising are intrusive and subject to blocking. What seems to be effective is the "sponsored content" or "native advertising" model whereby ads are served in a form that mimics desirable content. The crucial point here is that the advertisement is useful and relevant to the consumer, and so is not interpreted as an interruption or distraction. Moreover, these ads don't tend to carry malware because they're media produced by the media company in question, often hosted on the same domain. This is a model that presently works. My point is that ad-blockers block obsolete ads, whose monetization is increasingly malware-driven, precisely because the content is no longer relevant to consumers.
- pmontra 10y ago
  Ok, I got it now. Sponsored content has been done on the web, explicitly or not. I agree that it is less annoying than ads. It probably doesn't scale as well because it must be customized for every site. Current ads are the same for everybody.
  - madeofpalk 10y ago
    This is it. Buzzfeed can afford to not use display advertising and instead use native advertising for all their revenue, but because they have massive sales and advertorial teams. But because everyone feels entitled they have a unique story to tell and want to start up their own media property, we have ad networks they can use to make money to try and fund it.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    I'd argue that it scales well, albeit not as well. Articles, for instance, don't take much effort or money to produce. The trick is to segment your population into clusters and write articles targeting relevant clusters. Write once; serve many times.

alkonaut 10y ago

Native advertising is also scummy and often bordeline illegal. Where I live ads have to be clearly distinguishable from other content, and the native ads which are often in the form of feature articles with some slightly different background color etc., are often found not to be, resulting in fines. I just want print ads online. I want them to be simple, static, non-trackable and non-targeted ads that clearly stand out from the rest of the content. Targeted ads should be limited to showing boat ads on a boat site, or golf gear ads on a golf magazine site. Sites with a broader audience must simply accept that just like in print they are forced to show broad brand building ads.

omginternets 10y ago
>Native advertising is also scummy and often bordeline illegal True, but in a very different way. Native ads don't serve malware and assault your senses.