4 ms·

If I'm an advertiser, why would I want to advertise only to people who can't afford $5/month to turn off ads internet-wide? That's the problem advertising face

If I'm an advertiser, why would I want to advertise only to people who can't afford $5/month to turn off ads internet-wide? That's the problem advertising faces; as soon as you encourage people with disposable income to avoid all advertising, the whole system becomes pointless.

Sir_Substance 10y ago
Says a lot about the sociatal value of the system, really.
- SilasX 10y ago
  But it's better (at least in some respects) than the alternative, which is that people don't have the option to see the content even if they are willing to pay. That happens because they can't get enough people to follow through on that valuation of the content (e.g. due leakage through client circumvention) in order to produce it. It's a massive coordination problem that Brave (and IIRC the Google Contributor project) are attempting to solve.
Nullabillity 10y ago
Well, since the goal is to make advertisers redundant, that's not really an issue.
mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
Or, rather, the business model changes to paying more and paying in more circumstances to avoid ads. To encourage revenue, the ads might get more and more obnoxious.
this_user 10y ago
> That's the problem advertising faces; as soon as you encourage people with disposable income to avoid all advertising, the whole system becomes pointless. And if you don't offer that option, more and more people will just block your ads for free.
andy_ppp 10y ago
The problem with ads is that they are generally terrible. I quite like quality advertising, like this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf0YXK6tQrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf0YXK6tQrM
Brendinooo 10y ago
I don't think that's an accurate way to portray it. I might be able to afford $5/month, but I'd rather buy five songs a month with that money. Ad-free Web viewing is a luxury, not a necessity. Also, not all advertising targets disposable income. I might see an ad for clothing, which I would need to buy at some point. Maybe I'm underwater on my mortgage and want to learn one weird tip to get refinanced. Plenty of ads out there for that. A more sinister angle is that there is a type of person who doesn't have a ton of disposable income because he's more susceptible to buying stuff that he sees in ads.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Ad-free Web viewing is a luxury, not a necessity. Given the prevalence of ads as a malware/privacy invasion vector, I'm not sure that's true anymore. Browsing the wider internet without a blocker on is like walking down a bad part of town and sticking yourself with every discarded needle you find.
  - Brendinooo 10y ago
    I agree with you in principle; I now use ad blockers after arguing for years that people shouldn't. But in reality that's a tough case to make. Sure, the NSA might find out what web sites I've been visiting, but that's a really abstract concept for most people. I don't want to attack your analogy too much, but sticking yourself with discarded needles is a much more tangible risk, and doesn't bring any benefits along with it. There are some sites I frequent that are egregious about ads, but they provide enough value to me that I keep going back.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      I was referring more to the creepy/invasive nature of the ad companies than the NSA, but I suppose that applies too. Remember that I mentioned malware too - that is a very tangible risk, to my computer and any computer that it's connected to. I'm not speaking hyperbolically here either, malware loaded advertising winds up on large ad networks used on reputable sites[1]. My personal policy remains unchanged: when the site owner takes responsibility for what their server does to my computer (including reimbursement for time and materials when an infection shows up), I'll consider unblocking the ads, and not a moment before. As it stands, the person who takes that snippet of Javascript from Adsense and ignorantly whacks it into their page wants all of the benefit (ad $$$) with none of the responsibility. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History

Sir_Substance 10y ago

Says a lot about the sociatal value of the system, really.

SilasX 10y ago
But it's better (at least in some respects) than the alternative, which is that people don't have the option to see the content even if they are willing to pay. That happens because they can't get enough people to follow through on that valuation of the content (e.g. due leakage through client circumvention) in order to produce it. It's a massive coordination problem that Brave (and IIRC the Google Contributor project) are attempting to solve.

Nullabillity 10y ago

Well, since the goal is to make advertisers redundant, that's not really an issue.

mighty_atomic_c 10y ago

Or, rather, the business model changes to paying more and paying in more circumstances to avoid ads. To encourage revenue, the ads might get more and more obnoxious.

this_user 10y ago

> That's the problem advertising faces; as soon as you encourage people with disposable income to avoid all advertising, the whole system becomes pointless. And if you don't offer that option, more and more people will just block your ads for free.

andy_ppp 10y ago

The problem with ads is that they are generally terrible. I quite like quality advertising, like this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf0YXK6tQrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf0YXK6tQrM

Brendinooo 10y ago

I don't think that's an accurate way to portray it. I might be able to afford $5/month, but I'd rather buy five songs a month with that money. Ad-free Web viewing is a luxury, not a necessity. Also, not all advertising targets disposable income. I might see an ad for clothing, which I would need to buy at some point. Maybe I'm underwater on my mortgage and want to learn one weird tip to get refinanced. Plenty of ads out there for that. A more sinister angle is that there is a type of person who doesn't have a ton of disposable income because he's more susceptible to buying stuff that he sees in ads.

Karunamon 10y ago
Ad-free Web viewing is a luxury, not a necessity. Given the prevalence of ads as a malware/privacy invasion vector, I'm not sure that's true anymore. Browsing the wider internet without a blocker on is like walking down a bad part of town and sticking yourself with every discarded needle you find.
- Brendinooo 10y ago
  I agree with you in principle; I now use ad blockers after arguing for years that people shouldn't. But in reality that's a tough case to make. Sure, the NSA might find out what web sites I've been visiting, but that's a really abstract concept for most people. I don't want to attack your analogy too much, but sticking yourself with discarded needles is a much more tangible risk, and doesn't bring any benefits along with it. There are some sites I frequent that are egregious about ads, but they provide enough value to me that I keep going back.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    I was referring more to the creepy/invasive nature of the ad companies than the NSA, but I suppose that applies too. Remember that I mentioned malware too - that is a very tangible risk, to my computer and any computer that it's connected to. I'm not speaking hyperbolically here either, malware loaded advertising winds up on large ad networks used on reputable sites[1]. My personal policy remains unchanged: when the site owner takes responsibility for what their server does to my computer (including reimbursement for time and materials when an infection shows up), I'll consider unblocking the ads, and not a moment before. As it stands, the person who takes that snippet of Javascript from Adsense and ignorantly whacks it into their page wants all of the benefit (ad $$$) with none of the responsibility. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising#History