5 ms·

I hate Ads as much as next guy, but what will be the future of the internet without the Ads? where the revenue comes from? do we have to pay for every site that

by mars4rp 10y ago

I hate Ads as much as next guy, but what will be the future of the internet without the Ads? where the revenue comes from? do we have to pay for every site that we use? I prefer a free content internet with reasonable amount of ads!!

stevesearer 10y ago
As a publisher, even I find myself using ad blockers on certain websites that are totally unusable without them. One problem is that most sites seem to think of advertising as adding value for themselves and the advertiser. Advertising can and should actually add value for readers with a good example being the job listings here on HN. I think some % of publishers will have to try and adopt better advertising practices (plus maybe offer some additional paid features), and those that do will be able to survive.
mitchty 10y ago
Same as the past probably before Ads. I'm willing to pay for content, but honestly only up to how much a site would get from me for an ad impression. I am not going to do $N/mo/yr for X sites however. Once I found out the sum total of what my ad impressions for every site amounts to about $10/yr, I am really annoyed that the ad industry and content publishers aren't coming up with their own google contributor type deal. Free content isn't worth the cost in Ads. By this I mean the bandwidth, the cpu/energy use, and the cognitive cost. The monetary cost for people is insane. I'd pay $20/year to tell ad companies to go away and let companies replace my ad impression with a micro transaction equivalent. Until then, screw the whole industry, ad blockers it is. Give me a real choice or accept that reality.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  What is your source for $10/year? That's quite interesting
  - mitchty 10y ago
    https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ It was actually $6.20/year at that time. I've been generous with the $10/yr. I also consider $20/year a win for consumption companies as that would mean we could outbid ads for our own eyes. It seems stupid to have to say that but you'd be surprised how little money an individual makes on their own.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      Thanks. I definitely hear "nobody would want to actually pay for what their advertising value is actually worth" all the time. Personally, I'd happily pay more than $10 for the benefits.
      - mitchty 10y ago
        Yep, I'm willing to concede this isn't fully accurate. But if we don't have numbers at all its not even a point worth arguing. If anyone has other numbers please post them.
guntars 10y ago
Think about it this way - regardless of the revenue model, it's the users that are paying for the content. It might be direct, as in a NYT subscription, or there could be detours (advertiser pays the publisher -> a business pays the advertiser -> the customer pays the business). There would be no ads if they didn't work and people didn't buy the things that they advertise. The fundamental problem is the same as with spam. Let's say it takes $1 for a business to show an ad to a person and that every hundredth person is going to buy the product. If their product brings in $100 or more of profit, they break even and are justified in running the ad. What this model doesn't consider that for the rest 99 people the ad was an inconvenience and, in fact, provided a negative value. Let's say that was 20¢ worth of attention and annoyance. Is anyone going to give them their 20¢ back? In essence, businesses are only concerned with their customers while non-customers are in a way subsidizing the business. What kind of system can fix this, I don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say.
marcosdumay 10y ago
Pay how much? Everything changes depending on the price, both from the reader and publisher points of view.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
Ad supported content which may actually be worse for us because you can't block it and may not even know what it is.
tpeo 10y ago
Ads can be completely acceptable so long they don't detract from the user's experience. If loading times weren't so ridiculously afflicted by adserving and tracking scripts, then things would be fine.
serge2k 10y ago
A lot of the podcasts and youtube shows I watch have patreon or sponsors. Works fine if you are transparent about it. 30 seconds spent with the host saying "<thing> is sponsored by <product>. <product blurb>" is fine.
CaptSpify 10y ago
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebDeathView https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD... > essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions.

by mars4rp 10y ago

stevesearer 10y ago

As a publisher, even I find myself using ad blockers on certain websites that are totally unusable without them. One problem is that most sites seem to think of advertising as adding value for themselves and the advertiser. Advertising can and should actually add value for readers with a good example being the job listings here on HN. I think some % of publishers will have to try and adopt better advertising practices (plus maybe offer some additional paid features), and those that do will be able to survive.

mitchty 10y ago

Same as the past probably before Ads. I'm willing to pay for content, but honestly only up to how much a site would get from me for an ad impression. I am not going to do $N/mo/yr for X sites however. Once I found out the sum total of what my ad impressions for every site amounts to about $10/yr, I am really annoyed that the ad industry and content publishers aren't coming up with their own google contributor type deal. Free content isn't worth the cost in Ads. By this I mean the bandwidth, the cpu/energy use, and the cognitive cost. The monetary cost for people is insane. I'd pay $20/year to tell ad companies to go away and let companies replace my ad impression with a micro transaction equivalent. Until then, screw the whole industry, ad blockers it is. Give me a real choice or accept that reality.

CaptSpify 10y ago
What is your source for $10/year? That's quite interesting
- mitchty 10y ago
  https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ It was actually $6.20/year at that time. I've been generous with the $10/yr. I also consider $20/year a win for consumption companies as that would mean we could outbid ads for our own eyes. It seems stupid to have to say that but you'd be surprised how little money an individual makes on their own.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Thanks. I definitely hear "nobody would want to actually pay for what their advertising value is actually worth" all the time. Personally, I'd happily pay more than $10 for the benefits.
    - mitchty 10y ago
      Yep, I'm willing to concede this isn't fully accurate. But if we don't have numbers at all its not even a point worth arguing. If anyone has other numbers please post them.

guntars 10y ago

Think about it this way - regardless of the revenue model, it's the users that are paying for the content. It might be direct, as in a NYT subscription, or there could be detours (advertiser pays the publisher -> a business pays the advertiser -> the customer pays the business). There would be no ads if they didn't work and people didn't buy the things that they advertise. The fundamental problem is the same as with spam. Let's say it takes $1 for a business to show an ad to a person and that every hundredth person is going to buy the product. If their product brings in $100 or more of profit, they break even and are justified in running the ad. What this model doesn't consider that for the rest 99 people the ad was an inconvenience and, in fact, provided a negative value. Let's say that was 20¢ worth of attention and annoyance. Is anyone going to give them their 20¢ back? In essence, businesses are only concerned with their customers while non-customers are in a way subsidizing the business. What kind of system can fix this, I don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say.

marcosdumay 10y ago

Pay how much? Everything changes depending on the price, both from the reader and publisher points of view.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

Ad supported content which may actually be worse for us because you can't block it and may not even know what it is.

tpeo 10y ago

Ads can be completely acceptable so long they don't detract from the user's experience. If loading times weren't so ridiculously afflicted by adserving and tracking scripts, then things would be fine.

serge2k 10y ago

A lot of the podcasts and youtube shows I watch have patreon or sponsors. Works fine if you are transparent about it. 30 seconds spent with the host saying "<thing> is sponsored by <product>. <product blurb>" is fine.

CaptSpify 10y ago

https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebDeathView https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD... > essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions.