3 ms·
This would probably result in less relevant ads and more power of ad providers, ie less neutral reporting. Think about how some companies or political parties '
by summarite 10y ago
This would probably result in less relevant ads and more power of ad providers, ie less neutral reporting. Think about how some companies or political parties 'punish' critical media by pulling ads and advertising with the competition instead. Imagine you little newspaper have a harsh truth to deliver about Nestle or P&G - and you know if you do so a large chunk of your revenue will disappear.
On the other hand this would allow the site to be more picky and set prices - which could really increase overhead.
I love the idea they use eg for wetransfer (a very minimalist file sharing site) - one huge, beautiful ad in the background . I'm sure those aren't cheap, but they are certainly visible and usually quite interesting. Everyone wins. But i doubt that would scale and seems unlikely to suit content-filled sites like news sites
- stevesearer 10y agoI self-publish and self-host my site's advertising and in my case the ads are actually more relevant. The different is that I target the ads based on the content rather than the reader. In that way I try to treat it like a magazine where the content itself narrows down who will be reading without the need for dertermining them using adtech solutions. No idea if the model would work on a general news site, but it does work and isn't terrible. I can't speak to your point about a brand pressuring me for being critical though since that isn't really the nature of my site and publication.
- rebuilder 10y agoAs far as advertiser pressure goes, is it much different now? Advertisers can, and do, pull their ads from specific sites at will. For example, letting a big company know their ads are appearing on a Russian-sponsored site full of chaosmongering "news" will usually get them to pull their ads right quick.