3 ms·

> So how would websites earn money? There's so much good content that I just don't care if the ad-supported stuff dies. In its absence, free community-driven s

by ashark 9y ago

> So how would websites earn money? There's so much good content that I just don't care if the ad-supported stuff dies. In its absence, free community-driven sites will have a reason to exist and paid options will stand a fighting chance. Maybe magazine-style non-tracking ads will be viable again. Anything that doesn't make the transition to one of those models doesn't matter to me—I don't have anywhere near enough time for it all as it is.

NicoJuicy 9y ago
If i currently look at the frontpage of HN i see bloomberg, tomshardware, nytimes, nextplatform, theconversation, washingtonpost, ... That's only the 10 first articles. All of these are ad-supported for the content. I think most people don't have a correct interpretation of what it is to have money to pay journalists for articles and then get paid for content through ads, because 99,9% of the people won't pay a subscription. Fyi, the public content is paid by ads right now and most of them have a digital-subscription on the side.
- ashark 9y ago
  Removing spying ads for everyone changes the entire landscape, though. What if spying ads weren't an option? Print versions of many of these get by with non-tracking ads (well, subscribers are a little, but nothing like web tracking) and have basically forever. Absent spying ads, they'll adopt non-spying ads, or charge money. Or somehow not find a way to make that work even though it did before spying ads were a thing, and die. It'll be fine. We didn't have spying Internet ads not-that-long-ago and things were fine. All the stuff I actually need from the Internet is already totally free (Wikipedia) or supported by paying customers.
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    One site ( a non profit, where donators also complain about how much money they spend on servers and wages), can't be a reference for an online business. The chance to duplicate this is minimal + it has thousands of free employees / volunteers that don't need to be paid. The change, cookies can't track users. Will probably be a loss of ad revenue per user, more companies that will have paid subscriptions and a lot of knowledge / news / interesting stories will be behind a paywall --> Personal opinion. If you only need a encyclopedia, then you don't need to pay anywhere or "free payment through ads". If you sometimes scroll HN and read content for free, then i'm not sure if the content, that you want to read, is only available on Wikipedia. I think a lot of that content is actually produced by paid journalists, that work for big media companies.
    - ashark 9y ago
      > One site ( a non profit, where donators also complain about how much money they spend on servers and wages), can't be a reference for an online business. The chance to duplicate this is minimal + it has thousands of free employees / volunteers that don't need to be paid. It was one example, not every single free thing on the Internet that I find highly valuable. Open source would be another, which is mostly supported by volunteers and straight-up paying customers. > If you only need a encyclopedia, then you don't need to pay anywhere or "free payment through ads". If you sometimes scroll HN and read content for free, then i'm not sure if the content, that you want to read, is only available on Wikipedia. HN is mostly a replacement for playing Minesweeper or is displacing doing something actually valuable. Or hanging out on IRC. If I actually need news I'd be fine with paying for it (I mostly don't, though). > I think a lot of that content is actually produced by paid journalists, that work for big media companies. We had those (journalists, big media companies) before spying ads were a thing. We'd have them after. You think that, for some reason, if no one can use spying ads anymore, that'll mean the end of online media? Or even just online news? Or that Internet advertising would even do more than hiccup for a moment and keep going? Think about it: you're responsible for advertising at Coca Cola. Tracking ads go away, everywhere, for everyone. Do you stop spending ad dollars online? No, obviously not. My guess is the result would be a concentration of ad dollars on bigger sites, with little or no reduction in total spending. Probably more shitty "native advertising" too, especially for smaller players, which sucks, but we already have tons of that so oh well. Point is, we've all been pining for the days when news orgs had actual money to spend on reporters, and I'd not be a bit surprised if eliminating tracking gave bigger players enough of an advantage that those days came back.
      - NicoJuicy 9y ago
        > It was one example, not every single free thing on the Internet that I find highly valuable. Open source would be another, which is mostly supported by volunteers and straight-up paying customers Paying customers receive more value in most cases, it's not the same content. A good reference is a paywall in this case. I love open source, but how many people get a wage out of it? You only see success stories here and not that much I'm afraid. + I don't know any newspaper online that earns money without ads or subscriptions. For now, there are only 2 business models and currently subscriptions gain importance -> paywalls >if no one can use spying ads anymore, that'll mean the end of online media? Or even just online news? My guess is more paywall. Interesting articles will be found less on HN >I'd not be a bit surprised if eliminating tracking gave bigger players enough of an advantage that those days came back. Not sure if I agree. You mean that, people will have to choose for paying for subscriptions, so the best quality articles after a paywall will get the money by creating better articles. But it leaves less space for everyone else. I'm not sure if that is a good thing, but I understand the reasoning

by ashark 9y ago

NicoJuicy 9y ago

If i currently look at the frontpage of HN i see bloomberg, tomshardware, nytimes, nextplatform, theconversation, washingtonpost, ... That's only the 10 first articles. All of these are ad-supported for the content. I think most people don't have a correct interpretation of what it is to have money to pay journalists for articles and then get paid for content through ads, because 99,9% of the people won't pay a subscription. Fyi, the public content is paid by ads right now and most of them have a digital-subscription on the side.

ashark 9y ago
Removing spying ads for everyone changes the entire landscape, though. What if spying ads weren't an option? Print versions of many of these get by with non-tracking ads (well, subscribers are a little, but nothing like web tracking) and have basically forever. Absent spying ads, they'll adopt non-spying ads, or charge money. Or somehow not find a way to make that work even though it did before spying ads were a thing, and die. It'll be fine. We didn't have spying Internet ads not-that-long-ago and things were fine. All the stuff I actually need from the Internet is already totally free (Wikipedia) or supported by paying customers.
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  One site ( a non profit, where donators also complain about how much money they spend on servers and wages), can't be a reference for an online business. The chance to duplicate this is minimal + it has thousands of free employees / volunteers that don't need to be paid. The change, cookies can't track users. Will probably be a loss of ad revenue per user, more companies that will have paid subscriptions and a lot of knowledge / news / interesting stories will be behind a paywall --> Personal opinion. If you only need a encyclopedia, then you don't need to pay anywhere or "free payment through ads". If you sometimes scroll HN and read content for free, then i'm not sure if the content, that you want to read, is only available on Wikipedia. I think a lot of that content is actually produced by paid journalists, that work for big media companies.
  - ashark 9y ago
    > One site ( a non profit, where donators also complain about how much money they spend on servers and wages), can't be a reference for an online business. The chance to duplicate this is minimal + it has thousands of free employees / volunteers that don't need to be paid. It was one example, not every single free thing on the Internet that I find highly valuable. Open source would be another, which is mostly supported by volunteers and straight-up paying customers. > If you only need a encyclopedia, then you don't need to pay anywhere or "free payment through ads". If you sometimes scroll HN and read content for free, then i'm not sure if the content, that you want to read, is only available on Wikipedia. HN is mostly a replacement for playing Minesweeper or is displacing doing something actually valuable. Or hanging out on IRC. If I actually need news I'd be fine with paying for it (I mostly don't, though). > I think a lot of that content is actually produced by paid journalists, that work for big media companies. We had those (journalists, big media companies) before spying ads were a thing. We'd have them after. You think that, for some reason, if no one can use spying ads anymore, that'll mean the end of online media? Or even just online news? Or that Internet advertising would even do more than hiccup for a moment and keep going? Think about it: you're responsible for advertising at Coca Cola. Tracking ads go away, everywhere, for everyone. Do you stop spending ad dollars online? No, obviously not. My guess is the result would be a concentration of ad dollars on bigger sites, with little or no reduction in total spending. Probably more shitty "native advertising" too, especially for smaller players, which sucks, but we already have tons of that so oh well. Point is, we've all been pining for the days when news orgs had actual money to spend on reporters, and I'd not be a bit surprised if eliminating tracking gave bigger players enough of an advantage that those days came back.
    - NicoJuicy 9y ago
      > It was one example, not every single free thing on the Internet that I find highly valuable. Open source would be another, which is mostly supported by volunteers and straight-up paying customers Paying customers receive more value in most cases, it's not the same content. A good reference is a paywall in this case. I love open source, but how many people get a wage out of it? You only see success stories here and not that much I'm afraid. + I don't know any newspaper online that earns money without ads or subscriptions. For now, there are only 2 business models and currently subscriptions gain importance -> paywalls >if no one can use spying ads anymore, that'll mean the end of online media? Or even just online news? My guess is more paywall. Interesting articles will be found less on HN >I'd not be a bit surprised if eliminating tracking gave bigger players enough of an advantage that those days came back. Not sure if I agree. You mean that, people will have to choose for paying for subscriptions, so the best quality articles after a paywall will get the money by creating better articles. But it leaves less space for everyone else. I'm not sure if that is a good thing, but I understand the reasoning