5 ms·

I wrote the following in 2015: "...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, the exact same

by hliyan 8y ago

I wrote the following in 2015: "...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, the exact same people advertisers look to target. The more buying power you demonstrate, the more advertisers will target you. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. With the way the world currently works, selling ads, it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content." Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803

jamesknelson 8y ago
This is a really interesting point. And to be honest, I don't even really mind that I'm being shown ads after purchasing a subscription. The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. When I was searching for a way to disable the video ads, somebody made the point that the New York Times' business model has involved showing ads to subscribers for longer than I've been alive. The difference is, those ads didn't move around the page and start screaming at you. Like most things, there's a sensible middle ground here. Show people with buying power ads, but don't drive those people away with your desperation.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I killed my subscription largely because of the ad issue - if I’m paying I don’t want ads. Thankfully most premium streaming services work this way.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    Funnily enough they don't. Netflix is pretty big in product placement. https://ben.productplacement.com/ https://ben.productplacement.com/
- capdeck 8y ago
  > The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. That will never be the case, except may be for some isolated incidents. As far as ads are concerned from NYT's perspective -- we are not the customers (we are the product), advertisers are. In fact, they are so much the customers, that they not only control the ads, they also control the content (by saying which content their ads can be shown on (hence for which content they will pay to be produced) -- but I digress). Now, you might say, advertisers would want to have ads in "good taste" -- yes, but you know what they'd want even more -- those ads to leave an imprint on your consciousness. So if they can't make an ad in good taste, or the ad in good taste is less effective than an obnoxious ad -- they'll choose the latter, any day, 10 out of 10. That is why we'll rarely have "tasteful" adds. Another thing tangentially related to taste: how many times exactly you'd want to see a "tasteful ad"? 1, 3, 5 or 500? After how many repetitions the "tasteful ad" becomes "distasteful"? As it was aptly put in "Ready Player One" -- ad industry will only stop putting ads on your screen once you start having seizures (because at this point it will physically prevent you from buying their stuff). Until then anything goes. Hoping that you can pay and no longer see ads is naive. Ad revenue is so lofty, nothing end users can pay can even remotely match advertising budgets of the giants.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    If I have seen your ad multiple times and not taken action, it is time to show me another ad, or fix your checkout flow. In general though ad tech is so primitive it is embarrassing. I am an Atheist (and have plugged this into Facebook), then they try to sell me ads for magic crystals. An Atheist would by definition not be interested in that. Then they tried to sell me gas, from a gas company 300 kilometers away. Then, after I had filled out the section about my education, showed me ads for the exact degree from the exact university I had told them I got the degree from. I am a single man, so Facebook decided I wanted to be showed crappy for pay dating sites[0]. The only dating sites where I would have a chance are the big sites and you don't get big in the dating space by charging. I searched for and got an apartment, then google showed me six months worth of ads for a crappy apartment finder site. Google any electronics and you get ads for it weeks after you buy it. Instead of figuring out what people by after and then show ads for that -- I might still be interested in buying custom fitted curtains, for example. There must be products and services out there that would actually benefit me, and I certainly have the capacity to purchase them, but somehow those never show up. [0]: you should never use them http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating.html http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dat...
    - delecti 8y ago
      > In general though ad tech is so primitive it is embarrassing It's not that it's primitive, it's that it's still run by humans. At least from what I saw while working in ad tech, targeting is very much a manual process. There's no algorithm deciding that you might be interested in magic crystals, there's a magic crystal seller targeting their ads at people in whatever demographic you're in. They decided that (for example) people ages 25-34, in certain income brackets, who are interested in fitness might also be interested in crystals, and Facebook was happy to take their $0.001/impression in exchange. To my knowledge most ads aren't targeted with a scheme like "hey targeting server, figure out who might like this kind of ad", or at least they weren't as of this time last year when I couldn't take working in the industry anymore.
      - tomjen3 8y ago
- tomjen3 8y ago
  I do mind. I mean it used to be that ads paid for print costs and also that they where somewhat useful -- I would be unlikely to hear about a sale in any other way. Now though, well I have clicked on two ads that I remember being interested in, in all the time I have been on the internet -- why? Because what we are producing is generally shit, or already known, or priced too high (not surprisingly, guess who has to pay for those ads)? If they ever actually cure cancer, or get a weightloss pill that works, I will probably hear about it. Until then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
yholio 8y ago
As a consequence, the ad-driven web is much more open and inclusive. The marginal cost of serving another page view to a Pakistani reader is zero, while a $10 subscription is a massive expense for someone who might earn just $100 a month. So if the content can be monetized by selling western eyeballs, the ad driven web works as a massive cultural redistribution to societies that can't really afford to develop similar resources in either subscription or ad-supported models.
- tnorthcutt 8y ago
  This is among the most interesting and insightful things I’ve read on this topic. Thanks for sharing this idea.
- Dragory 8y ago
  This is definitely true, though it doesn't exclude a hybrid approach (where you can choose between free/ads, paid/no ads), which is what I believe the parent comment was talking about.
  - taejo 8y ago
    But if all the people who can afford to buy stuff buy "no ads", then there won't be a free/ads option at all, because advertisers are only interested in the people who can afford to buy stuff, who don't see the ads.
    - Dragory 8y ago
      That's a fair point, but realistically, everyone won't be paying to hide ads - lots of people would prefer to browse for free, even if they could afford the subscription.
      - lev99 8y ago
        The people that can afford to pay and do not is a less valuable population than the people that can afford to pay and do. Edit: valuable from an advertisement point of view.
eli 8y ago
I tend to think of it from the other side. What advertiser wants to hear the pitch of, "you can reach the segment of our audience who is too cheap or disengaged to pay for our content"
microcolonel 8y ago
I think that the Patreon model is pretty good for this sort of stuff, though obviously it doesn't quite work for organizations which are not likable or decent enough that people will just give them money to give away their work.
tjoff 8y ago
... the more will cancel their subscriptions and leave. The less the ads will work.
CamperBob2 8y ago
True. The more you're willing and able to pay to avoid advertising, the more you'll have to. This does, of course, have the effect of keeping me from feeling the least bit guilty for 'pirating' their content by reading it in private-browsing mode without paying for it.

by hliyan 8y ago

jamesknelson 8y ago

This is a really interesting point. And to be honest, I don't even really mind that I'm being shown ads after purchasing a subscription. The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. When I was searching for a way to disable the video ads, somebody made the point that the New York Times' business model has involved showing ads to subscribers for longer than I've been alive. The difference is, those ads didn't move around the page and start screaming at you. Like most things, there's a sensible middle ground here. Show people with buying power ads, but don't drive those people away with your desperation.

fossuser 8y ago
I killed my subscription largely because of the ad issue - if I’m paying I don’t want ads. Thankfully most premium streaming services work this way.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Funnily enough they don't. Netflix is pretty big in product placement. https://ben.productplacement.com/ https://ben.productplacement.com/
capdeck 8y ago
> The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. That will never be the case, except may be for some isolated incidents. As far as ads are concerned from NYT's perspective -- we are not the customers (we are the product), advertisers are. In fact, they are so much the customers, that they not only control the ads, they also control the content (by saying which content their ads can be shown on (hence for which content they will pay to be produced) -- but I digress). Now, you might say, advertisers would want to have ads in "good taste" -- yes, but you know what they'd want even more -- those ads to leave an imprint on your consciousness. So if they can't make an ad in good taste, or the ad in good taste is less effective than an obnoxious ad -- they'll choose the latter, any day, 10 out of 10. That is why we'll rarely have "tasteful" adds. Another thing tangentially related to taste: how many times exactly you'd want to see a "tasteful ad"? 1, 3, 5 or 500? After how many repetitions the "tasteful ad" becomes "distasteful"? As it was aptly put in "Ready Player One" -- ad industry will only stop putting ads on your screen once you start having seizures (because at this point it will physically prevent you from buying their stuff). Until then anything goes. Hoping that you can pay and no longer see ads is naive. Ad revenue is so lofty, nothing end users can pay can even remotely match advertising budgets of the giants.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  If I have seen your ad multiple times and not taken action, it is time to show me another ad, or fix your checkout flow. In general though ad tech is so primitive it is embarrassing. I am an Atheist (and have plugged this into Facebook), then they try to sell me ads for magic crystals. An Atheist would by definition not be interested in that. Then they tried to sell me gas, from a gas company 300 kilometers away. Then, after I had filled out the section about my education, showed me ads for the exact degree from the exact university I had told them I got the degree from. I am a single man, so Facebook decided I wanted to be showed crappy for pay dating sites[0]. The only dating sites where I would have a chance are the big sites and you don't get big in the dating space by charging. I searched for and got an apartment, then google showed me six months worth of ads for a crappy apartment finder site. Google any electronics and you get ads for it weeks after you buy it. Instead of figuring out what people by after and then show ads for that -- I might still be interested in buying custom fitted curtains, for example. There must be products and services out there that would actually benefit me, and I certainly have the capacity to purchase them, but somehow those never show up. [0]: you should never use them http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating.html http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dat...
  - delecti 8y ago
    > In general though ad tech is so primitive it is embarrassing It's not that it's primitive, it's that it's still run by humans. At least from what I saw while working in ad tech, targeting is very much a manual process. There's no algorithm deciding that you might be interested in magic crystals, there's a magic crystal seller targeting their ads at people in whatever demographic you're in. They decided that (for example) people ages 25-34, in certain income brackets, who are interested in fitness might also be interested in crystals, and Facebook was happy to take their $0.001/impression in exchange. To my knowledge most ads aren't targeted with a scheme like "hey targeting server, figure out who might like this kind of ad", or at least they weren't as of this time last year when I couldn't take working in the industry anymore.
    - tomjen3 8y ago
tomjen3 8y ago
I do mind. I mean it used to be that ads paid for print costs and also that they where somewhat useful -- I would be unlikely to hear about a sale in any other way. Now though, well I have clicked on two ads that I remember being interested in, in all the time I have been on the internet -- why? Because what we are producing is generally shit, or already known, or priced too high (not surprisingly, guess who has to pay for those ads)? If they ever actually cure cancer, or get a weightloss pill that works, I will probably hear about it. Until then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

yholio 8y ago

As a consequence, the ad-driven web is much more open and inclusive. The marginal cost of serving another page view to a Pakistani reader is zero, while a $10 subscription is a massive expense for someone who might earn just $100 a month. So if the content can be monetized by selling western eyeballs, the ad driven web works as a massive cultural redistribution to societies that can't really afford to develop similar resources in either subscription or ad-supported models.

tnorthcutt 8y ago
This is among the most interesting and insightful things I’ve read on this topic. Thanks for sharing this idea.
Dragory 8y ago
This is definitely true, though it doesn't exclude a hybrid approach (where you can choose between free/ads, paid/no ads), which is what I believe the parent comment was talking about.
- taejo 8y ago
  But if all the people who can afford to buy stuff buy "no ads", then there won't be a free/ads option at all, because advertisers are only interested in the people who can afford to buy stuff, who don't see the ads.
  - Dragory 8y ago
    That's a fair point, but realistically, everyone won't be paying to hide ads - lots of people would prefer to browse for free, even if they could afford the subscription.
    - lev99 8y ago
      The people that can afford to pay and do not is a less valuable population than the people that can afford to pay and do. Edit: valuable from an advertisement point of view.

eli 8y ago

I tend to think of it from the other side. What advertiser wants to hear the pitch of, "you can reach the segment of our audience who is too cheap or disengaged to pay for our content"

microcolonel 8y ago

I think that the Patreon model is pretty good for this sort of stuff, though obviously it doesn't quite work for organizations which are not likable or decent enough that people will just give them money to give away their work.

tjoff 8y ago

... the more will cancel their subscriptions and leave. The less the ads will work.

CamperBob2 8y ago

True. The more you're willing and able to pay to avoid advertising, the more you'll have to. This does, of course, have the effect of keeping me from feeling the least bit guilty for 'pirating' their content by reading it in private-browsing mode without paying for it.