13 ms·
I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
- aphextron 8y agoThey ruined any trust between advertisers and consumers through deceptive, bad faith tactics, and reduced the entire equation to pure game theory. If an advertiser can figure out how to get their ad copy past my sophisticated filtering attempts and get into my mind in a memorable way, then more power to them. Otherwise they don't have any "right" to exist and make money off stealing my time and resources, both mental and compute.
- JasonFruit 8y agoThere are ads in the paper newspaper I subscribe to as well. Real reporting and quality writing don't come cheaply, and that hasn't changed just because the delivery method did. Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.
- tjoff 8y agoAds on paper are not nearly as intrusive. It is also quite disrespectful considering the tracking etc. that comes with it. How many more subscribers would they get if they didn't treat them as garbage?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gunnihinn 8y agoOut of curiosity, does anyone have a ballpark estimate for what a no-ad online subscription would cost if we assume the parent is true?
- rhn_mk1 8y ago> The cost of a regular LWN.net subscription is $7.00/month, with options for those wanting to pay a little more or less. https://lwn.net/subscribe/ https://lwn.net/subscribe/
- achamayou 8y agoArs Pro is ad free and starts at 25usd/year.
- gjs278 8y agobasically nothing. if you never click the ad you are making them a fraction of a cent each view. I doubt one person would even make the site a dollar after a lifetime of reading.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoSurely you realize this is incorrect, considering that the Times makes on the order of $200 million/year in online ad revenue.
- gjs278 8y agoif you don't click the ads, they barely make anything
- Godel_unicode 8y agoHypothetically if people didn't click ads, then yes that would be true. But they do, so it's immaterial.
- bootlooped 8y agoIf you look up estimates of Facebook ad revenue per user, they're all in the range of $4 - $15 per year.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoAccording to the New York Times latest earnings call, subscriptions account for 2/3 of their revenue. So ballpark roughly 50% more than the current subscription price would be necessary to maintain revenue at the same subscriber count sans other revenue streams.
- bradleyjg 8y agoDon't think that's quite the right calculation. Revenue = subscriber revenue + ad revenue from ads shown to subscribers + ad revenue from ads shown to non-subscribers The suggestions was to eliminate the middle piece and increase the subscription price to make up for it in the first piece. That's still leaves the last piece.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoNo. The times only allows readers to read 5 articles before signing up, meaning they're effectively subscribers only.
- bradleyjg 8y agoAs I understand it there are a whole lot of leaks in that paywall. In fact, doesn't HN have a built in workaround?
- Godel_unicode 8y agoThis argument is getting really tired, it's true of literally every service online. Yes there are loopholes, no they don't matter. The barrier is just high enough that a great many people just pay up.
- bootlooped 8y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-t... The above article also states that digital advertising revenue only accounted for 37 percent of total advertising revenue. So that means digital advertising revenue is at most 12% of total revenue. Furthermore, it is unstated how much of digital advertising revenue comes from paid subscribers vs unpaid visitors. If we assumed, for the sake of argument, that half of digital advertising revenue was from paid and half unpaid, then cutting ads for paid subscribers would be doable with only about a 10% increase in price.
- achamayou 8y agoThat’s unlikely to be true, some publications such as Ars Technica let you pay for an ad free tier. What’s more likely is that the subscription price does in fact cover costs and that advertising revenue is seen as a nice benefit on top that can be grown creatively without any accountability or backlash.
- tensor 8y agoIt would be nice to see an option and let the user decide rather then resort to straw man hypotheticals.
- bootlooped 8y ago"Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies." There are a lot of counter examples to this. Hulu, Spotify, Ars Technica, YouTube Premium, etc... People are willing and able to pay for ad-free content.
- JasonFruit 8y ago(Few of these are news sources worthy of note.)
- Godel_unicode 8y agoWhy do you think news consumers are different than YouTube consumers?
- JasonFruit 8y agoBecause there's a difference between reading professionally produced news and watching contributed videos? Is there a reason you think they are the same?
- bootlooped 8y agoI think once it's shown that people are generally willing to pay for the services they use to be ad-free the onus goes back to you to prove why news is a special case to which that trend does not apply. Otherwise we get into an argument black hole where you could infinitely claim the things in question were different than the counter-examples given.
- JasonFruit 8y agoI suppose you are allowed to think that, sure. On my part, I promise no black holes. Peace.
- dazc 8y ago'Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.' The author thought he was doing exactly this and, consequently, will cease to be a paying subscriber for much longer. The ads and difficulty in unsubscribing are the reasons why these organisations will never achieve a critical mass of paid subscriptions.
- perl4ever 8y agoIt seems unlikely that the foregone revenue would be more than about 10% of the regular subscription price. This is based on other posts in this thread that talk about a $84/year subscription and $4-$15/year ad revenue. Since that was a reference to Facebook revenue, I imagine it would be a decent upper bound. It reminds me of how people say that it's impossible to provide fresh produce without paying people below minimum wage. In lieu of common sense, it depends on numbers, which don't need to be precise, but you can't just handwave. I'm inclined to believe the true story is simply, as others state, that no matter what the ad revenue is, it's X% more and nobody wants to give it up if they don't have to.
- Rjevski 8y agoNobody has a problem with paper or paper-like ads, aka ads don’t stalk you, that the newspaper has actually vetted, and is happy to have its name associated with. The problem is that web ads are nothing like that. They are orders of magnitude more scummy, can’t be vetted in advance and stalk the shit out of you in order to serve you “better” ads next time, whatever the hell “better” means in advertiser’s perverted minds.
- matheusmoreira 8y agoPrinted ads aren't malware vectors.
- jccalhoun 8y ago>Real reporting and quality writing unfortunately I rarely see either of those in any news outlet. Most of it is regurgitated press releases and things that I don't care about.
- fiatjaf 8y agoWhy do you still pay for that stupidity?
- dang 8y agoWe've asked you repeatedly to stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. If you can't or won't stop, we're going to have to ban your account, so please fix this.
- pixelmonkey 8y agoThe answer may not be pleasing, but it's true: because "paid subscribers" represent a valuable advertising demographic/segment. They are nearly certain you are human traffic, and you have enough disposable income that you pay for news.
- mhb 8y agoThat may be true, but it doesn't answer the question since there are many other similar examples without advertising.
- izacus 8y agoYou can pretty much make this argument for everything - Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads then. Business class airplanes filled with blinking video ads. Entrances to highend butiques crowded with people pushing ad leaflets into rich peoples hands.... Why is it acceptable on the web?
- pixelmonkey 8y agoThis does happen in other places. Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? You've already paid for the flight. Your in-theater movie kicks off with trailers and previews -- you have already paid for the movie ticket. And so on.
- twblalock 8y agoAnd if you subscribe to a paper newspaper or magazine, that has ads too.
- mhb 8y agoConsumer Reports doesn't have ads.
- justboxing 8y ago> Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT. Physical paper printed Ads! So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.
- diminish 8y agoAs said: "The fact that you pay for subscription, doesn't mean you aren't the product for publishers to advertisers"
- njloof 8y ago(2017)
- dang 8y agoAdded. Thanks!
- justinph 8y agoIf you're a subscriber, you're the most valuable advertising target. You've shown a willingness to pay for stuff on the internet. Furthermore, advertisers are targeting people who read those publications regularly. Subscribers are those people. If you wanted an ad-free subscription, it would cost substantially more than you currently pay to made up for the lost advertising revenue.
- RealityVoid 8y agoEven if, let's say, you WERE to pay substantially more than what you currently pay, the vendor might see fit to extract the maximum amount of value from you, so serve you adds they will. The only way I think they would not serve you adds is if they would lose more money (customers) if they were to serve adds. But people have proven they are mostly OK with ads, they don't mind them (since so many services online are fueled by them and people use them).
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> But people have proven they are mostly OK with ads, they don't mind them (since so many services online are fueled by them and people use them). Let's remember that people generally have zero choice in the matter.
- RealityVoid 8y agoThey would have the exact same choices with a paid provider as they do with the fee ones. Put up with it or leave.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoThere's no choice wrt. ads because everyone is doing them. It's rare to find an ethical business to patronize.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoThat's absolutely not true. You could just not use the service. I think what you mean is that you have no way to get the service without the ads, so you're willing to put up with the ads to get the service. Which is the whole point.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- debatem1 8y agoYou know the old saw about "if you don't pay for the product, you are the product"? It's not "if and only if".
- platz 8y agoWhat rights does paying for something ever give you?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 8y agoNone. But the common view is that people have to view ads in lieu of paying. Turns out that even if you pay, you'll still be exploited.
- honkycat 8y agoI subbed to the nytimes for a single month before I realized they did not disable ads for paid subscribers. So dumb and toxic. Edit: typo
- ashelmire 8y ago> Of course, you only get a limited number of free articles per month if you don’t subscribe. Wait until the author learns about clearing cookies.
- timbit42 8y ago...or even better: Cookie AutoDelete
- j4kp07 8y agoI had to close two pop ups to read this article. So there's that.
- twblalock 8y agoThe restriction on the number of articles is how the news publishers incentivize subscriptions -- subscribing unlocks more articles per week/month/whatever. They are going to advertise either way. Paper newspapers always had ads too. Subscribers didn't get a different version of the paper without the ads. Ads have been a deeply ingrained part of the news business for over 100 years and they aren't going to stop now.
- clubm8 8y agoThis seems to be a re-occuring pattern: have ads on a free/cheap service, introduce a paid service, place ads on the paid service, then hope if you hold out long enough people will forget there was a time when your paid service was ad free. Prime example: Cable tv https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
- pixelrevision 8y agoNewspapers and magazines have always included ads along with the subscription price. Difference is more that online ads are way more trashy and distracting and terrible for privacy so there’s more reason for pushback.
- JeanMarcS 8y agoIt’s the problem with news websites/magazines/paper. They live because there are ads in it. And so would they criticize companies that put a lot of cash on them ? Perhaps. May be not. In France, we have a news website [0] which is totally independent, and only accessible for paying subscribers. It took them a few years and now they are earning money. You might or might not agree with their editorial line, but the fact is that they can investigate any company without hesitation. It’s hard, but I think it’s the only way to have an independent information. [0] https://www.mediapart.fr https://www.mediapart.fr
- projektir 8y agoSo much for "if you're not paying you're the product". Seems like if you're paying, you're still the product.
- moomin 8y agoBecause free markets don’t always produce ideal outcomes for consumers.
- emerged 8y agoBecause you are still paying for news even though you are seeing intrusive ads.
- jmuguy 8y agoI pay for Ars Technica, definitely wouldn’t if paying didn’t disable the ads.
- gdrift 8y agoYou are not served ads but even as a subscriber you are tracked by them and your information is traded. (source: their privacy policy.)
- sintaxi 8y agoThe articles are ads. Eg. https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/1051475468199833600 https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/1051475468199833600
- Sgt_Apone 8y agoThat's a car review, not an advertisement. If you actually read it, they don't even like it much. >Meh. All-in-all, the Lexus NX 300h is an uninspiring car. If you like hybrids and want to drive one with a luxury badge, the NX 300h is worth looking at. I would have liked the option to suck the battery dry before the internal combustion engine kicks in (à la the plug-in Chrysler Pacifica hybrid). Instead, EV Mode in the NX 300h is limited to low speeds.
- samsa 8y ago[edit] Sgt_Apone beat me to it.
- PaulWaldman 8y agoWhat if your paid subscription is only covering a portion of the service and the full price is subsidized by the ads?
- TeMPOraL 8y agoIt's still sad that those companies can't offer the most basic, ethical option - providing value in exchange for money. No, the choice is only between getting crap shoved at you for free, and getting the same amount of crap for money.
- Nasrudith 8y agoThis type of thing is the thumbprint of management by sociopathy. "Why does nobody subscribe to us and leave us so ad dependent!" They cry. Just like complaints about lack of employee loyalty after they do stuff like layoffs to inflate quarterly earnings and look at pension funds as piggy banks and refuse to give raises. Then complain about people leaving for career advancement when they won't even give Cost of Living raises. The same pattern regardless - do something for short term gain that creates a long term problem and try to pass the buck. And it wasn't their fault because they were entitled to the short term gains. They are incapable of understanding why trying to get paid twice for the same thing is a bad thing or why you should never trust anyone who attempts that. To them trust is something they are entitled by position to regardless of how they mistreat people. In my opinion the best thing to do with them in response is banish them. Don't invest in them or patronize them as much as possible as they are clearly out to screw you over. If you are in management of a position to do so oust them as soon as possible. Sadly they are a goddamn plague and hard to oust.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoWe have a systemic problem though. This kind of sociopathy is pretty much legitimized, and being specialized in it is treated as respectable occupation.
- sorokod 8y agoBecause not showing you ads would be "leaving money on the table" and that just won't do. If not showing ads wasn't part of the deal, ads will be shown. If not harvesting your personal data wasn't part of the deal, personal data will be harvested. That you paid money is irrelevant.
- nikanj 8y agoIn a nutshell: Because they make more money that way.
- SilasX 8y agoTo everyone making the obvious point: yes, obviously, there is potentially money to be made from this richer demographic. But that doesn't explain why they have to make the ads so intrusive or site-breaking. Remember, something stops Ferrari from blanketing the dash with ads. Why doesn't that same dynamic apply here?
- sixdimensional 8y agoI want to know, how much does it truly cost for the same content without ads. What would the actual pricetag be, if we built in the overhead added by advertising and marketing into the fee for the product or service itself?
- isostatic 8y agoPeanuts. I don't subscribe to sky tv in the uk for £30 a month because they also get £5 a month extra from 30% of the time showing ads. The same subscription with out adverts would be £35 a month, basically the same price.
- sintaxi 8y agoThe content itself doesn't cont much but that isn't what people are after. Most of the budget goes towards branding to build trust in the content. That is what you are really paying for - the feeling that your sources are credible.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vuln 8y agoShareholder's demand insane growth every quarter. Can't leave money on the table.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- djrogers 8y agoThe very publication you’re subscribing to also shows ads to it’s print subscribers. I don’t think ther was ever an implicit promise that subscriptions remove ads, I’m not even sure why you’d expect that from a publication that’s been doing it that way for decades...
- reilly3000 8y agoIf newspapers could have a woeking business model without advertising I'm sure many would. The theory on the web is that if you take away ads for paid subscribers you'll not be able to ever add them back. Personally a cheaper subscription with an ad-lite, or tracking-free(GDPR opt out style) experience and a full price subscription for no ads seems like a fair deal. Thoughts? Disclosure: I work at a comscore 50 publisher. We are currently ad only and designing a subscription product so feedback is very welcome and timely.
- matheusmoreira 8y ago> Why do I still see ads? Because you haven't installed an ad blocker yet. Get uBlock Origin, enable all the filters and don't look back.
- pm90 8y agoI pay for nyt. They still played annoying video ads. So I removed their app; I access it via Firefox.
- ChristianGeek 8y agoHulu, to me, has the perfect model: limited content for free, full content with ads for a subscription fee, full content with no ads for a (slightly) higher subscription fee.
- jccalhoun 8y agoI thought Hulu quit free streams a few years ago?
- panarky 8y agoWhen I was young my family paid for cable TV when the rest of the neighborhood still had antennas on their roofs because pay TV didn't have commercials. Now I pay for cable TV and it's jammed full of commercials. The idea that free online services aren't really free because we pay with our attention and with our data is only half true. Paid online services also take our data and increasingly interrupt us with advertisements, just like cable TV.
- Tempest1981 8y agoAnd we have TV shows with built-in ads (esp sports), and channels running promos in the bottom right corner. I guess were not saturated quite yet...
- segmondy 8y agoYou’re paying for content not ad free. Maybe they will make us pay twice. Once for the service, then next level to remove ad.
- gmjoe 8y agoSome numbers for perspective [1]: Digital-only subscription revenue in 2017: $340 million Digital advertising revenue in 2017: $238 million Obviously some digital advertising is shown to print subscribers logging in too... but if we ignore that for simplicity, without ads your NYT digital subscription would be 70% more expensive. At $195/yr. for digital-only, it's already my most expensive subscription by a significant amount. If it were 70% more, or $331.50/yr, I imagine subscriptions would drop by a lot -- that's a lot of money for news. So... that's presumably why there are still ads. Gotta pay the reporters somehow. On the other hand, the New Yorker bugging you to subscribe is just lazy programming, and I hate it too. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...
- idonotknowwhy 8y agoSo maybe they should offer a premium subscription, 70% more expensive, with absolutely no ads. Sort of like how Tidal Music have $10 / month compressed music, $20 / month uncompressed.
- softawre 8y agoHulu did the same, for a while..
- bootlooped 8y agoHere are some more recent numbers [1]: Quarter 1 2018: $414m total revenue $260m subscription revenue (62% of total) $154m non-subscription revenue (38% of total) $46.7m digital advertising revenue (37% of total advertising revenue) $126.2m total advertising revenue If you cut digital advertising completely, not just for subscribers, you could make it up by increasing subscription price by around 10%, assuming 100% of subscribers would bear the new price. The interesting statistic that we don't have is how much digital advertising revenue comes from paid vs unpaid readers. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-t...
- 8y ago
- eip 8y ago"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing…kill yourself. It’s just a little thought; I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they’ll take root – I don’t know. You try, you do what you can." --Bill Hicks
- LifeLiverTransp 8y agoImagine a pair of augmented reality glasses, capable to filter all ads shown to you. A layer to end all layers.