5 ms·

Why ad-free and Web 2.0 don't mix

7 points by fromedome 18y ago

dangoldin 18y ago
Already posted the source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=188617 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=188617
dpapathanasiou 18y ago
One point this article misses entirely: the paid side of the freemium model is about including extra features useful enough to power/pro users that they'd be willing to pay for them. Lack of ads is just a bonus.
- notauser 18y ago
  In a freemium model there don't have to be any ads at all! Your basic service can be totally free, provided you can justify it as marketing expenditure with the conversion rate to paid services. The biggest problem I can see with running ads on the free tier of on a two tier service is that the people most interested in buying advertising will be your direct competitors. It might not be too smart to give them easy access to your user base.
walterk 18y ago
Bjorn Tipling's comment (6th one down) is spot on. You can't assume that someone who doesn't pay to remove ads is too poor to afford anything advertised. They may simply not care enough to pay the asking price to remove them. It's called a demand curve. Did this person who dares to give business advice even bother to take Intro to Economics?
brlewis 18y ago
Those who choose not to pay away ads might not be cheap; they might be too busy to deal with paying. If you're advertising a time-saving product or service you'll score. I recently got rid of google ads on OurDoings: http://ourdoings.com/2008-04-24 http://ourdoings.com/2008-04-24
astine 18y ago
People with money can already opt out of ads. Tivo is the quintessential example of this. Even before Tivo, pay-per-view was popular amongst those who had money.
billroberts 18y ago
I agree with the main point of this article. It always feels wrong to me when you see an app that offers an upgrade to get rid of ads. It seems to say we're gonna piss you off with minor irritations to make you upgrade, or at least that we know you don't want these but it pays the rent. Neither of those are offering users what they want.
iamdave 18y ago
>"But, this revenue model seems silly to me. Advertisers pay a premium in order to reach people in their specific demographic with disposable income. This idea of people paying to remove ads ensures that the audience for your ads are actually CHEAPER than the average internet audience." If you want to analyze it like that, it's far more accurate to say allowing users to remove ads by paying for the option negates the necessity for advertisers to be on your site in the first place. Invariably, it's more money for the middleman (in this case: the site offering a service), but if advertisers pay for ads, and users pay to remove those ads it's a figurative stalemate for the entire purpose of having a revenue service. Financially, it's win-win for the service provider, and that doesn't sit well with me.

7 points by fromedome 18y ago

Already posted the source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=188617 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=188617

One point this article misses entirely: the paid side of the freemium model is about including extra features useful enough to power/pro users that they'd be willing to pay for them. Lack of ads is just a bonus.

notauser 18y ago
In a freemium model there don't have to be any ads at all! Your basic service can be totally free, provided you can justify it as marketing expenditure with the conversion rate to paid services. The biggest problem I can see with running ads on the free tier of on a two tier service is that the people most interested in buying advertising will be your direct competitors. It might not be too smart to give them easy access to your user base.

walterk 18y ago

Bjorn Tipling's comment (6th one down) is spot on. You can't assume that someone who doesn't pay to remove ads is too poor to afford anything advertised. They may simply not care enough to pay the asking price to remove them. It's called a demand curve. Did this person who dares to give business advice even bother to take Intro to Economics?

brlewis 18y ago

Those who choose not to pay away ads might not be cheap; they might be too busy to deal with paying. If you're advertising a time-saving product or service you'll score. I recently got rid of google ads on OurDoings: http://ourdoings.com/2008-04-24 http://ourdoings.com/2008-04-24

astine 18y ago

People with money can already opt out of ads. Tivo is the quintessential example of this. Even before Tivo, pay-per-view was popular amongst those who had money.

billroberts 18y ago

I agree with the main point of this article. It always feels wrong to me when you see an app that offers an upgrade to get rid of ads. It seems to say we're gonna piss you off with minor irritations to make you upgrade, or at least that we know you don't want these but it pays the rent. Neither of those are offering users what they want.

iamdave 18y ago

>"But, this revenue model seems silly to me. Advertisers pay a premium in order to reach people in their specific demographic with disposable income. This idea of people paying to remove ads ensures that the audience for your ads are actually CHEAPER than the average internet audience." If you want to analyze it like that, it's far more accurate to say allowing users to remove ads by paying for the option negates the necessity for advertisers to be on your site in the first place. Invariably, it's more money for the middleman (in this case: the site offering a service), but if advertisers pay for ads, and users pay to remove those ads it's a figurative stalemate for the entire purpose of having a revenue service. Financially, it's win-win for the service provider, and that doesn't sit well with me.