4 ms·
Blame the fact that people will pay for very few media sites. Realistically, Futurism’s choice is have ad supported content or don’t exist
by lquist 8y ago
Blame the fact that people will pay for very few media sites. Realistically, Futurism’s choice is have ad supported content or don’t exist
- daveguy 8y agoThey do have a third option: unobtrusive ads.
- scarejunba 8y agoThose are worth very little when untargeted.
- seslaire 8y agoQuite the contrary: https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exchanges-europe-ad-revenue/ https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exc.... Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079
- scarejunba 8y agoThe NYT is a different story. There's a critical mass after which it becomes worthwhile to just target your audience. I doubt these guys are at it. Don't believe me, though. Talk to ad execs (spending money on this) or ad ops (using the money on this) and see what they think. In fact, since you won't have the GDPR hassles if you go untargeted, you should consider following this thesis to its logical untargeted exchange conclusion because with CCPA and GDPR you could push the targeted guys out of business and that's a many billion dollar market. If you're convinced of your thesis, then you're on the cusp of mega money. Good luck.
- Groxx 8y agoor less blogspam. the explosion of mostly-blind news-regurgitation isn't a good thing, and it's largely chasing ad dollars because nobody would voluntarily pay for it.
- dqpb 8y agoBut is that even an option? I used to pay for NYT and WSJ (not cheap) and was still bombarded with ads.