3 ms·

Brave doesn't need advertisers though, it needs users. Once it has users then advertisers need Brave. I don't see how Brave has to win over advertisers at all,

Brave doesn't need advertisers though, it needs users. Once it has users then advertisers need Brave. I don't see how Brave has to win over advertisers at all, they'll come around when Brave can offer some non-insignificant amount of money to them.

LowLevelHacker 7y ago
I'd like to incentivise unique users to visit/revisit the site, is that part of the idea that of BAT?
- manigandham 7y ago
  It is supposed to be possible for publishers to spend their BAT on paying users to visit or promote their content.
manigandham 7y ago
Advertisers have several supply paths to inventory and what gets chosen is a complicated series of decisions. Brave is just not very enticing. Having a large user base isn't useful if there isn't effective delivery and performance. It's always possible to get the low-end performance marketers because they'll buy anything if it works but it won't be good quality. Also the current trade of content for ads makes sense. When it's opt-in, I fail to see why users would enable ads if they can get the content for free anyway. And if the ads are all low-end spam then I definitely don't see why they would choose them. It's a very tough 3-way marketplace to bootstrap where the user has all of the control and none of the incentive.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  > Brave is just not very enticing. Sure, but folks I know use it because it has other utilities than just block ads (like use less power, for instance) whilst retaining the compatibility that comes with being based on Chromium. > Also the current trade of content for ads makes sense. When the rate of folks blocking ads keeps increasing, does it though, in the long run? > When it's opt-in, I fail to see why users would enable ads if they can get the content for free anyway. And if the ads are all low-end spam then I definitely don't see why they would choose them. I hope you do realise the number of ifs and buts in your assumptions? > It's a very tough 3-way marketplace to bootstrap where the user has all of the control and none of the incentive. I realise that you are intimately familiar with the industry, but it takes a substantial rethink to overhaul something as entrenched as the online ad business. There's novelty to Brave's approach, I don't think anyone can deny that. Browsers are gateway to the web, equally how Google (homepage) is, and folks are right to take that market on, instead of taking the giants like Facebook and Google at their own game. I would like to refer you to how telegram has replaced browsers for most folks I know (they literally use it to search memes, videos, photos, links); and how WhatsApp has replaced email. The ads would be where content is. If browsers increasingly act as arbitrators of that content, then they're best placed to monetize it, as well, imo. It is another matter for folks who simply detest ads, they're not intended users Brave is targeting, but some folks do feel guilt blocking them and wouldn't mind a middle ground. Also, you must realise that a large portion of the internet don't use any form of ad-blockers whatsoever, and when they stumble on Brave (because it is great for battery life and other features), they'd be more than happy to keep seeing ads that aren't all encompassing and privacy respecting, I'm sure.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Once it has users then advertisers need Brave. No, once it has users, advertisers need to advertise in a way which Brave does not manage to block. There are a number of already known methods for that; they are less cost effective than current ad models, but so would be what Brave is offering.

LowLevelHacker 7y ago

I'd like to incentivise unique users to visit/revisit the site, is that part of the idea that of BAT?

manigandham 7y ago
It is supposed to be possible for publishers to spend their BAT on paying users to visit or promote their content.

manigandham 7y ago

Advertisers have several supply paths to inventory and what gets chosen is a complicated series of decisions. Brave is just not very enticing. Having a large user base isn't useful if there isn't effective delivery and performance. It's always possible to get the low-end performance marketers because they'll buy anything if it works but it won't be good quality. Also the current trade of content for ads makes sense. When it's opt-in, I fail to see why users would enable ads if they can get the content for free anyway. And if the ads are all low-end spam then I definitely don't see why they would choose them. It's a very tough 3-way marketplace to bootstrap where the user has all of the control and none of the incentive.

ignoramous 7y ago
> Brave is just not very enticing. Sure, but folks I know use it because it has other utilities than just block ads (like use less power, for instance) whilst retaining the compatibility that comes with being based on Chromium. > Also the current trade of content for ads makes sense. When the rate of folks blocking ads keeps increasing, does it though, in the long run? > When it's opt-in, I fail to see why users would enable ads if they can get the content for free anyway. And if the ads are all low-end spam then I definitely don't see why they would choose them. I hope you do realise the number of ifs and buts in your assumptions? > It's a very tough 3-way marketplace to bootstrap where the user has all of the control and none of the incentive. I realise that you are intimately familiar with the industry, but it takes a substantial rethink to overhaul something as entrenched as the online ad business. There's novelty to Brave's approach, I don't think anyone can deny that. Browsers are gateway to the web, equally how Google (homepage) is, and folks are right to take that market on, instead of taking the giants like Facebook and Google at their own game. I would like to refer you to how telegram has replaced browsers for most folks I know (they literally use it to search memes, videos, photos, links); and how WhatsApp has replaced email. The ads would be where content is. If browsers increasingly act as arbitrators of that content, then they're best placed to monetize it, as well, imo. It is another matter for folks who simply detest ads, they're not intended users Brave is targeting, but some folks do feel guilt blocking them and wouldn't mind a middle ground. Also, you must realise that a large portion of the internet don't use any form of ad-blockers whatsoever, and when they stumble on Brave (because it is great for battery life and other features), they'd be more than happy to keep seeing ads that aren't all encompassing and privacy respecting, I'm sure.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Once it has users then advertisers need Brave. No, once it has users, advertisers need to advertise in a way which Brave does not manage to block. There are a number of already known methods for that; they are less cost effective than current ad models, but so would be what Brave is offering.