4 ms·

> NY Times has a reputation and value beyond the value of a user's browser history. It really doesn't. That's why they have to bully google/facebook/etc into g

> NY Times has a reputation and value beyond the value of a user's browser history. It really doesn't. That's why they have to bully google/facebook/etc into giving them favorable/privileged treatment. > That used to be how ads worked, and I think it is a better model - for both sides in many cases. An ad model that favors something like the NY Times can't be the better model.

mikemotherwell 6y ago
>An ad model that favors something like the NY Times can't be the better model. It absolutely can, let me count the ways: 1. You are never, ever on a bad site - no matter how good Google et al are, bad things happen. If avoiding that matters, NY Times is a smart move. 2. You don't pay for the AdTech - everyone know who the NY Times readers are - is spending 40%-60% to overcome the problems of mass advertising better than splitting the difference with NY Times? 3. AdFraud - NY Times can charge rates and using methods that are more fraud resistant (e.g. get rid of CPM).