5 ms·

This has been said before. Everyone who is invested in the advertisement model will then start to hate on the idea, for obvious reasons. In particular, media, i

This has been said before. Everyone who is invested in the advertisement model will then start to hate on the idea, for obvious reasons. In particular, media, including journalists who cover these ideas. However, the advertisement model truly sucks. It severely dilutes the interest of the actual consumer and actual fans, in favor of big companies who buy the advertisements. EDIT: As I mention below, this isn't theory. This debate happened between Penny Arcade and Scott McCloud nearly two decades ago.

gruez 6y ago
>In particular, media, including journalists who cover these ideas. Why would they care? They still get paid in the end.
- RIMR 6y ago
  They sometimes get more than just payment. If a publication promises to show an ad for a specific company, before a visitor can read a specific article, that company try to help drive visitors to that article to drive more ad views. This is why (using Twitter as an example) you sometimes see news articles for seemingly unrelated content show up as promoted Tweets straight from the journalist with "Sponsored by T-Mobile" at the bottom. Chances are, clicking through to the article will also lead to a T-Mobile advertisement.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  Modulo some huge disruption. Most people are naturally reactionary, especially when it comes to fundamental changes in their livelihood. I'm not talking in theory. This is history. This debate literally already happened almost two decades ago. Scott McCloud and Penny Arcade!
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  I work in the “traditional” media—software not journalism. Ad sales are only celebrated for the money they bring in. Any optimizations around that are only there because they serve to increase as revenues, like any readership analytics. In my experience, and I can’t speak for them, but it appears to me the journalists, at least any of the ones I’ve worked with, do not care where that money comes from. I think they’d prefer if it all could come directly from readership. I think it would serve to be more validating in more than one way. To that end I think proposing that journalists (as a single entity, no less) would decry the diminishing need for advertising in their industry without actually losing revenues is a bit of a loaded take.
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    I hope that can happen. I'm not sure if enough journalists are that far-seeing.
weird-eye-issue 6y ago
Actually news media would be lucky to get $.03 from a single pageview. Their RPM is quite low due to the lack of targeted audience.
r00fus 6y ago
You think micropayments will somehow get rid of ads? There are a multitude of noteworthy examples where you pay for a product and still get ads (Cable, Hulu, unskippable DVD sections, etc). What will really curb the online ad industry is the ability for consumers to control their privacy, and make personal info a liability.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  You think micropayments will somehow get rid of ads? No. However, it would theoretically give content creators who don't want to serve the interests of advertisers an alternative source of income that allows this. Basically, do what Patreon does, but with even less friction, and far more flexibly.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    It already exists and it's called Web Monetization. I recently wrote an article on it: https://atodorov.me/2021/03/07/please-support-web-monetization-if-you-want-less-ads-on-the-web/ https://atodorov.me/2021/03/07/please-support-web-monetizati...
spullara 6y ago
You should be able to get a report from publishing platforms on how much people paid for your cookie (per month?) just to better understand how much it would cost to not see ads. I've toyed with the idea of a "no ad" ad network that only bids on their own customers and replaces ads with either nothing or content of your choice. You end up paying a small premium on the amount they had to pay to remove ads. EDIT: Something like this but for consumer viewing rather than for the content publisher: https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/10/21319938/youtube-monetization-metric-ad-revenue-cpm-rpm-alternative-memberships-premium https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/10/21319938/youtube-monetiza...

gruez 6y ago

>In particular, media, including journalists who cover these ideas. Why would they care? They still get paid in the end.

RIMR 6y ago
They sometimes get more than just payment. If a publication promises to show an ad for a specific company, before a visitor can read a specific article, that company try to help drive visitors to that article to drive more ad views. This is why (using Twitter as an example) you sometimes see news articles for seemingly unrelated content show up as promoted Tweets straight from the journalist with "Sponsored by T-Mobile" at the bottom. Chances are, clicking through to the article will also lead to a T-Mobile advertisement.
stcredzero 6y ago
Modulo some huge disruption. Most people are naturally reactionary, especially when it comes to fundamental changes in their livelihood. I'm not talking in theory. This is history. This debate literally already happened almost two decades ago. Scott McCloud and Penny Arcade!
52-6F-62 6y ago
I work in the “traditional” media—software not journalism. Ad sales are only celebrated for the money they bring in. Any optimizations around that are only there because they serve to increase as revenues, like any readership analytics. In my experience, and I can’t speak for them, but it appears to me the journalists, at least any of the ones I’ve worked with, do not care where that money comes from. I think they’d prefer if it all could come directly from readership. I think it would serve to be more validating in more than one way. To that end I think proposing that journalists (as a single entity, no less) would decry the diminishing need for advertising in their industry without actually losing revenues is a bit of a loaded take.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  I hope that can happen. I'm not sure if enough journalists are that far-seeing.

weird-eye-issue 6y ago

Actually news media would be lucky to get $.03 from a single pageview. Their RPM is quite low due to the lack of targeted audience.

r00fus 6y ago

You think micropayments will somehow get rid of ads? There are a multitude of noteworthy examples where you pay for a product and still get ads (Cable, Hulu, unskippable DVD sections, etc). What will really curb the online ad industry is the ability for consumers to control their privacy, and make personal info a liability.

stcredzero 6y ago
You think micropayments will somehow get rid of ads? No. However, it would theoretically give content creators who don't want to serve the interests of advertisers an alternative source of income that allows this. Basically, do what Patreon does, but with even less friction, and far more flexibly.
- sofixa 6y ago
  It already exists and it's called Web Monetization. I recently wrote an article on it: https://atodorov.me/2021/03/07/please-support-web-monetization-if-you-want-less-ads-on-the-web/ https://atodorov.me/2021/03/07/please-support-web-monetizati...

spullara 6y ago

You should be able to get a report from publishing platforms on how much people paid for your cookie (per month?) just to better understand how much it would cost to not see ads. I've toyed with the idea of a "no ad" ad network that only bids on their own customers and replaces ads with either nothing or content of your choice. You end up paying a small premium on the amount they had to pay to remove ads. EDIT: Something like this but for consumer viewing rather than for the content publisher: https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/10/21319938/youtube-monetization-metric-ad-revenue-cpm-rpm-alternative-memberships-premium https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/10/21319938/youtube-monetiza...