4 ms·

What kills me is even paid subscription sites like WSJ, Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha, show you ads even when you're a paying member. Why is it a war on our attenti

What kills me is even paid subscription sites like WSJ, Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha, show you ads even when you're a paying member. Why is it a war on our attention?

porcoda 5y ago
They also include ads in print versions of newspapers and magazines that you subscribe to, and always have. Advertising has always been a component of making them viable businesses: the problem isn't the existence of ads in things you pay for as much as the obnoxious way they are implemented on the web.
openplatypus 5y ago
This!! For real. Paid subscription for Bloomberg and boom, there is huge banner on top. Takes ~10% of screen. Why?!
0xcde4c3db 5y ago
The fact that you're able and willing to pay is exactly what marks you as a desired target. You can't spend your way out of people wanting your money; they'll always want more.
vehemenz 5y ago
I find this ironic too. I get NYT via my institution, and on the actual app there are ads, but when I browse on the website, logged in with uBO, there is nothing.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Funnily enough, the only way to not get ads on those news apps is by using moded apks (unless you use root or dns adblock, but that usually messes with the layout) . There's no amount of money you could pay to remove them even if you wanted to, so the only way is to download apks that not only remove ads but also make all the articles free without paying anything. It's crazy because Bloomberg already charges quite a lot (40$/month?) if you don't get a discounted price, how much are they getting with those very generic banner ads? It can't possibly be more than a few cents, maybe a dollar or two per month for casual readers. It's so counterproductive if it makes them lose even just a few % of their subscribers.
- bootlooped 5y ago
  A DNS-based ad blocking solution helps with this problem on mobile.
patall 5y ago
Isn't it that those people that can easily afford the payment and thus buy it are those that are most attractive for any advertiser (for that very reason). At least that's what I heard, before Youtube Red became a thing which kind of disproves it.
caymanjim 5y ago
This annoys me too, because I dislike ads, but to be fair, newspapers and magazines have always had ads as their primary revenue source, and also almost always charged for the print copy as well. About 30 years ago, when physical newspapers were still more popular than virtual newspapers, you'd pay about 50 cents for the daily edition and $1.50 for the Sunday edition. That adds up to more than the current monthly fees for the online versions. In fact, way back in 1990, the New York Times cost $5/week for home delivery[1]. It's $17/mo now for the digital-only version[2]. Granted, if you want both digital and daily home delivery now, it's $40/mo. If you look at old free print papers (like the Village Voice), the volume of ads is enormous compared to something like the Times. In any event, paying for a product with ads has always been part of the print media/news business. I'm far more annoyed by paying for cable TV (or streaming services) and still getting ads. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/business/the-times-raises-price.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/business/the-times-raises... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription https://www.nytimes.com/subscription
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  That adds up to the current monthly fees only if it assumes you buy every single edition. In print, you have the choice not to - with the subscription you pay full price regardless of whether you actually read every day's edition.
- iLoveOncall 5y ago
  It's almost like delivering a physical newspaper costs more than a digital one. Who would have thought?
sorokod 5y ago
Why would they not show you adds? I mean, they already got your money, now they will get a bit more.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Why is it a war on our attention? Entitlement. They literally think they have a right to our attention. The audacity of these people never fails to impress. Paying any amount of money will only make them bolder.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  My guess is it's more that advertisers want paying customers the most, so they pay extra or otherwise pressure services to include ads into paid services. I appreciate the option to pay more to go ad free. Though I also understand offering with ads to widen the audience at a free or lower price.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > I appreciate the option to pay more to go ad free. You shouldn't. In practice that option is nothing but free market research for advertisers. They get to see not only who has disposable income but who's willing to spend it. They will offer even more money for your attention and eventually some executives will realize they're leaving money on the table by not taking advantage of it.

What kills me is even paid subscription sites like WSJ, Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha, show you ads even when you're a paying member. Why is it a war on our attention?

porcoda 5y ago

They also include ads in print versions of newspapers and magazines that you subscribe to, and always have. Advertising has always been a component of making them viable businesses: the problem isn't the existence of ads in things you pay for as much as the obnoxious way they are implemented on the web.

openplatypus 5y ago

This!! For real. Paid subscription for Bloomberg and boom, there is huge banner on top. Takes ~10% of screen. Why?!

0xcde4c3db 5y ago

The fact that you're able and willing to pay is exactly what marks you as a desired target. You can't spend your way out of people wanting your money; they'll always want more.

vehemenz 5y ago

I find this ironic too. I get NYT via my institution, and on the actual app there are ads, but when I browse on the website, logged in with uBO, there is nothing.

mardifoufs 5y ago
Funnily enough, the only way to not get ads on those news apps is by using moded apks (unless you use root or dns adblock, but that usually messes with the layout) . There's no amount of money you could pay to remove them even if you wanted to, so the only way is to download apks that not only remove ads but also make all the articles free without paying anything. It's crazy because Bloomberg already charges quite a lot (40$/month?) if you don't get a discounted price, how much are they getting with those very generic banner ads? It can't possibly be more than a few cents, maybe a dollar or two per month for casual readers. It's so counterproductive if it makes them lose even just a few % of their subscribers.
bootlooped 5y ago
A DNS-based ad blocking solution helps with this problem on mobile.

patall 5y ago

Isn't it that those people that can easily afford the payment and thus buy it are those that are most attractive for any advertiser (for that very reason). At least that's what I heard, before Youtube Red became a thing which kind of disproves it.

caymanjim 5y ago

This annoys me too, because I dislike ads, but to be fair, newspapers and magazines have always had ads as their primary revenue source, and also almost always charged for the print copy as well. About 30 years ago, when physical newspapers were still more popular than virtual newspapers, you'd pay about 50 cents for the daily edition and $1.50 for the Sunday edition. That adds up to more than the current monthly fees for the online versions. In fact, way back in 1990, the New York Times cost $5/week for home delivery[1]. It's $17/mo now for the digital-only version[2]. Granted, if you want both digital and daily home delivery now, it's $40/mo. If you look at old free print papers (like the Village Voice), the volume of ads is enormous compared to something like the Times. In any event, paying for a product with ads has always been part of the print media/news business. I'm far more annoyed by paying for cable TV (or streaming services) and still getting ads. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/business/the-times-raises-price.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/21/business/the-times-raises... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription https://www.nytimes.com/subscription

Nextgrid 5y ago
That adds up to the current monthly fees only if it assumes you buy every single edition. In print, you have the choice not to - with the subscription you pay full price regardless of whether you actually read every day's edition.
iLoveOncall 5y ago
It's almost like delivering a physical newspaper costs more than a digital one. Who would have thought?

sorokod 5y ago

Why would they not show you adds? I mean, they already got your money, now they will get a bit more.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Why is it a war on our attention? Entitlement. They literally think they have a right to our attention. The audacity of these people never fails to impress. Paying any amount of money will only make them bolder.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
My guess is it's more that advertisers want paying customers the most, so they pay extra or otherwise pressure services to include ads into paid services. I appreciate the option to pay more to go ad free. Though I also understand offering with ads to widen the audience at a free or lower price.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > I appreciate the option to pay more to go ad free. You shouldn't. In practice that option is nothing but free market research for advertisers. They get to see not only who has disposable income but who's willing to spend it. They will offer even more money for your attention and eventually some executives will realize they're leaving money on the table by not taking advantage of it.