3 ms·

Most people click on ads. Most people buy things based on ads. I'm inclined to think that this means most people find advertising useful, so I'm skeptical tha

Most people click on ads. Most people buy things based on ads. I'm inclined to think that this means most people find advertising useful, so I'm skeptical that people would want to block advertising if they could. Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income.

philwelch 15y ago
"Most", or just enough to keep advertising a sustainable business, like spam email? Services like Spotify and Pandora actually make money from people paying them for an ad-free experience. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually likes most advertising, as opposed to simply tolerating it as a means to an end. If anything it's antisocial for websites to promise me valuable content, only to resell my attention to advertisers.
TeMPOraL 15y ago
> Most people click on ads. Never met one. > Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income. Personally, it saddens me that we have to put up with all this electricity-wasting advertising crap in order to have free websites. It seems that one of the most useful tools of humanity needs to look ugly just in order to stay alive. I'd be very happy if we ever find a better solution.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe it's an 'outlier' opinion.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. I don't mind an ad here and there, but the amount of advertising in magazines now is ridiculously high. Sometimes I'm not sure if just less than 50% of the magazine has some content in it. > Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. I respect your opinion. While you're definitely not alone in your stance, I do also think that there are much more ad-haters than you believe. Might be a selection bias on my part, but I've never ever seen a person enjoying web ads.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      > Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert.
      - TeMPOraL 15y ago
        > The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert. Fair enough. However, I feel that this type of ad gives me some concrete, useful and verifiable information to base my choice on (like technical parameters, and problems with use relative to other video cards reviewed in this issue), and not just shiny pictures. This discussion clarified my understanding of ads at least a bit, so next time I'll be more precise in what I mean. There is a subtype of ads, those click-based advertising that clutter websites providing no value whatsoever to the visitor and distracting from enjoying the content. Those I dislike, though I understand that they're somewhat necessary. I value every site which figures out how to stay free without cluttering itself with ads.
      - nupark2 15y ago
        The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert. This depends on the editorial clarity of the review. A review can be an advertisement -- such is the case where the reviewer simply regurgitates the press release, or the author otherwise abandons objectivity. A review can also be an objective evaluation, not intended to sway the buyer in one direction or the other, but instead providing a clear, reasoned outline of the facts, and the context necessary to understand them. The latter content has more value to the consumer. In eschewing any attempt to induce behavior on the part of the reader, it is not an advertisement.
  - eps 15y ago
    > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Hard to say because I stopped buying both kinds long ago exactly because they had more ads than the actual content.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      You're helping to prove my point - you're an outlier. Most people still buy magazines.
      - eps 15y ago
        Actually most people don't.
- gbog 15y ago
  > better solution Well, in the times of Louis XIV, there was emulation between kings ane they would host, invite, fund or protect great artists of their times. Maybe Zuckerberg should compete with Brin an give money or protection to some great open community project, like Diaspora. Er...
rfergie 15y ago
You are correct about the usefulness of advertising but I think you are wrong about people's perception of advertising and its influence on them. Most people will not admit to being influenced by advertising and they'll rarely admit to clicking on them.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Disagree. HN, reddit, and techie internet crowd are usually very anti-advertising. If you look at the real population though, they love advertising. Kids watch advertising on TV to find out what toys they want to buy. Teenagers look at adverts to see what fashion to wear. etc etc. I really do think it's a case of not looking outside the bubble. HN and the techie crowd are pretty anti-consumerism, anti-mainstream, anti-advertising. But the general population isn't.
  - nknight 15y ago
    You keep making statements about what "the real population" and "the majority" like or do, but the only study I've seen actually cited in this thread contradicts your assertions. Do you have any actual numbers to contribute, or just your personal intuition?
  - rfergie 15y ago
    The point I am trying to make is that people's actions and feeling about advertising are very different. You are absolutely right that people consume advertising and react to it. I think you are wrong to conclude that this means they love advertising. Perhaps it is just my bubble, but I can't imagine many people saying something like "I love advertising, I wish commercial breaks were longer". IMO the difference with the techie internet crowd is that we are aware of what is an advert online and we also know that there are ways to avoid it.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      Commercial breaks are a special case. They prevent you from consuming the content until they end. Which is obviously not a great user experience (Although people do need to go make a cup of tea or have a toilet break). Online and print advertising doesn't prevent consumption of content, or stop the user going about his business for 5 minutes. Still disagree. I'm tech 'savvy', but I don't put myself in the HN crowd. I'm a consumer. I love advertising. I love buying stuff. I'm what I consider to be in the 'mainstream'. I can avoid ads, but I choose not to.
pessimizer 15y ago
As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. Just because ads produce enough revenue to support a business, don't assume that that means that a majority ever clicks on them. That's akin to an argument I read a lot on HN when people complain about particular content always getting on the front page (bitcoin, apple-this-or-that); that if it's getting on the front page, a majority must be for it. According to this article from 2009 reporting about some consultant study that divided people into "heavy clickers, moderate clickers, light clickers and non-clickers" of ads, between 2007 and 2009, the non-clickers grew from "68 to 84% percent of the entire Internet population." http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-banners-are-display-ads-dead http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-ba... The study also claimed that the more savvy people became about the internet, the less likely they clicked on ads. The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  > As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. You need to talk to people outside your circle of friends then. > The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet. Is this why googles ad revenue is growing at such an astounding rate?
  - pessimizer 15y ago
    I don't talk to my friends for evidence, I look at studies. Google's ad revenue has nothing do with what the majority of anybody does. Google is doing ads well, better than they had been done before, and ads have gradually become more relevant and less seedy; I could see those two things countering the slide of clicks, at least in their case, but maybe in all cases. I don't have a problem with ads, and I would start clicking on them if the odds that it wouldn't be a waste of my time got better. I do have a problem with bald-assed assertions instead of arguments, defended by insults that assume that you know anything about anyone else's circle of friends but your own.

philwelch 15y ago

"Most", or just enough to keep advertising a sustainable business, like spam email? Services like Spotify and Pandora actually make money from people paying them for an ad-free experience. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually likes most advertising, as opposed to simply tolerating it as a means to an end. If anything it's antisocial for websites to promise me valuable content, only to resell my attention to advertisers.

TeMPOraL 15y ago

> Most people click on ads. Never met one. > Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income. Personally, it saddens me that we have to put up with all this electricity-wasting advertising crap in order to have free websites. It seems that one of the most useful tools of humanity needs to look ugly just in order to stay alive. I'd be very happy if we ever find a better solution.

maximusprime 15y ago
Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe it's an 'outlier' opinion.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. I don't mind an ad here and there, but the amount of advertising in magazines now is ridiculously high. Sometimes I'm not sure if just less than 50% of the magazine has some content in it. > Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. I respect your opinion. While you're definitely not alone in your stance, I do also think that there are much more ad-haters than you believe. Might be a selection bias on my part, but I've never ever seen a person enjoying web ads.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    > Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      > The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert. Fair enough. However, I feel that this type of ad gives me some concrete, useful and verifiable information to base my choice on (like technical parameters, and problems with use relative to other video cards reviewed in this issue), and not just shiny pictures. This discussion clarified my understanding of ads at least a bit, so next time I'll be more precise in what I mean. There is a subtype of ads, those click-based advertising that clutter websites providing no value whatsoever to the visitor and distracting from enjoying the content. Those I dislike, though I understand that they're somewhat necessary. I value every site which figures out how to stay free without cluttering itself with ads.
    - nupark2 15y ago
      The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert. This depends on the editorial clarity of the review. A review can be an advertisement -- such is the case where the reviewer simply regurgitates the press release, or the author otherwise abandons objectivity. A review can also be an objective evaluation, not intended to sway the buyer in one direction or the other, but instead providing a clear, reasoned outline of the facts, and the context necessary to understand them. The latter content has more value to the consumer. In eschewing any attempt to induce behavior on the part of the reader, it is not an advertisement.
- eps 15y ago
  > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Hard to say because I stopped buying both kinds long ago exactly because they had more ads than the actual content.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    You're helping to prove my point - you're an outlier. Most people still buy magazines.
    - eps 15y ago
      Actually most people don't.
gbog 15y ago
> better solution Well, in the times of Louis XIV, there was emulation between kings ane they would host, invite, fund or protect great artists of their times. Maybe Zuckerberg should compete with Brin an give money or protection to some great open community project, like Diaspora. Er...

rfergie 15y ago

You are correct about the usefulness of advertising but I think you are wrong about people's perception of advertising and its influence on them. Most people will not admit to being influenced by advertising and they'll rarely admit to clicking on them.

maximusprime 15y ago
Disagree. HN, reddit, and techie internet crowd are usually very anti-advertising. If you look at the real population though, they love advertising. Kids watch advertising on TV to find out what toys they want to buy. Teenagers look at adverts to see what fashion to wear. etc etc. I really do think it's a case of not looking outside the bubble. HN and the techie crowd are pretty anti-consumerism, anti-mainstream, anti-advertising. But the general population isn't.
- nknight 15y ago
  You keep making statements about what "the real population" and "the majority" like or do, but the only study I've seen actually cited in this thread contradicts your assertions. Do you have any actual numbers to contribute, or just your personal intuition?
- rfergie 15y ago
  The point I am trying to make is that people's actions and feeling about advertising are very different. You are absolutely right that people consume advertising and react to it. I think you are wrong to conclude that this means they love advertising. Perhaps it is just my bubble, but I can't imagine many people saying something like "I love advertising, I wish commercial breaks were longer". IMO the difference with the techie internet crowd is that we are aware of what is an advert online and we also know that there are ways to avoid it.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    Commercial breaks are a special case. They prevent you from consuming the content until they end. Which is obviously not a great user experience (Although people do need to go make a cup of tea or have a toilet break). Online and print advertising doesn't prevent consumption of content, or stop the user going about his business for 5 minutes. Still disagree. I'm tech 'savvy', but I don't put myself in the HN crowd. I'm a consumer. I love advertising. I love buying stuff. I'm what I consider to be in the 'mainstream'. I can avoid ads, but I choose not to.

pessimizer 15y ago

As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. Just because ads produce enough revenue to support a business, don't assume that that means that a majority ever clicks on them. That's akin to an argument I read a lot on HN when people complain about particular content always getting on the front page (bitcoin, apple-this-or-that); that if it's getting on the front page, a majority must be for it. According to this article from 2009 reporting about some consultant study that divided people into "heavy clickers, moderate clickers, light clickers and non-clickers" of ads, between 2007 and 2009, the non-clickers grew from "68 to 84% percent of the entire Internet population." http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-banners-are-display-ads-dead http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-ba... The study also claimed that the more savvy people became about the internet, the less likely they clicked on ads. The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet.

maximusprime 15y ago
> As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. You need to talk to people outside your circle of friends then. > The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet. Is this why googles ad revenue is growing at such an astounding rate?
- pessimizer 15y ago
  I don't talk to my friends for evidence, I look at studies. Google's ad revenue has nothing do with what the majority of anybody does. Google is doing ads well, better than they had been done before, and ads have gradually become more relevant and less seedy; I could see those two things countering the slide of clicks, at least in their case, but maybe in all cases. I don't have a problem with ads, and I would start clicking on them if the odds that it wouldn't be a waste of my time got better. I do have a problem with bald-assed assertions instead of arguments, defended by insults that assume that you know anything about anyone else's circle of friends but your own.