3 ms·

I'm not sure that people are asking for ads. You explain how they actually are asking for free stuff, while some website owners who want more money, decide to u

I'm not sure that people are asking for ads. You explain how they actually are asking for free stuff, while some website owners who want more money, decide to use ads to make more money. If your goal is to give users what they want, beware of confusing their actual wants with your preferred monetization method. Wanting the former isn't the same as wanting the latter. How do you find out what people want? A good rule of thumb is to prefer asking them over trying to logic it out. Would most people answer "ads"? No, because they do not want ads.

shermantanktop 3y ago
Nobody wants to pay for anything. If you ask them how they want to pay, they’ll say “I don’t want to.” But given a choice of paywalls or ads, most people opt for ads most of the time. Doesn’t mean they want ads, just that they apparently dislike ads less than actually paying.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  You are correct: if someone is presented with a false dichotomy of "ads vs. paying", and they choose ads, that doesn't mean they want ads, it means ads was the least bad option in the false dichotomy. I also don't think it's constructive to conflate providing a service with making a profit. Plenty of people are happy doing just the former. If someone want to make more money, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they do, or must, or that the service is contingent on it. Those are all decisions made by each individual provider.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > I also don't think it's constructive to conflate providing a service with making a profit. Plenty of people are happy doing just the former. Can confirm. I spent years in the late 2000's running a phpBB board to enable discussion on a niche hobby. I spent probably a few thousand dollars on it over several years, we eventually waned in traffic and gave it up as everyone was moving to reddit. I never saw a penny of profit from that, nor expected it: some of our older members were happy to kick some cash my way to offset server costs. As a result, we had a community that was robust, friendly, open to everyone and 100% free to use. No scummy ads, no tracking, no surveillance, no "sponsored posts," none of it. It was glorious and I miss it every day. I would've happily taken donations to offset the costs, but I never saw it as a money-making operation. Nowadays it feels basically unheard of to do anything online without the expectation of making money.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    Sure. I was making a general observation about ads vs. subscriptions out on the open internet where sites generally cost money to run, and sometimes the owners attempt to make a salary from their time, or even make a profit. Lots of ways to change that need for revenue, but once you are hitting 100k+ daily visitors, it’s hard to avoid. I run multiple small sites for free, and do a number of other activities for free that someone might get paid for. But I know that I’m doing it because I want to and can stop anytime. Revenue also creates continuity by creating a financial obligation…even while it reduces the passion element of motivation.

shermantanktop 3y ago

Nobody wants to pay for anything. If you ask them how they want to pay, they’ll say “I don’t want to.” But given a choice of paywalls or ads, most people opt for ads most of the time. Doesn’t mean they want ads, just that they apparently dislike ads less than actually paying.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
You are correct: if someone is presented with a false dichotomy of "ads vs. paying", and they choose ads, that doesn't mean they want ads, it means ads was the least bad option in the false dichotomy. I also don't think it's constructive to conflate providing a service with making a profit. Plenty of people are happy doing just the former. If someone want to make more money, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they do, or must, or that the service is contingent on it. Those are all decisions made by each individual provider.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > I also don't think it's constructive to conflate providing a service with making a profit. Plenty of people are happy doing just the former. Can confirm. I spent years in the late 2000's running a phpBB board to enable discussion on a niche hobby. I spent probably a few thousand dollars on it over several years, we eventually waned in traffic and gave it up as everyone was moving to reddit. I never saw a penny of profit from that, nor expected it: some of our older members were happy to kick some cash my way to offset server costs. As a result, we had a community that was robust, friendly, open to everyone and 100% free to use. No scummy ads, no tracking, no surveillance, no "sponsored posts," none of it. It was glorious and I miss it every day. I would've happily taken donations to offset the costs, but I never saw it as a money-making operation. Nowadays it feels basically unheard of to do anything online without the expectation of making money.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  Sure. I was making a general observation about ads vs. subscriptions out on the open internet where sites generally cost money to run, and sometimes the owners attempt to make a salary from their time, or even make a profit. Lots of ways to change that need for revenue, but once you are hitting 100k+ daily visitors, it’s hard to avoid. I run multiple small sites for free, and do a number of other activities for free that someone might get paid for. But I know that I’m doing it because I want to and can stop anytime. Revenue also creates continuity by creating a financial obligation…even while it reduces the passion element of motivation.