3 ms·

I think you're missing the point. There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free

I think you're missing the point. There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. The business decision The Verge needs to make is whether they want to try to reach these people or not, since these people won't pay for a model that still has ads. (There could of course be 2 subscription levels at different prices, one that still has some ads… but that's also extra work and a different consumer experience.) I don't think newspaper ads are a good analogy either since the consumption model of a dead-tree newspaper isn't such that you get the ads thrown into your face when trying to read an article. And classifieds specifically I wouldn't even call ads, more of a community note board service.

cons0le 2y ago
Heck, if online ads didn't move around and pop up in front of the screen, less people would block them. But the reality is that companies are too greedy, and will never draw the line and say "this is enough" . I can't afford to subscribe to the dozens of sites I glance at everyday for 2 minutes. Quite frankly as someone that grew up with the "old" internet, I don't like the idea of paying for every single site I use. It feels like making every road a toll road.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  > But the reality is that companies are too greedy I don't think this is true. Ads get worse and more hostile because it so easily turns into a race to the bottom. Worse ads devalue the page and lower the CPM, which leads to websites to add more ads, which lowers everything again.
shortformblog 2y ago
I am not missing the point. Rather, the point is so small as to not be financially worth it for them. I am saying that The Verge made a business decision to balance ad load and subscriber cost to potentially bring in more subscribers. They probably did the math and realized that charging people $15 a month would not bring in many subscribers, and that they could have charged $5 a month with regular ad load, but they found this $7 sweet spot where they could give people the best of both worlds. And the $50 model means people are more committed long-term making it more valuable for them. I would guess that “reduced ad load” means that they would only put premium advertisers, like the stuff you would see in glossy magazines, in front of those readers. I trust given how careful they were with rolling this out that they did the math and tried to strike a balance to please the most people.
- eqvinox 2y ago
  I'd say that the range of actual consumer behavior is quite wide on this. I wonder if anyone has actual public numbers from any kind of similar situation (which, yes, isn't going to be comparable anyway, but anything even remotely close would be interesting.) From my personal bubble, I know there's a bunch of people that won't even consider a subscription that still contains ads; it's antithetical to their (and my) expectations. Whether they'd subscribe to an ad-free The Verge I don't know either; personally I don't consume The Verge aside from occasionally getting sent a link or two, so I wouldn't. I will also say that, were I interested in any Amazon Prime Video show that has ads, I'd rather torrent it. (I do pay for Nebula and Dropout, so no, I'm not a "would never pay for any subscription anyway" person.)
paulcole 2y ago
> There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. I guarantee that the majority of these zealous anti-ad people will not subscribe to an ad-free service for The Verge. For the most part, their hobby is not subscribing to online publications, it’s complaining about the subscriptions at online publications that they would almost certainly never subscribe to. And yes, I understand that this doesn’t apply to the ones of people who will reply here claiming that they would never do this.
- benj111 2y ago
  Even if its 1% its still worth it. You already have billing set up, you already have 2 different tiers of ads. Its like saying most BMW drivers won't buy the top of the line model with all the options. They won't, doesn't mean its not worth offering it.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    This isn't really true though. Pricing is very psychological. Verge wants their price to be $7. It's $7 for the Verge. Not $16 for the Verge. $16 that appeals to 1% of people and where, when you click the pricing page, there's this weird $7 reduced-ad second class version. Believe it or not, they probably thought about this. Maybe it works for Netflix in a cycle where they were already doubling the ad-free price and differently for a text media company introducing a price.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    > Even if its 1% its still worth it. You’re 100% certain of this?
- nemomarx 2y ago
  but people already subscribe to ad free subscriptions at places like ars Technica, nebula, what have you. clearly it can be done and balanced, so why claim it's impossible or no one would buy it anyway?
  - 2y ago
PaulHoule 2y ago
I think it is not just "ads" but also the character of the ads. If the ads stay in the boundary areas of the page or well-behaved interstitials that's one thing. In fact, ads can sometimes be interesting and entertaining and most importantly can make markets more competitive bringing you a better variety goods and services. When they screw up the page, jump around, cover things up, don't have proper controls to "x" them out, use confusing dark patterns, generate fake clicks (ever think it's not an accident that some sites jiggle around so much?), need 50 trackers to be (kinda) sure parties aren't screwing each other, have 20x the bandwidth cost of the content that's something else. Also there's the content of the ads. There is a subprime tranch that includes Temu but is best represented by prerolls on YouTube that are best advertising sketchy energy drinks and supplements and worse are outright crypto scams. I can see some humor in Temu but not in the scams.

cons0le 2y ago

Heck, if online ads didn't move around and pop up in front of the screen, less people would block them. But the reality is that companies are too greedy, and will never draw the line and say "this is enough" . I can't afford to subscribe to the dozens of sites I glance at everyday for 2 minutes. Quite frankly as someone that grew up with the "old" internet, I don't like the idea of paying for every single site I use. It feels like making every road a toll road.

madeofpalk 2y ago
> But the reality is that companies are too greedy I don't think this is true. Ads get worse and more hostile because it so easily turns into a race to the bottom. Worse ads devalue the page and lower the CPM, which leads to websites to add more ads, which lowers everything again.

shortformblog 2y ago

I am not missing the point. Rather, the point is so small as to not be financially worth it for them. I am saying that The Verge made a business decision to balance ad load and subscriber cost to potentially bring in more subscribers. They probably did the math and realized that charging people $15 a month would not bring in many subscribers, and that they could have charged $5 a month with regular ad load, but they found this $7 sweet spot where they could give people the best of both worlds. And the $50 model means people are more committed long-term making it more valuable for them. I would guess that “reduced ad load” means that they would only put premium advertisers, like the stuff you would see in glossy magazines, in front of those readers. I trust given how careful they were with rolling this out that they did the math and tried to strike a balance to please the most people.

eqvinox 2y ago
I'd say that the range of actual consumer behavior is quite wide on this. I wonder if anyone has actual public numbers from any kind of similar situation (which, yes, isn't going to be comparable anyway, but anything even remotely close would be interesting.) From my personal bubble, I know there's a bunch of people that won't even consider a subscription that still contains ads; it's antithetical to their (and my) expectations. Whether they'd subscribe to an ad-free The Verge I don't know either; personally I don't consume The Verge aside from occasionally getting sent a link or two, so I wouldn't. I will also say that, were I interested in any Amazon Prime Video show that has ads, I'd rather torrent it. (I do pay for Nebula and Dropout, so no, I'm not a "would never pay for any subscription anyway" person.)

paulcole 2y ago

> There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. I guarantee that the majority of these zealous anti-ad people will not subscribe to an ad-free service for The Verge. For the most part, their hobby is not subscribing to online publications, it’s complaining about the subscriptions at online publications that they would almost certainly never subscribe to. And yes, I understand that this doesn’t apply to the ones of people who will reply here claiming that they would never do this.

benj111 2y ago
Even if its 1% its still worth it. You already have billing set up, you already have 2 different tiers of ads. Its like saying most BMW drivers won't buy the top of the line model with all the options. They won't, doesn't mean its not worth offering it.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  This isn't really true though. Pricing is very psychological. Verge wants their price to be $7. It's $7 for the Verge. Not $16 for the Verge. $16 that appeals to 1% of people and where, when you click the pricing page, there's this weird $7 reduced-ad second class version. Believe it or not, they probably thought about this. Maybe it works for Netflix in a cycle where they were already doubling the ad-free price and differently for a text media company introducing a price.
- paulcole 2y ago
  > Even if its 1% its still worth it. You’re 100% certain of this?
nemomarx 2y ago
but people already subscribe to ad free subscriptions at places like ars Technica, nebula, what have you. clearly it can be done and balanced, so why claim it's impossible or no one would buy it anyway?
- 2y ago

PaulHoule 2y ago

I think it is not just "ads" but also the character of the ads. If the ads stay in the boundary areas of the page or well-behaved interstitials that's one thing. In fact, ads can sometimes be interesting and entertaining and most importantly can make markets more competitive bringing you a better variety goods and services. When they screw up the page, jump around, cover things up, don't have proper controls to "x" them out, use confusing dark patterns, generate fake clicks (ever think it's not an accident that some sites jiggle around so much?), need 50 trackers to be (kinda) sure parties aren't screwing each other, have 20x the bandwidth cost of the content that's something else. Also there's the content of the ads. There is a subprime tranch that includes Temu but is best represented by prerolls on YouTube that are best advertising sketchy energy drinks and supplements and worse are outright crypto scams. I can see some humor in Temu but not in the scams.