5 ms·

This kills me, and you're right - there's no escaping the ads even with a sub. Take online journalism as an example. We're already being double-billed. Expen

This kills me, and you're right - there's no escaping the ads even with a sub. Take online journalism as an example. We're already being double-billed. Expensive subscription news like WSJ, Bloomberg and it's been a while but even FT require ad blockers even if you're subscribed.. If you're not subscribed you don't even see the ads because you can't see the full article. It's wild that we've normalized this. There's no longer any argument in favor of an ad model when you're paying 20-30 dollars a month already - in this case, one wonders how journalism survives if they need that AND the ad revenue to pay the bills! It feels more like greed than "support."

smikhanov 9mo ago
To be honest, in the pre-internet era, paid paper copy of FT had ads too. The delivery mechanisms for ads in the internet era are trillion times nastier and more annoying, of course. By the standards of today’s web, the print ad for Cartier on the second page of paper FT looks almost classy, interesting to read.
- malfist 9mo ago
  But there's a big difference. The paper copy didn't harvest data from you, didn't infect you, didn't spy on you or steal resources from your computer or internet bandwidth. All the advertiser knew about you was you were a subscriber to FT, and maybe what the _average_ demographic of an FT subscriber was. Nothing about you personally.
  - parineum 9mo ago
    The paper copy did do that, just not as individualized. People would choose which publications to put their ads in based on data collected about their subscribers. The job of ad men has always been just as much about were to put the ad as much as what the ad was.
    - Dylan16807 9mo ago
      "just not as individualized" is an enormous "just". Each ad is based on the total audience for a single publication. No fine-grained filtering, no personal dossiers. And none of the rest of that list of bad things happens.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
fsflover 9mo ago
Perhaps the actual solution is to ban ads through regulation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
- npongratz 9mo ago
  Regulation is theater, effectively, thanks to regulatory capture.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    For now, it is, yes; but we must both plan for a future when that might not be the case, and advocate for effective regulations regardless.
  - malfist 9mo ago
    This is a false argument. Regulations are effective. When was the last time you breathed in second hand smoke while eating dinner? Or inhaled lead from a passing car? Or asbestos from your neighbor's new house? Defeatism will always be defeated
- prmoustache 9mo ago
  I am all for it but it would be hard to enforce. Ads are already hidden everywhere. Someone "review" a product? Most of the time it is a hidden ad even if the reviewer hasn't been paid with money for that. Watches a movie or a video clip? A lots of products are advertised through close ups on the logos, etc.
  - fsflover 9mo ago
    If there is a payment, there is a good chance to track it.
    - prmoustache 9mo ago
      Youtubers happily do "reviews" in exchange of receiving stuff, regardless if they can keep it or not. They also know that if they are too critical they may not receive anything more and they don't have any material to review. This was already true on paper magazines. No money is exchanged in the process.
plagiarist 9mo ago
I don't pay for any content that has ads in it, full stop. I decided this a while ago when I noticed how many full page ads were in magazines. I would cancel a subscription over this.
- browningstreet 9mo ago
  I pay a handsome subscription sum for The Wire music magazine. The ads are an important resource in a niche marketplace.
  - sandspar 9mo ago
    Somewhat similar but I love my niche Instagram ads. Meta serves me endless ads for diecast miniatures, art toys, obscure manga etc. Stuff that I love and would never have found otherwise.
    - abustamam 9mo ago
      Yeah same here. Google ads are almost always worthless, but IG ads seem to know my tastes exactly, and I hardly actually use Instagram (just log in to message people and watch some friends' stories a few times a week). I'm not sure how Google dropped the ball here, because I've been an active user of Google products forever.
phyzix5761 9mo ago
I was shocked to find out tonight that WSJ's net profit margin was just 3.2% in 2024. I would have thought it was a lot more. Also, surprisingly Walmart's net profit margin is only 2.85% for 2025. You would think these huge companies are making huge profits.
- bee_rider 9mo ago
  Maybe the big players can get by with a smaller percentage of a huge number. I’d also expect the competition in the “big leagues” to be more aggressive, resulting in leaner margins. Also these are huge companies. Small companies might find a niche that is small in absolute terms, but large relative to the company. That niche might be underserved, allowing the small company to make large percentage based margins.
- andyferris 9mo ago
  I thought Walmart was well known as an early innovator in precise-but-low-margin business operations?
matheusmoreira 9mo ago
> There's no longer any argument in favor of an ad model when you're paying 20-30 dollars a month already Sure there is. CEO needs a new yacht. He can't afford to leave money on the table. All those subscribers? They must have a lot of disposable income if they can afford to blow it on "journalism". It would be stupid not to advertise to them.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
utopiah 9mo ago
> Take online journalism as an example. Depends entirely the kind of journalism you are referring to and the kind of business model they want. I can't imagine 404 Media adding ads to their premium feed.
vanviegen 9mo ago
Doing actual journalism is expensive and not many people are still willing to pay to read the news. These companies are definitely not printing money. That's why billionaires can buy them on the cheap. Not for the expected profit, but for the influence it brings them. If you can, please support serious journalism with your subscription dollars!

smikhanov 9mo ago

To be honest, in the pre-internet era, paid paper copy of FT had ads too. The delivery mechanisms for ads in the internet era are trillion times nastier and more annoying, of course. By the standards of today’s web, the print ad for Cartier on the second page of paper FT looks almost classy, interesting to read.

malfist 9mo ago
But there's a big difference. The paper copy didn't harvest data from you, didn't infect you, didn't spy on you or steal resources from your computer or internet bandwidth. All the advertiser knew about you was you were a subscriber to FT, and maybe what the _average_ demographic of an FT subscriber was. Nothing about you personally.
- parineum 9mo ago
  The paper copy did do that, just not as individualized. People would choose which publications to put their ads in based on data collected about their subscribers. The job of ad men has always been just as much about were to put the ad as much as what the ad was.
  - Dylan16807 9mo ago
    "just not as individualized" is an enormous "just". Each ad is based on the total audience for a single publication. No fine-grained filtering, no personal dossiers. And none of the rest of that list of bad things happens.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

fsflover 9mo ago

Perhaps the actual solution is to ban ads through regulation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

npongratz 9mo ago
Regulation is theater, effectively, thanks to regulatory capture.
- danaris 9mo ago
  For now, it is, yes; but we must both plan for a future when that might not be the case, and advocate for effective regulations regardless.
- malfist 9mo ago
  This is a false argument. Regulations are effective. When was the last time you breathed in second hand smoke while eating dinner? Or inhaled lead from a passing car? Or asbestos from your neighbor's new house? Defeatism will always be defeated
prmoustache 9mo ago
I am all for it but it would be hard to enforce. Ads are already hidden everywhere. Someone "review" a product? Most of the time it is a hidden ad even if the reviewer hasn't been paid with money for that. Watches a movie or a video clip? A lots of products are advertised through close ups on the logos, etc.
- fsflover 9mo ago
  If there is a payment, there is a good chance to track it.
  - prmoustache 9mo ago
    Youtubers happily do "reviews" in exchange of receiving stuff, regardless if they can keep it or not. They also know that if they are too critical they may not receive anything more and they don't have any material to review. This was already true on paper magazines. No money is exchanged in the process.

plagiarist 9mo ago

I don't pay for any content that has ads in it, full stop. I decided this a while ago when I noticed how many full page ads were in magazines. I would cancel a subscription over this.

browningstreet 9mo ago
I pay a handsome subscription sum for The Wire music magazine. The ads are an important resource in a niche marketplace.
- sandspar 9mo ago
  Somewhat similar but I love my niche Instagram ads. Meta serves me endless ads for diecast miniatures, art toys, obscure manga etc. Stuff that I love and would never have found otherwise.
  - abustamam 9mo ago
    Yeah same here. Google ads are almost always worthless, but IG ads seem to know my tastes exactly, and I hardly actually use Instagram (just log in to message people and watch some friends' stories a few times a week). I'm not sure how Google dropped the ball here, because I've been an active user of Google products forever.

phyzix5761 9mo ago

I was shocked to find out tonight that WSJ's net profit margin was just 3.2% in 2024. I would have thought it was a lot more. Also, surprisingly Walmart's net profit margin is only 2.85% for 2025. You would think these huge companies are making huge profits.

bee_rider 9mo ago
Maybe the big players can get by with a smaller percentage of a huge number. I’d also expect the competition in the “big leagues” to be more aggressive, resulting in leaner margins. Also these are huge companies. Small companies might find a niche that is small in absolute terms, but large relative to the company. That niche might be underserved, allowing the small company to make large percentage based margins.
andyferris 9mo ago
I thought Walmart was well known as an early innovator in precise-but-low-margin business operations?

matheusmoreira 9mo ago

> There's no longer any argument in favor of an ad model when you're paying 20-30 dollars a month already Sure there is. CEO needs a new yacht. He can't afford to leave money on the table. All those subscribers? They must have a lot of disposable income if they can afford to blow it on "journalism". It would be stupid not to advertise to them.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

utopiah 9mo ago

> Take online journalism as an example. Depends entirely the kind of journalism you are referring to and the kind of business model they want. I can't imagine 404 Media adding ads to their premium feed.

vanviegen 9mo ago

Doing actual journalism is expensive and not many people are still willing to pay to read the news. These companies are definitely not printing money. That's why billionaires can buy them on the cheap. Not for the expected profit, but for the influence it brings them. If you can, please support serious journalism with your subscription dollars!