4 ms·

How Much Ads Cost

19 points by peter123 18y ago

mooism2 18y ago
Average US household viewed $87.71 of display advertising last year --- less than $10 a month. How many people would pay that much to opt out of viewing display ads? (68,566 page views per online household * 52% of page views sold * $0.00246 (CPM/1000))
- Ardit20 18y ago
  Is that not sort of cheating though? I mean sure you would be providing a service, i.e blocking all ads on the internet, but sure you are earning on the back of the people who are producing quality content and thanks to you they now make much less from it, which in turn would reduce the quality content and your profit and the producers profit. Maybe each site could charge people what they earn from advertising in a manner of subscription, but why shut down knowledge when the profits remain the same? I mean are people still really so bothered by advertising on websites which have taken care not to make their adverts intrusive? I just read an article on new york times and am sure they have ads there, but I didn't notice them, they didn't bother me, but I hate reading stuff on the economist, that site is over saturated with ads.
  - mooism2 18y ago
    If people are willing to pay more not to see ads than publishers receive for showing them ads, then it should be feasible for people to pay not to see ads and for publishers still to get paid. And people who would rather see ads can continue to see ads. I don't see that this is cheating or unethical in any way.
    - Ardit20 18y ago
      yes, that is if the publisher himself charges the visitor, in which case I said that if this is done on a subscription basis to the exclusion of those who do not subscribe then this would be shutting down knowledge unnecessarily as the profits would be the same. If however it is on voluntary basis as some forums do, namely if you wish to subscribe you do not see any adverts, but you may continue to access the content with adverts if you do not wish to subscribe that is perfectly fair. However my objection was in relation to ad blocking software which is what I thought the analysis of the op were for.
      - mooism2 18y ago
        I'm thinking in terms of a middleman who can aggregate * people (and maybe their ISPs) who will pay to avoid adverts; and * publishers and ad networks which show paid advertising Having to separately opt-out of seeing adverts on every ad-supported site is too much hassle and the financial overheads would be prohibitive. It needs to be aggregated. The technical side could be implemented using ad blocking software (with block lists provided by the publishers), but the publishers would be fairly compensated.
eli 18y ago
This article is silly. There is a HUGE difference (several orders of magnitude) in CPM between slapping up some Google ads on your blog about puppies, and hiring a sales team to sell ads into your niche site full of highly qualified people who advertisers want to reach.
- dejb 18y ago
  I found it useful. Better to get another few data points than nothing. They even mentioned themselves that the rates were quite variable.

19 points by peter123 18y ago

Average US household viewed $87.71 of display advertising last year --- less than $10 a month. How many people would pay that much to opt out of viewing display ads? (68,566 page views per online household * 52% of page views sold * $0.00246 (CPM/1000))

Ardit20 18y ago
Is that not sort of cheating though? I mean sure you would be providing a service, i.e blocking all ads on the internet, but sure you are earning on the back of the people who are producing quality content and thanks to you they now make much less from it, which in turn would reduce the quality content and your profit and the producers profit. Maybe each site could charge people what they earn from advertising in a manner of subscription, but why shut down knowledge when the profits remain the same? I mean are people still really so bothered by advertising on websites which have taken care not to make their adverts intrusive? I just read an article on new york times and am sure they have ads there, but I didn't notice them, they didn't bother me, but I hate reading stuff on the economist, that site is over saturated with ads.
- mooism2 18y ago
  If people are willing to pay more not to see ads than publishers receive for showing them ads, then it should be feasible for people to pay not to see ads and for publishers still to get paid. And people who would rather see ads can continue to see ads. I don't see that this is cheating or unethical in any way.
  - Ardit20 18y ago
    yes, that is if the publisher himself charges the visitor, in which case I said that if this is done on a subscription basis to the exclusion of those who do not subscribe then this would be shutting down knowledge unnecessarily as the profits would be the same. If however it is on voluntary basis as some forums do, namely if you wish to subscribe you do not see any adverts, but you may continue to access the content with adverts if you do not wish to subscribe that is perfectly fair. However my objection was in relation to ad blocking software which is what I thought the analysis of the op were for.
    - mooism2 18y ago
      I'm thinking in terms of a middleman who can aggregate * people (and maybe their ISPs) who will pay to avoid adverts; and * publishers and ad networks which show paid advertising Having to separately opt-out of seeing adverts on every ad-supported site is too much hassle and the financial overheads would be prohibitive. It needs to be aggregated. The technical side could be implemented using ad blocking software (with block lists provided by the publishers), but the publishers would be fairly compensated.

eli 18y ago

This article is silly. There is a HUGE difference (several orders of magnitude) in CPM between slapping up some Google ads on your blog about puppies, and hiring a sales team to sell ads into your niche site full of highly qualified people who advertisers want to reach.

dejb 18y ago
I found it useful. Better to get another few data points than nothing. They even mentioned themselves that the rates were quite variable.