"...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, the exact same people advertisers look to target. The more buying power you demonstrate, the more advertisers will target you. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. With the way the world currently works, selling ads, it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content."
This is a really interesting point. And to be honest, I don't even really mind that I'm being shown ads after purchasing a subscription. The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste.
When I was searching for a way to disable the video ads, somebody made the point that the New York Times' business model has involved showing ads to subscribers for longer than I've been alive. The difference is, those ads didn't move around the page and start screaming at you.
Like most things, there's a sensible middle ground here. Show people with buying power ads, but don't drive those people away with your desperation.
As a consequence, the ad-driven web is much more open and inclusive. The marginal cost of serving another page view to a Pakistani reader is zero, while a $10 subscription is a massive expense for someone who might earn just $100 a month. So if the content can be monetized by selling western eyeballs, the ad driven web works as a massive cultural redistribution to societies that can't really afford to develop similar resources in either subscription or ad-supported models.
I tend to think of it from the other side. What advertiser wants to hear the pitch of, "you can reach the segment of our audience who is too cheap or disengaged to pay for our content"
True. The more you're willing and able to pay to avoid advertising, the more you'll have to.
This does, of course, have the effect of keeping me from feeling the least bit guilty for 'pirating' their content by reading it in private-browsing mode without paying for it.
I think that the Patreon model is pretty good for this sort of stuff, though obviously it doesn't quite work for organizations which are not likable or decent enough that people will just give them money to give away their work.
NYT is still desperate to gets ad revenue because they've chosen a subscription model that doesn't work. The same subscription model that doesn't work for a gazillion other newspapers and magazines online, precisely because it's a gazillion-subscription model. Most people are information omnivores. Few want to pay $X/month to the New York Times and $X/month to the Washington Post and $X/month to the Wall Street Journal and $X/month to each of a dozen other publications, just to read an average of less than one article per month on each of them. It's not just the expense, it's also the hassle of having to create logins and remember passwords for all of them, plus the security risk of having to trust every one of their IT departments not to leak your info.
I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-publication price to have a single subscription that would work across all of them, with articles on any counting against my monthly quota. I suspect I'm far from alone, but because nobody's making that offer we all continue to use ad blockers and workarounds, while the publishers continue to be desperate. That's why they keep getting in our faces like this, and also why their product is cruddier than it used to be. If we want a strong press, we need a better subscription model.
You've just described Google Contributor [1], "An ad-removal pass for the web". You load your account up with credit, and for each article on a participating website that you view, they'll deduct an amount from your credit. You can choose which websites you want to use your credit on, and which ones you want to see ads.
However, from my experience as a beta tester, no websites are signing up to participate. There were some large newspapers in Australia that signed up, but it seems they've since left the program. I guess that means those newspapers are earning much more than 4c/pageview in advertising revenue from the kind of people who would be prepared to pay to join such a program.
I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-
publication price to have a single subscription that
would work across all of them
Perhaps you'd like to try https://blendle.com ? Although it's in beta in the US, I got an invite to join the beta within minutes of expressing an interest.
Admittedly it doesn't cover every publication, but you can't expect them to when it's not even out of beta yet.
I’m a subscriber, and like a print newspaper I’m fine with ads. Yet the online version of NYT was a large inspiration for propping a PiHole. Why? Because unlike print, the ads are blinky and distracting. And because ad blockers don’t help in the NYT iOS app. So now I, a high-income subscriber, don’t see your ads anymore, NYT. You pushed me too far, NYT, and the only one that suffers is you, because my experience just improved.
Adguard works, too. I’ve been using it a while but eventually would like to try a PiHole. Do you find yourself having to adjust the settings often, or does it work fairly well?
Contrast with the very small world of cash flow positive paid subscription sites like The Information.
2.8 million views for each and every of The Information’s 730 yearly articles based on $1.90 average CPM to break even on revenue with paid subscriptions.
> The subscription model is easier with The Information because of the focus. People know what they’re getting. If you’re The New York Times, not everyone is interested in everything you do. You’re just
counting on people who like your
brand.”
> Assuming the site makes at least 4 million from 730 stories a year, according to some back-of-the-napkin math, the site generates about $5,500 per article published. To earn that same amount from general display advertising —
which advisory firm Peter J. Solomon Company pegs at an average CPM of $1.90 — each and every article The Information
publishes would need to attract more than 2.8 million ad impressions.
What is the value proposition for the user to use the app over the website? I tend to avoid content apps because they seem to offer the company more value then the consumer. Web browser works just fine and I can more easily determine what the publisher is up to.
I like NYT’s articles, but have been hesitant to actually subscribe due to issues like this, and other stories where they make it hard to unsubscribe, require you call them etc.
Subscribe through iTunes or (I think) Amazon. I know on iTunes it’s a flip of a switch to unsubscribe. And then run some form of PiHole to turn off the adds.
The Economists had the same bullshit (plus it was an international call, only in a limited hours), so I sent them a very angry (and I admit abusive, which I am not proud of, even if what they were doing were basically fraud) email. Wof now I am unsubscribed, no call necessary.
There are publications that work this way, you don't see ads if you pay. I don't think there is any "magical thinking" in it. It's a common enough selling point for subscriptions that people expect it.
> There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers.
AKA, the Apple Myth. Just because you overpay for apple products, people think they are immune from data collection. Apple probably collects more data on a per capita basis than google or facebook.
The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay.
If you don’t like the content, don’t view it.
I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk...
I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content.
And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me.
What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that.
---
But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites.
If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support.
You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant.
You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
Not only video ads. They also show regular ads to paid subscribers. If you have an ad blocker they detect it and show a request to disable it! I was pissed off because I am paid subscriber (for many years). So, I emailed them about that and they responded that their business model is based on both ad and subscription revenue.
Disabling JavaScript on the NYT website completely bypasses the paywall and has few ill effects except preventing images to load (which is an acceptable trade-off).
Thanks for the heads up! I was literally just thinking I miss the sunday times and was going to get the sunday paper delivered and use the online subscription throughout the week.
It is sad to me that advertising has turned every browser technology available into something annoying. This has been going long since the introduction of the blink tag.
Just install an ad blocker and be merry. If this particular nastiness isn’t caught by one of the major ad blockers, simply plug the device into Charles Proxy and capture the ad requests being made, and submit an enhancement to the ad block list.
Ezpz.
Public indignation accomplishes nothing. Direct action leads to results.
You're just getting downvoted because of your phrasing. You sound like this isn't a problem because people can use adBlock. I think most people who downvote actually agree that his is an efficient counter measure.
The ads often crash the app on my tablet and occasionally my phone too. I've taken to refreshing the content and then switching to airplane mode to cut off network connectivity. You don't get images but you can read all the text as articles are downloaded to your device.
[+] [-] hliyan|7 years ago|reply
"...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, the exact same people advertisers look to target. The more buying power you demonstrate, the more advertisers will target you. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. With the way the world currently works, selling ads, it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content."
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803
[+] [-] jamesknelson|7 years ago|reply
When I was searching for a way to disable the video ads, somebody made the point that the New York Times' business model has involved showing ads to subscribers for longer than I've been alive. The difference is, those ads didn't move around the page and start screaming at you.
Like most things, there's a sensible middle ground here. Show people with buying power ads, but don't drive those people away with your desperation.
[+] [-] yholio|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CamperBob2|7 years ago|reply
This does, of course, have the effect of keeping me from feeling the least bit guilty for 'pirating' their content by reading it in private-browsing mode without paying for it.
[+] [-] tjoff|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notacoward|7 years ago|reply
I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-publication price to have a single subscription that would work across all of them, with articles on any counting against my monthly quota. I suspect I'm far from alone, but because nobody's making that offer we all continue to use ad blockers and workarounds, while the publishers continue to be desperate. That's why they keep getting in our faces like this, and also why their product is cruddier than it used to be. If we want a strong press, we need a better subscription model.
[+] [-] SyneRyder|7 years ago|reply
You've just described Google Contributor [1], "An ad-removal pass for the web". You load your account up with credit, and for each article on a participating website that you view, they'll deduct an amount from your credit. You can choose which websites you want to use your credit on, and which ones you want to see ads.
However, from my experience as a beta tester, no websites are signing up to participate. There were some large newspapers in Australia that signed up, but it seems they've since left the program. I guess that means those newspapers are earning much more than 4c/pageview in advertising revenue from the kind of people who would be prepared to pay to join such a program.
[1] https://contributor.google.com/v/beta
[+] [-] michaelt|7 years ago|reply
Admittedly it doesn't cover every publication, but you can't expect them to when it's not even out of beta yet.
[+] [-] donohoe|7 years ago|reply
Likewise the subscription model for The New Yorker works and many other publications.
It dorsn’t work for all, but that doesn’t means it’s ineffective.
[+] [-] mikestew|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deftturtle|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wallflower|7 years ago|reply
2.8 million views for each and every of The Information’s 730 yearly articles based on $1.90 average CPM to break even on revenue with paid subscriptions.
> The subscription model is easier with The Information because of the focus. People know what they’re getting. If you’re The New York Times, not everyone is interested in everything you do. You’re just counting on people who like your brand.”
> Assuming the site makes at least 4 million from 730 stories a year, according to some back-of-the-napkin math, the site generates about $5,500 per article published. To earn that same amount from general display advertising — which advisory firm Peter J. Solomon Company pegs at an average CPM of $1.90 — each and every article The Information publishes would need to attract more than 2.8 million ad impressions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500
[+] [-] butterfi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xae342|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikestew|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2048|7 years ago|reply
This is not, and never has been true.
[+] [-] tensor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liftbigweights|7 years ago|reply
AKA, the Apple Myth. Just because you overpay for apple products, people think they are immune from data collection. Apple probably collects more data on a per capita basis than google or facebook.
[+] [-] BoorishBears|7 years ago|reply
The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay.
If you don’t like the content, don’t view it.
I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk...
I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content.
And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me.
What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that.
---
But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites.
If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support.
You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant.
You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
[+] [-] vzaliva|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thibautg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinph|7 years ago|reply
https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/
Depends on the implementation of the ads and the network they're coming from. This presently only works in Safari and Firefox nightlies.
[+] [-] bambax|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonestamp2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Crontab|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AzzieElbab|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] village-idiot|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pacifika|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yummybear|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigfubar|7 years ago|reply
Ezpz.
Public indignation accomplishes nothing. Direct action leads to results.
[+] [-] blackbrokkoli|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevula|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nottestuser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|7 years ago|reply