dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


kpfx

join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX
reply to drew

Re: Business Plan

said by drew:

Most people hate online advertisements - whether they are pop-ups, banner ads, click-through-to-see-content, whatever.

Yes, people hate advertisements, but people also tolerate them (up to a certain degree). The advertising model has worked for television and online news sources for many years.

said by drew:

Virtually no one will pay for a subscription to an online news source. Some places have semi-paywalls, however people just look for alternative sources of the same information.

But people will pay for a subscription service if there is valuable content that you can't get elsewhere. Nobody will pay a subscription nowadays for a local newspaper that just reprints AP/Reuters articles and writes about a dozen local fluff pieces (which is what a majority of them do). However, news services such as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are profitable because they actually have some quality research and reporting going into their content.

said by drew:

Now for my question... how does everyone propose that reporters get paid? You and I don't want to pay for it. The for-profit companies aren't interested in being unprofitable...

What's the plan here? Something's gotta give, right?

There's no reason the news industry can't survive on advertising and specialty subscription models (i.e. WSJ).

Gone is the old pre-internet newspaper model where a local shop would just put together AP/Reuters articles, write a dozen local articles pulled from the daily police report, cram it with ads and push it out the door for $1.50 each.

The "news" market will not disappear. What we're simply seeing is a local/regional print market that is over-saturated with suppliers when compared with the number of advertisers the market can support. We're already past the days when every city had two or three newspapers each, the trend just needs to continue until it finds balance. That's how free market works.


drew
Radiant
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6
said by kpfx:

said by drew:

Most people hate online advertisements - whether they are pop-ups, banner ads, click-through-to-see-content, whatever.

Yes, people hate advertisements, but people also tolerate them (up to a certain degree). The advertising model has worked for television and online news sources for many years.

Television viewers have zero choice in the matter - you either watch the broadcast later after recording it and fast-forwarding through commercials OR watch it live and deal with the commercials. Captive audience!
People "tolerate" online news advertisements - but my feeling is that people are tolerating them less and less. Thus the proliferation of AdBlock et al.
said by kpfx:

said by drew:

Virtually no one will pay for a subscription to an online news source. Some places have semi-paywalls, however people just look for alternative sources of the same information.

But people will pay for a subscription service if there is valuable content that you can't get elsewhere. Nobody will pay a subscription nowadays for a local newspapers that just reprints AP/Reuters articles and writes about a dozen local fluff pieces (which is what a majority of them do). However, news services such as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are profitable because they actually have some quality research and reporting going into their content.

I know of no one that pays for an online-only subscription to any news source. This includes executive professionals and non-tech savvy folks. I'm not saying that no one does it, but I don't think it's gone that well for anyone. People will pay for the WSJ, but they're typically getting the print edition with the online as a bonus, or is that incorrect?
said by kpfx:

said by drew:

Now for my question... how does everyone propose that reporters get paid? You and I don't want to pay for it. The for-profit companies aren't interested in being unprofitable...

What's the plan here? Something's gotta give, right?

There's no reason the news industry can't survive on advertising and specialty subscription models (i.e. WSJ).

Gone is the old pre-internet newspaper model where a local shop would just put together AP/Reuters articles, write a dozen local articles pulled from the daily police report, cram it with ads and push it out the door for $1.50 each.

The "news" market will not disappear. What we're simply seeing is a local/regional print market that is over-saturated with suppliers when compared with the number of advertisers the market can support. We're already past the days when every city had two or three newspapers each, the trend just needs to continue until it finds balance. That's how free market works.

I have no issue with the "death" of local newspapers... they're almost completely useless, at least around here. However, where will the big guys find their reporting staff when their senior folks retire? People have to "cut their teeth" somewhere, right?

I still don't see forced advertisement online and/or paywalls as a viable source of profit for many news agencies.
--
flickr | 'Cause I've been waiting, all my life just waiting
For you to shine, shine your light on me

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
said by drew:

Yes, people hate advertisements, but people also tolerate them (up to a certain degree). The advertising model has worked for television and online news sources for many years.

I think the lack of QC from ad vendors really helped drive this, Adblock is now seen as not just a tool to stop those annoy rich media ads that mixed at double volume just like their TV counterparts. But it is seen as a security tool because ad vendors who are the ones that actually supply them have allowed people to push malware via ads(ie "Your computer is infected, click here to clean up now") that popup ad alone has caused many hours of tech support.

After dealing with that when I worked in tech support, after helping someone clean their PC I always directed them to Firefox and Adblock Plus.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

zefie

join:2007-07-18
Hudson, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·DSL EXTREME

1 recommendation

reply to kpfx
Online ads would be tolerable if they were still small text or gif ads, and just 1 or 2.

Some small guys still do this but unfortunately their ads get blocked when someone installs adblock to block the 3, 4, 5... 20 flash/audio/video ads all over the place on some of the major sites with no respect for the internet. They are ugly, and slow down (and sometimes crash) users' browsers. Not to mention some of them even go as far as installing viruses into users' computers (for IE users.)

The problem gets accelerated by the new caps being introduced by ISPs. People don't want 30mB audio/video ads eating their already limited monthly bandwidth allocation.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

I think the lack of QC from ad vendors really helped drive this, Adblock is now seen as not just a tool to stop those annoy rich media ads that mixed at double volume just like their TV counterparts. But it is seen as a security tool because ad vendors who are the ones that actually supply them have allowed people to push malware via ads(ie "Your computer is infected, click here to clean up now") that popup ad alone has caused many hours of tech support.

After dealing with that when I worked in tech support, after helping someone clean their PC I always directed them to Firefox and Adblock Plus.

DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!

Ad servers rarely check their ads and when it does infect a system, they turn a blind eye to it. That is the reason Ad Block is so valuable.