OAMP
Turtle Poker
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 3,793
- Reputation score
- 154
Re: In today's news...
So glad this is one of the few places with a functional multi-quote.
The ads aren't the point, though. I don't think we'd really have much argument talking about how annoying they are, the potential malware issues, etc. the point is more what Crawdaddy said.
He's talking about some other issues too, but my point is the reason ad based media is so clickbaity, REGARDLESS of ad block is they want to have as much viewership as possible to raise the prices they can sell the ads for. Yeah, they can narrow the numbers based on detecting ad-block, if they're good, but it's honestly not really in the best interests of the website to actually check, if they want to in turn scam the advertisers. Of course, it's a lot more nuanced in reality, but my point is the news isn't the product, PEOPLE are the product. If lower quality, almost patently untrue news brings in more people, than from their point of view, so be it.
Apologizes to Crawdaddy for not microtargetting my points within his post, but there's not overtly anything in it I disagree with either, so worth another post.
I actually white list places I feel need the ad revenue. Youtube is whitelisted, because I want to support my favorite LPers, for instance. Granted, youtube ad revenue for channels isn't what it used to be, but I can't possibly Patreon everyone I like, so I feel as if it's the least I can do by not using ad block there and not skipping their ads, because full watches give them more ad revenue (unless it's like a min plus ad, in which case refresh for a better one)
So glad this is one of the few places with a functional multi-quote.
Some corporations are already paying AdBlock+ for acceptable ads to be added to their filter. If adblocking becomes widespread enough, it WILL change behaviour of the advertisers. One can hope that it's in the right direction, but I'm not really too optimistic about that unless there's some SERIOUS legislative changes to force content providers/advertising firms to shape up. Making them responsible for the damages caused by any malware their ads spread, for instance.
The ads aren't the point, though. I don't think we'd really have much argument talking about how annoying they are, the potential malware issues, etc. the point is more what Crawdaddy said.
It's already happening.
The important thing to remember here is that when it comes to freely-accessible media, it's not really readers/viewers that are the true customers. Rather, it is the advertisers. Fiscally speaking, readers serve as a kind of metric that decides how much worth an ad is. It's the companies that pay for ads that keep the media fiscally stable.
Back in the old paper world it was different, of course, while there were ads there as well, there was also a lot of publications that got by mainly on subscriptions and store-sale, with the readers serving as the direct source of income.
When ad revenues become increasingly uncertain (due to several reason, partly adblocks, but also partly because fewer and fewer people actually click through ads) you gotta do other stuff.
Some try to return to a subscription-based revenue, limiting free readers to a couple of articles a day, or something like that, or have an integrated multimedia subscription that gives you apps for phones and tablets as well as the website and/or the entire online archive of the publication.
But then you have sort of the opposite direction - the erosion of the so-called "separation of between church and state". I'll let a funny guy talk about that:
You must be registered to see the links.
He's talking about some other issues too, but my point is the reason ad based media is so clickbaity, REGARDLESS of ad block is they want to have as much viewership as possible to raise the prices they can sell the ads for. Yeah, they can narrow the numbers based on detecting ad-block, if they're good, but it's honestly not really in the best interests of the website to actually check, if they want to in turn scam the advertisers. Of course, it's a lot more nuanced in reality, but my point is the news isn't the product, PEOPLE are the product. If lower quality, almost patently untrue news brings in more people, than from their point of view, so be it.
Apologizes to Crawdaddy for not microtargetting my points within his post, but there's not overtly anything in it I disagree with either, so worth another post.
Even within my limited financial means, I try to support certain organizations, among them news sites I am particularly fond of. And by god I am not a good samaritan, I think it's a necessity. I don't lecture people though. In fact I believe more people would actively support good journalism if they recognized it as such. Alas, for various reasons, among them the necessity to look for new models for creating revenue and more importantly the steady concentration of publishing houses, quality has been on the decline.
Some of these changes I believe to believe politically motivated, but not all of them. Still there are lots of independent news sites out there for example that try to do their own research, meticulously provide sources after assertions are made and thereby achieve things some people better-off claim not to be able to because of a lack of funding.
I might be expecting too much, but you can't possibly expect people to deliberately pay for products of journalists that regard themselves as teachers foremost, rather than mediators of information.
Also my personal opinion of ad-blockers is rather radical. It should be everybody's right to use them. Trying to ban them or restrict them is like forcing people to let in door-to-door salesmen, especially if you take into account linked ads actively executing code on your machine without your knowledge (javascript), or the websites themselves connecting you not only to necessary content delivery networks, but tracking sites etc.
Trying to be as strict as possible about what goes in and goes out is just common sense.
I actually white list places I feel need the ad revenue. Youtube is whitelisted, because I want to support my favorite LPers, for instance. Granted, youtube ad revenue for channels isn't what it used to be, but I can't possibly Patreon everyone I like, so I feel as if it's the least I can do by not using ad block there and not skipping their ads, because full watches give them more ad revenue (unless it's like a min plus ad, in which case refresh for a better one)