Google's effort to get ad-avoidant site visitors to pay flounders

Re:Google's effort to get ad-avoidant site visitors to pay f... by jfoster on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @01:51PM (#10583140)

It seems structured to fail. Anyone annoyed enough by ads isn't going to pay for 50% less ads when they could have 100% less ads for free with an ad blocker.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's effort to get ad-avoidant site visitors to pay f... by long on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @02:08PM (#10583266)

I do. I actually pay for ~30% fewer ads ($5/month on Contributor) whereas I could easily just use uBlock.

There are few reasons I do this: (1) uBlock is overzealous -- it breaks some websites and I'm not interested enough to tweak it to not break them. (2) Sites I like (e.g., boingboing, The Sweethome) don't get any money when I use uBlock, but they do if I use Contributor

I recognize that I'm a weird Silicon Valley type but I'm hopeful that we aren't too rare. There are dozens of us. Dozens!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's effort to get ad-avoidant site visitors to pay f... by benologist on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @01:55PM (#10583162)

Plus you forfeit up-to-substantial speed advantages when you are bidding on the ad space yourself.

[ Parent | on HN ]