Re:You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?
by p2detar on Sunday December 26, 2021 @07:12AM
(#29691782)
I hate ads and I never understood the „watch ads to get content“ business plan. Why not just provide demo content and ask users to pay for full access? By relying on ads for revenue, you basically invite adblockers. After all, if people didn’t like them, they wouldn’t exist.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?
by cblconfederate on Sunday December 26, 2021 @08:00AM
(#29692048)
almost nobody pays for 'ad free' experience
Re:You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?
by Nextgrid on Sunday December 26, 2021 @09:12AM
(#29692477)
The problem is that the ad-free experience often costs orders of magnitude above what the ad view would earn them. Let's take newspapers for example, ad view on a single page load would maybe earn them 10c, but if I wanted to pay I'd need to subscribe to a monthly commitment of ~15£/month (for the WSJ) and still have no guarantee my data won't be used maliciously (there is no way to pay anonymously) nor whether cancelling the subscription will be easy (no idea for the WSJ but the New York Times is infamous for this).
Re:You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?
by shukantpal on Sunday December 26, 2021 @11:40AM
(#29693868)
The subscription doesn't have a limit on how many times you use the app, however. If you read 150 pages a month (~5 a day), then the math is equal.
Re:You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?
by Nextgrid on Monday December 27, 2021 @01:44PM
(#29705382)
True, but there are hundreds of news websites out there and even if there was just one you'd still have to read it 5 times a day to make the subscription worthwhile.
I don't read news near enough to make a single subscription worthwhile, and even if I did I would read multiple sources meaning I'd need multiple subscriptions - that's completely unsustainable.