|
Are we going to see "I hope you get ads!" as an online insult gain popularity?
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Do you think it is theft if you go to the bathroom or make a sandwich during a commercial break on TV? Fairgame please respond to this question, I want to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:The BBC has some of the same problems US media does: 'balance' over Truth, self-important and arrogance. They are by no means a standard of excellence when it comes to reporting. I don't disagree with that but the BBC is still much better than most other UK-based media though. God the media in the UK is such a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
The pressure of condensed poo poo at Wells Fargo hit critical mass and they were forced temporarily to pull the release valve, fired 5,300 employees for being low-level fuckers. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/ quote:The phony accounts earned the bank unwarranted fees and allowed Wells Fargo employees to boost their sales figures and make more money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:...dude, journalism has always been for-pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Most of them for me seem to be from goons. Also some Donald Trump and Johnson ads. That's the point though. Small personal ads that are (I believe) manually approved. They are also outrageously expensive compared to advertising through Google. http://adage.com/article/digital/google-q4-2015-earnings/302462/ Cost per click is way down. Revenue is up, but only because they keep expanding. Eventually there won't be any more sites and services to add Google ads to, and then it's a race to the bottom. They've staved this off for a while by ad targeting and mining every bit of personal data ever but even that train is going to derail eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Andrast posted:There are a ton examples of examples of good public broadcasting services, I just used BBC because it's well known. Acting like the only alternative to American style media is RT is idiotic. Like PBS? Andrast posted:I don't disagree with that but the BBC is still much better than most other UK-based media though. God the media in the UK is such a shitshow. I would say the same about PBS, NPR, ProPublica and other non-profit news orgs in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:The BBC is not perfect but it's better than any of the cable news channels in the stated Didn't they cover up a huge pedophile ring a few years ago
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/773990062237286400 Did the AP just catch up on this thread or something? quote:The tweet omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings. It read:
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Fairgame please respond to this question, I want to know. Nah, the commercial still airs and whatever television station airs it still gets to count an impression against the advertiser. In the case of ad block, the ad doesn't serve and the publisher gets nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:That's the point though. Small personal ads that are (I believe) manually approved. They are also outrageously expensive compared to advertising through Google. Then it sounds like it's a failed model that should go away. We can't put the genie back in the bottle on post-scarcity information. We should embrace it as a net positive for our society and work to improve on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Government license is actually the most popular tv news financial formula in most of Europe
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Nah, the commercial still airs and whatever television station airs it still gets to count an impression against the advertiser. That is not how television advertising works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Dexo posted:https://twitter.com/AP/status/773990062237286400 how long does it take to figure out you made a dumb tweet
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Then it sounds like it's a failed model that should go away. You know what makes advertising revenue go up? When people have money to spend on luxuries. FairGame posted:Nah, the commercial still airs and whatever television station airs it still gets to count an impression against the advertiser. Nobody is getting paid for impressions. Like ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:how long does it take to figure out you made a dumb tweet About the same amount of time everyone forgets that you made it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like PBS? Why are you acting like state funded media is some affront to journalism when I literally never said that it's the only option, just that it can provide good journalism? Andrast fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:SA manages to have non-intrusive ads I always see. I even read and click some of them. Because they aren't super loving annoying. Lightning Knight posted:Most of them for me seem to be from goons. Also some Donald Trump and Johnson ads. Case in point there's a banner add for a CYOA book by a goon that I clicked a minute or two ago because it looked interesting. How can I resist a $13 book called STAR BASTARDS that's an old school CYOA RPG, I loved the Lone Wolf books when I was a kid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:You know what makes advertising revenue go up? When people have money to spend on luxuries. That's fair. I mean, like I said, I'm not opposed to ads when they're not incredibly annoying. No pop ups, no videos, no sound, and keep them out of the body of the text in trying to read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
following exhaustive review, the AP has decided to change its pants after concluding that the bad smell was potentially due to having crapped them at some point in the past couple of weeks
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:how long does it take to figure out you made a dumb tweet Wow, with quality control like that who wouldn't want to subscribe for a year and uninstall their adblocker? See also The New York Times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:following exhaustive review, the AP has decided to change its pants after concluding that the bad smell was potentially due to having crapped them at some point in the past couple of weeks they flew too close to the wingnut sun and got burned
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:
That's all people get paid for. Click rate on ads is hilariously low since virtually no one clicks on them--at least not intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Then it sounds like it's a failed model that should go away. But if nobody pays it will just disappear, journalism just doesn't appear out of thin air it requires feet on the ground actually doing things and that requires money, "I don't like how you charge for this so I'm going to do everything I can to get around it because I still want it" is not a valid argument. What method of payment would you even consider?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
FairGame posted:That's all people get paid for. Click rate on ads is hilariously low since virtually no one clicks on them--at least not intentionally. Which is their own fault. If they made better ads they would get more clicks. Adblock has a function to show non-intrusive ads. If they made good, non-intrusive ads, they'd get clicks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Also, https://twitter.com/AP/status/773990680054099968
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Wow, with quality control like that who wouldn't want to subscribe for a year and uninstall their adblocker? Hey now, NYT sometimes fixes their stories the next morning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Which is their own fault. If they made better ads they would get more clicks. Adblock has a function to show non-intrusive ads. If they made good, non-intrusive ads, they'd get clicks. They probably wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Dexo posted:https://twitter.com/AP/status/773990062237286400 Haha and it's still lovely and deceptive, just in the vague way now. quote:It now will be replaced by a tweet that says:
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:But if nobody pays it will just disappear, journalism just doesn't appear out of thin air it requires feet on the ground actually doing things and that requires money, "I don't like how you charge for this so I'm going to do everything I can to get around it because I still want it" is not a valid argument. What method of payment would you even consider? I'm not opposed to government funded journalism, and I'm not opposed to well-implemented ad schemes. They have to actually come with good journalism though. If ads incentivize bad journalism, it's s bad payment model for the industry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Haha and it's still lovely and deceptive, just in the vague way now. "Many" is a very elastic word, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
FairGame posted:That's all people get paid for. Click rate on ads is hilariously low since virtually no one clicks on them--at least not intentionally. My statement was hyperbole, the revenue from impressions is minuscule. We're talking 2-3 bucks per 1000 hits. The reason for this is because nobody clicks ads. If nobody clicks your ad, they don't buy your product. If they don't buy your product why are you spending money on ads? You keep people buying your advertising service (even though nobody clicks) is by making it dirt cheap. This is exactly why you start to see pages with 10, 15, 20 ads. Without them the revenue from impressions isn't enough. The internet ad bubble is bursting and we are watching it in real time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Which is their own fault. If they made better ads they would get more clicks. Adblock has a function to show non-intrusive ads. If they made good, non-intrusive ads, they'd get clicks. I agree with your sentiment, but you're not going to get enough of a return for your money on them on clicks an overwhelming majority of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Why are you acting like state funded media is some affront to journalism when I literally never said that it's the only option, just that it can provide good journalism? Because we already have public journalism and I'm a little suspect that the Bush Adminstration's mouthpiece would have been better about WMDs than CNN. But then again, I'm glad I don't need government approval to own a TV either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Anyway, ad block is still theft. We're not going to convince one another otherwise. They can just block users that use adblockers simply enough it would seem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:"Many" is a very elastic word, isn't it? Many believe that the AP is trashing its reputation in a desperate effort to get more clicks from the Drudge/Breitbart crowd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because we already have public journalism and I'm a little suspect that the Bush Adminstration's mouthpiece would have been better about WMDs than CNN. You are being really weird about a form of media that's present pretty much every European country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:My statement was hyperbole, the revenue from impressions is minuscule. We're talking 2-3 bucks per 1000 hits. You're talking about programmatic ads. The CPM for direct-sold ads (the poo poo you'd see on NYT, WSJ, etc., is easily as high as $40. Probably higher right now because advertisers are weird as hell and blow all their budget in Q4 even though they're not advertising consumer goods. Which is staggering and stupid. Most of the sites we're talking about using ad-block on in this discussion are big sites that have a dedicated digital ad sales staff. Not places that are just set-and-forget with google adwords. You're spot on if you're talking about google adwords poo poo, though. Homeless Friend posted:They can just block users that use adblockers simply enough it would seem. Some sites are doing this, yeah. I expect more to follow suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
kaleedity posted:I agree with your sentiment, but you're not going to get enough of a return for your money on them on clicks an overwhelming majority of the time. Then it would seem the system isn't working out for them. I don't have an answer for how journalism should make money. But trying to tack technological development that make our lives better down so corporations can make more money is the answer, I'd rather they went out of business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:They can just block users that use adblockers simply enough it would seem. There isn't some magical way to tell if a user is blocking ads. It's done on your web browser, and will only work as long as the web browser allows it. That'll never go away on Chrome because it is a web browser made by an advertising company, but you can bet on it eventually happening in Firefox/Safari/IE
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:25
|
|