35 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

But people will just abandon the dailies for the local content of the weeklies

Local weeklies are a mere step above radio news. I commend them for uncovering some major stories but as you know, they're not able to devote as many paragraphs to a story as a daily can or cover it as often during the week.

If I hear a story that interests me further, I can find out more about it for free through a Google search.

But where do you think that news comes from? I'll give you a hint. It isn't written by volunteer Google elves.

[Mike K.]

Print publishers spend untold millions of dollars every year on printing and circulation. You'd think that as they switch to mostly digital content the savings alone would offset the decrease in advertising revenue.

And for what it's worth news agencies can charge higher rates than many other websites and they'll get them. So I don't understand this need for paywalls, particularly paywalls that cost far in excess of printed papers and paywalls that continue to display advertising along with content.

[VicHockeyFan]

Print publishers spend untold millions of dollars every year on printing and circulation. You'd think that as they switch to mostly digital content the savings alone would offset the decrease in advertising revenue.

Indeed, at one time there was a mill on the BC coast that's sole customer was the LA Times.

[bluefox]

Get rid of that shrew Margaret Wente, and lower the rate to $5-10/month, and I might think about Globe Unlimited.

Otherwise, no.

[Dimitrios]

Get rid of that shrew Margaret Wente, and lower the rate to $5-10/month, and I might think about Globe Unlimited.

Otherwise, no.

Well, I quite like Wente's articles (she touches stuff that most journalists don't - interesting, controversial items and contrarian positions), but agree that $20/month is too high. Like, with so much free content online, I'm not paying more than $120/year to read news.

[Holden West]

I'd like to support publications with subscriptions but the ones useful to me (Globe, TC, NYTimes) would begin to add up quickly.

[Mike K.]

I think a lot of people wouldn't mind paying for subscriptions if they were reasonably priced and did away with advertising.

[LJ]

OT but I like the new "your not quite finished with this thread" reminder that has just shown up.

[Holden West]

On SkyscraperPage we offer our visitors an ad-free option on the forum. Peeps appreciate that and know they still continue to help with our server costs. It's a win win. Not sure why the mainstream media can't see it that way.

I think that's a terrible way to develop a relationship with advertisers. Basically you're telling readers that your advertisers are an annoyance that can be disposed of with a small donation. Content providers and advertisers should be proud of their content and respectful of each other and the value they add to the experience.

[Bingo]

I like that we don't have in your face advertising on VV. Some advertising is necessary, but the quickest way to lose me on TV or radio is to have annoying commercials being played over and over.

[sebberry]

I always feel as if I'm being "had" when I click on ads.

[Mike K.]

I think that's a terrible way to develop a relationship with advertisers. Basically you're telling readers that your advertisers are an annoyance that can be disposed of with a small donation. Content providers and advertisers should be proud of their content and respectful of each other and the value they add to the experience.

Quite the contrary. Advertisers are dealing with growing use of ad blockers due to ad over-saturation and inconveniently placed advertisements on some websites that lead to the watering down of advertising and unintended clicks (for which they pay).

Online advertisers and advertising networks that represent them are savvy. They know that if someone doesn't want to see their ads they'll get an ad blocker if they're forced into it. They also know that if websites provide their users with an option to remove ads and pay for ad-free access, those users won't be nearly as motivated to install ad blockers and never see another ad again anywhere on the web. Further to that, if someone doesn't want to see the ads, they won't be clicking on them anyways, so the money spent showing this individual an advertisement (for which they also pay) isn't wasted if they take the ad-free route.

Online advertising is infinitely more complex than print advertising. On SSP we use very sophisticated ad delivery systems that deliver the most relevant ads to our visitors at precise times of the day, to precise jurisdictions at a precise daily frequency. These and other parameters attempt to make the advertising experience for our visitors as relevant as possible and as likely to make an impact as possible. We don't always succeed with every single visitor given the volume of visitors from around the world that we host daily, but we do the best we can and it's this that brings advertisers our way and not whether or not an ad-free option is available.

OT but I like the new "your not quite finished with this thread" reminder that has just shown up.

We realized that not all visitors were clicking through to the next page by assuming the last post on a page was the last post in the thread. Glad you like it -- Dylan figured out a way to get 'er done yesterday afternoon.

[LJ]

^Now I just have to break the habit of scrolling down to the bottom of every page to see if there is another page.

[Bingo]

Don't want to see the ads at the bottom of the page?

Set the thread display mode to LINEAR-NEWEST FIRST

[Baro]

I sometimes forget ads even exist on the internet...

[Bingo]

Don't want to see the ads at the bottom of the page?

Set the thread display mode to LINEAR-NEWEST FIRST

So much for that.