Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Advertising Groups Ask Apple to 'Rethink' New Cookie Tracking Standards in Safari 11
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally, I wouldn't go QUITE that far. There have been a handful of advertisements that have been memorable for me, some in a sincere reading and some others in an ironic one.
But not a single one of those was an Internet ad, certainly.
[doublepost=1505508888][/doublepost]
But that's a false dichotomy - that either stuff has to be ad supported or free.
I pay perfectly good money for lots of sites that I frequent (not *all* of them pr0n either). And as for sites that have a small audience... well, the actual costs of a web presence are dramatically lower than traditional print media, just for instance, so small audiences have a much better shot at being able to successfully fund a web presence, be it for donations or paid subscriptions.
I mean, Wikipedia is making a go of it just begging readers for money rather than plastering their site with obnoxious ads.
[doublepost=1505509135][/doublepost]
That's preferable. Give me the value proposition up front. Let's see. MacRumors is worth, oh, about a dollar a month to me. If they can make a go of it with my dollar and how ever many others they can get, they live. If they want more than a dollar, then I'll happily say goodbye.
All of this will result in a huge, huge improvement to my experience of the site(s), since they'll be beholden directly to me and my wallet rather than treating me as the product being sold to their real customers.
If there's a big problem to solve, it's that there's no way for me to pay a dollar for something on the Internet without it resulting in a net payment of more like 75¢.
There were paid sources dating back to before the internet, Compuserve and Prodigy being 2 of them. When the internet came along both services dwindled fast, because why pay X dollars when the internet would deliver it free? There were people then who pointed out that instead of being the customer, ad based internet made you the product being sold, but no one cared. FREE!! I really doubt most people would really pay for even a fraction of what it costs per person to support the sites they visit most often. If it came down to visitors paying most or all of the costs to run a site either the site will have to cut way back to try to retain viewers or hope that enough people will pay. The level of service available in ad driven sites is far above what a small or medium web publisher can afford, so the only ones left in the game with enough cash to make the site informative and flashy, at least now, would be the Amazon's and the Googles and their sponsored sites. That's how this all happened in the first place. Small (poor) websites couldn't compete with ad supported web sites, and they died.
No. You just need to click away from that site. You have that choice. I exercise that choice daily.
People here are blaming the advertisers, but they should blame or reward the web site they are viewing. Websites need money to survive. That's a fact. Most people are not going to pay for websites directly, and even if we do, its a finite number. Web content has exploded with great websites with the support of advertisers. I love the diversity I can find because of advertisers. Sure there are crappy websites that over do it, but I just don't go there. Choice.
As for tracking, me personally if I accept that ads are a fact of life, and even help (and I do) then I prefer to see targeted ads then ads that can range from feminine hygiene products to soft drinks (like free tv does).
Shrugs. I will hate to see small but good websites die as the result of people demanding to get something for free.
Actually, I'm all in favor of that.
I would totally accept a standardized equivalent of a coin slot on my web browser to make content payments. I'm not being at all sarcastic.
In fact, here's an idea: we base the entire concept of web monetization on the same concepts as music licensing via ASCAP or BMI. I pay $10/mo for a web browsing "license" call it. All of the sites I visit get a chunk of $9.50 worth of that license pro-rated on how much browsing I do at each.
This isn't a mandatory scheme - sites don't have to participate at all. But if they do, they are directly funded by their viewers (and they can offer an altered experience - or none at all - to browsers who don't participate).
Last edited:
Wait, So you want to gather EVEN MORE information about my activities?
Silly marketer
They have no other options. Eyeballs are on the web, especially mobile. Cord cutting has changed the game.
What you're talking about may use some of the same technology we are complaining about, but all you're really doing is the cutting edge equivalent of placing ads in the local paper and on flyers around town. I don't know what data you're gathering or tracking beyond simple geolocation and willingly surrendered posted references to League of Legends, or if FB is gathering it on your behalf, but there is a nuance of difference between what you're doing and what some of these websites we are complaining about are doing.
How much time on even a handful of sites do you think $10 would buy you? Sites that don't entirely rely on paywalls usually charge at least $5. For one site. Even if that is inflated, to have access to more than 3 or 4 sites would cost more than $10.
I don't like ads. I used to work, a long time ago, in a direct mail (junk mail) shop and I know people who still work in advertising. Even when I worked there, and this was pre-internet, the amount of data mining was scary. The mailing company I worked for didn't compile the mailing lists, but our customers bought the lists from dedicated companies, who would offer it sorted by sex, income location religion political affiliation schools attended where you grew up..... and this was in the 80's. So no, I don't like the loss of privacy that data mining brings. But I am also aware that most websites need every click payment they get from hosting ads. And that hosting anything more than a pretty pictures site requires people and money. How many $10 subscriptions would it take to meet a single minimum wage employee for a year? Remember, there are costs beyond the employee salary. There's unemployment, there are health and safety requirements, you need to keep records and provide a W2 form at years end. And that's ignoring health insurance and bonuses on the assumption that the company can't afford to provide those. Now make it 5 or 10 people.
A lot of sites just congregate articles from other web sites. You could do that with just yourself or a couple of people, right? But now those sites lose money if they give you the content, and you can't really afford to pay each and every site you use even $1. And how many sites are going to give cut rates to Fark or Reddit or whoever you use as an aggregate site?
NY Times basic online service is $10. This is for what they describe as 'basic'. For full access it's $17.00 (ok, 16.99). This is from an organization that has other income streams besides online services.
They can definitely target successfully without any tracking. For example, if you want to reach those who are interested about Mac stuff then you advertise on Mac site, if you want to reach rock climbers then you advertise on climbing site but if you want sell some crap that has basically nothing to do with the content you are reading then maybe it's better you don't advertise at all. Advertising revenue for sites has nothing to do with ability to track consumers. It's a way for advertisers to reach maximum customer base with minimum budget. Without tracking advertising would be tied to current content and would most likely increase the advertiser spending (more views required). Tracking is nothing more than a product and competitive edge for companies such as Google.
Show me a Tesla advertisement. One actually made by the company, and not a fan. Because I follow Tesla pretty closely and I've yet to see one.
So you didn't enter their Fan-Made Ad Contest?http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketi...ial-as-the-winner-of-its-fan-made-ad-contest/
But as a rule, I think Elon says something outrageous or announces an event and news organizations cover it as news.
That's why I said "made by the company, not a fan." I could have also said "paid by them to be published anywhere," because they've yet to have an Internet ad, TV ad, radio ad, newspaper ad, or any other sort of official paid advertisement.
They do. They do the same whenever Trump does the same. Doesn't make it an ad.
Already have everything
Ha, everything you've been saying so far is spot on. I too work in this industry and people don't understand what's already out there on them and being sold or traded.
My daughter wanted to chime in and tell me that at school today on the classroom computer, she was trying to read an article for a current events assignment she is working on. She said she had the computer set to mute, double checked the setting, and still an ad circumvented the mute and played at full volume. She had to exit the page and find another article.
I can't imagine that a content provider wants to drive away readers by allowing such obnoxious sponsorship, but apparently they do. Or they simply lose track of the abuses. I know a real estate blogger who takes reader comments about intrusive ads into account and has to police her ads to make sure they don't act obnoxiously. It has been bothersome enough that she's cut down on her posts. Somewhere in there, there's a breakdown of accountability and decency to the client, and to the client's readers.
I hope the whole house of cards, however it is constructed (as a layman I can't say for sure) collapses on whoever is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. Perhaps these ad companies banding together to speak out against Apple can form some sort of consortium to elevate their standards and practices. Clients who really care about growing their businesses would be wise to hire ad providers who are members of the consortium. I know that's sort of what I suggested earlier and was told it would not work. So how do we put obnoxiousness out of business?
I can't imagine that a content provider wants to drive away readers by allowing such obnoxious sponsorship, but apparently they do. Or they simply lose track of the abuses. I know a real estate blogger who takes reader comments about intrusive ads into account and has to police her ads to make sure they don't act obnoxiously. It has been bothersome enough that she's cut down on her posts. Somewhere in there, there's a breakdown of accountability and decency to the client, and to the client's readers.
I hope the whole house of cards, however it is constructed (as a layman I can't say for sure) collapses on whoever is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. Perhaps these ad companies banding together to speak out against Apple can form some sort of consortium to elevate their standards and practices. Clients who really care about growing their businesses would be wise to hire ad providers who are members of the consortium. I know that's sort of what I suggested earlier and was told it would not work. So how do we put obnoxiousness out of business?
You’re not taking the long view.
This is a way to make micro payments for web sites actually make sense. The NYT charges $10 because that’s how much they have to given how many people are willing to pay that much.
What if it were instead 1¢ per article? That’s easily ten times the ad revenue they get. Maybe reading a random blog post is worth a tenth of a penny. A YouTube cat video is worth a penny a minute. There’s no way to make sense out of that today, but wouldn’t it be more equitable for everyone if there was a way?
The problem with paywalls isn’t the money, it’s that the value proposition for virtually all of them is too lopsided to capture low use viewers. The value proposition is lousy unless you’re a rabid consumer.
Last edited:
Not sure I agree, and I think there would be problems implementing a click system- I have accidentally clicked links I didn't mean to, for example- but this is a logical argument. I'll have to research this.
I clicked an ad and I liked it, to paraphrase the Katy Perry lyric.
I was on 9to5 Mac just a few minutes ago reading about IPhone X and a small tastefully colored and laid out Spec Case banner ad was placed unobtrusively on the page. Imagine that, an ad relating to the content on the page, not an ad on vacuum cleaners that randomly popped up because I looked at a Miele vac on Amazon. I clicked on it because I am interested in IPhone X accessories, as my reading an article about iPhone might indicate. Duh.
It was my choice to click on the ad; I was not forced to acknowledge it in order to read obscured content.
Why oh why can't advertisers and their clients get their act together and provide a seamless painless sensible experience like that all the time?
I was on 9to5 Mac just a few minutes ago reading about IPhone X and a small tastefully colored and laid out Spec Case banner ad was placed unobtrusively on the page. Imagine that, an ad relating to the content on the page, not an ad on vacuum cleaners that randomly popped up because I looked at a Miele vac on Amazon.
I clicked on it because I am interested in IPhone X accessories, as my reading an article about iPhone might indicate. Duh. It was my choice to click on the ad; I was not forced to acknowledge it in order to read obscured content.
Why oh why can't advertisers and their clients get their act together and provide a seamless painless sensible experience like that all the time?
Pretty simple. I'd rather their monetization efforts be focused elsewhere. Tell me how much it costs for me to visit a site and I'll be happy to pay the fee. I dislike ads so much I would prefer to pay a higher fee to a website to avoid the ads than be forced to help generate Google's revenue stream.
I love how the people on here are pushing for a paid model on sites. I can only imagine they don't care much for poor people being on their internet.
I gladly pay actual money for content. The idea that ads get targeted at me without my consent, and my behavior is tracked against my will makes me very angry. This is an option that actually returns choice to the consumer that advertisers have been trying to steal away. If you want to opt in to advertising, it's still allowed. That's what choice is all about.
As for the misguided notion that targeted advertising is better than what came before, I disagree. I regularly get bombarded with ads for things I already bought for problems that are solved. This isn't about destroying advertising or ad revenue, it's about choice. I guess I'm just pro-choice.
There was an adjective in my post that you obviously missed. Try reading it again and pay attention to the word "aggressive".