Hacker News Reader

Comment by Osmose | Hacker News Reader

I've always heard people suggesting that one should disable Adblock on sites that you like to support them. But I'd think most people who can will still block ads (I do; they're distracting). Trying to support the site by disabling ads seems to just encourage the site to continue using what will eventually be an ineffective way of making money.

Couldn't you make the argument that by disabling ads you're "voting with your wallet" and forcing them to find a more sustainable source of income?

View on HN

I work in publishing for a niche trade title and I hear this a lot. In fact, I loathe ads too. In the days of print, trade titles had a limited circulation. It was easier for them to get advertisers because the title was guaranteed to hit the desk of the CEO or CIO, which was the target for that particular advertiser. Now it's all about traffic and the competition online is far more intense. Sadly AdBlock will not revolutionise the entire publishing industry. Instead it will hurt it. It is only going to put more pressure on sales guys to hit their targets which means more ads at vastly reduced prices. It will also cause online publishers to close, and put people out of work. The rest will resort to sensationalist journalism tactics and those terrible list type stories: "10 best diets for a flat tummy". It's either that or a paywall system like Murdoch is putting in place. What is a 'more sustainable source of income' for online publishing?

I regularly read (quality) content online and think "I'd tip for that". But there's no way of doing it. I could click the adverts, but I don't want to deal with lots of popups and I have no interesting in buying whatever they're advertising.

I agree in that I'd like to be able to tip people for good articles (I've started donating now that I have more income).

But I don't think good will is a sustainable source of income, or at least not one that will work in the general case.

PBS?

When the journalism is good enough, people want to make sure it survives.

That would be an interesting addition to Facebook's like button. The site gets a dime and you get the option of having your generosity show up on your online social record. People often like having their generosity very visible to others.

Interestingly, Facebook are the ones who have the technology and critical mass to make micro-payments available. But I bet they wouldn't let you pay for stuff you like in private without announcing it to the world.

I really, really think that the answer is the ability to do micropayments (if not sub-cent, at least sub-dollar without losing most of it). Which basically means it's our current bank's / credit card's systems which are preventing such a change, because they charge so much per transaction. I've seen a few attempts, but they seem to be failing due to not reaching critical mass (probably because they're not advertising worth a damn).

AdBlock makes that site look so much better. In fact, their ad blocked layout is part of why I liked it -- now that I see what they meant it to look like, I'm less than impressed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com