Problem with turning off AMP, it’s generally replaced with a page with even more ads, so the user suffers in that aspect.
... but we'll still have nice-looking hair :)
In my experience if a publisher chooses to make their main website a trash fire, their AMP version is too.
Nothing stopping a publisher doing their website right. Even with advertising: manage inventory first-party, don't track users off-site, base your ads on content.
To the publisher? Originally, some twisted incentive that you'd rank higher on mobile and then globally but IIRC this no longer exists and OG data is also used. AMP is a component library too now so I guess that could simplify development if they couldn't use anything else, because HTML is so hard.
To Google? A funnel away from in-house and management at larger publishers, and ideally into one of their AMP-supported models. AML is "open" now but it's still Google, innit.
There seems to be a huge gap between what ad buyers pay, and what publishers receive (one study showed The Guardian got as little at 10c for each $ spent) so publishers end up adding nore ads to try to compensate
https://advertising.theguardian.com/
They may well use backup agencies for selling unfilled slots.
Says in the worst cases they only saw 30% of the revenue
Recent studies have shown even worse results for other publishers https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/how-much-publisher-revenue-...
I don't know their business, but I suspect most of their big money ads are direct sales and they pocket the lot. It'd be interesting to break down their income by source.
And this is not a swipe. This really does need a citation. It's believable, but only just.
Do you think that journalists just work for free?
Can you please edit swipes out of your comments to HN? We're trying for a different sort of forum here, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Regardless though, the most-critical local reporting I know of is funded without advertisement or paywalls. Both newsroom and freelance journalism funding happens through grants. Funny enough, the orgs that I'm never able to get freelance work through are orgs that have paywalls and significant ads. Lots of gatekeeping when you have advertisers to appease.
The user suffer more when the content goes away.
You could even make it $100/month if you wanted.
Sounds like advertising meets that description.
It's a transaction of value - potential future customers via the service of advertising.
Instead of addressing that you introduced a third party, which works for the website as a service. Correct, but irrelevant.
Advertising is a service, it is fundamentally no different than any other service. We may find it annoying or distasteful, but it is a natural good from natural actors in a capitalist system.
You're looking at the wrong thing as capital and the wrong thing as the service.
The service is customer sourcing and the capital is literally capital.
It is a very natural capitalist creation, self-evidently so.
The platforms are acting like feudal landlords, not capitalists.
Second, the market has spoken. Some of us feel we're being exploited by having our data harvested for the transaction of advertising, but most do not.
> Some of us feel we're being exploited by having our data harvested for the transaction of advertising, but most do not.
Since FB and Google have monopolies in ppc marketing, I'm not sure how you'd reach this conclusion. The only way to opt out is to completely block them on your networks, there is no competing option.
It's both. Why would you think these are mutually exclusive?
And AMP is a downside for everyone, i think we can agree on that. Seems like content creators didnt even get any of the promised benefits out of it.
Wait, what? At the time it was introduced, it was literally the only counterbalance to the incentives of adding as many ads to your site as possible. Google has better ways of penalizing bad practices now, but that wasn't the case 7 years ago.
NPR used to do something similar for GDPR — either accept their cookies or view the site content in plain text.
(edit: probably not in line with GDPR but heyho)
Obviously, if you visit a news article and select to be redirected to plaintext, they don't redirect you to that article on the plaintext page for that article, but to the homepage, which makes it inconvenient in the hopes you won't select that option again. But once you see where to insert the article ID, it's good.