Hacker News Reader

Comment by reedlaw | Hacker News Reader

Why not encourage people to pay for services they use and enjoy? The ad-supported services have mixed motives at best and tend to compromise on privacy when it affects their bottom-line.

Also, there are other reasons for blocking ads besides simple annoyance. They tend to be hosted by 3rd party domains that can track browsing history across sites.

View on HN

Micro-payments are a bad idea because making decisions costs mental energy, and the energy cost declines more slowly than the amount, so if you have to decide to pay a couple of cents to read an article, you end up spending more than a couple of cents worth of mental energy making the decision. It's a dead loss. Advertising is a better business model all around.

The mental energy needed to suffer ads is far from zero for many people.

However, Micropayments are not the only alternative to Advertising, subscriptions are another choice which only need to be done once rather than repeatedly.

I'd like to see more site offer an ad-free subscription, in the way that Ars Technica or reddit do, to allow for an alternative to using ads to support content I'm interested in.

Patreon has an interesting model for creative content and one which I think will work for content producers who already have a good fan base.

I like what Blendle is trying when it comes to micropayments and newspaper articles. I've heard quite a few people talk about how they'd use it, and it's only just open to the public.

The most fascinating thing about Blendle to me is that most mainstream papers seem to be giving it a try. It not just niche publications.

I agree with you that micro-payments doesn't work.

I disagree that advertising is the only alternative.

I would like an opt-in "subscription service". I pay x$ per month and a program automatically divides that and donates to the various sites that I've used. There would also be some way to customize it to make sure that certain sites gets more money, and others less. In turn, maybe the websites register my donations via cookies and then cools down on the ads.

I think Flattr is probably what you're describing (https://flattr.com/)

Description:

Whenever you read, watch and listen to content you want to support, you simply flattr it. Remember that you can flattr as many times you want during a month, as you never will exceed your chosen budget.

At the end of each month, we divide your budget into as many pieces as you made flattrs. For example 25 flattrs will divide your budget into 25 pieces. With a 10 euro budget, each piece is 40 cents.

You know that moment when internally you're smacking your forehead and making an O shape with your mouth. Now how come I didn't think of that idea? So simple. I hope it takes off.

I _hate_ ads, I hate them online, I hate them offline. I think they're a form of pollution. I'm with Bill Hicks on this one, people who work in advertising or marketing trying to figure out how to get people to buy crap they don't want need to take a serious look at themselves ( except Bill was a bit more blunt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo )

I often wonder if maybe some city somewhere will issue a blanket ban on advertising in public spaces to enhance the city-scape and draw in tourists. I know I'd visit. How wonderful to be able to look around and not have some corporation hijack your view and try to sell you something.

Your wish is Sao Paulo's command. Removed adverts in 2006, seems to be still going in 2013. I wish London would do this...

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-...

No way! They need to advertise more to get the word out that they did this :) Thanks zimpenfish.

Just watched Hicks. I think the problem with ads is the process is corrupted rather than that it exists at all. You have a great business with great service but no one knows about it, it makes things better to let people know. The trouble is the ad space goes to those who pay most who tend to be those who overcharge for crappy stuff. Not sure what the solution to that is.

I am pleased to see this as I had been tossing around a similar idea as a first-line alternative method of moderation, where commentary/open collaboration would be restricted to those with skin in the game, so to speak, and more or less without concern for the degree of skin in play.

As far as distribution, is it correct that enrolled partners who host/integrate see a flat 5 percent, the flattr service gets 5, and "creators" see the remainder of 90 percent from a things share of committed flattrs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com