StickPage Spring Animation Competition - For Glory: eSports - $5,000 in prizes, 15 placements, $1,500 first prize!
BEGINNER'S StickPage Spring Animation Competition - Unconventional Weapons - $1,000 in prizes!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Paying to see less ads.

  1. #1
    StickPage Cave Goblin Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,355

    Paying to see less ads.

    So check this out: https://contributor.google.com/

    This is an interesting experiment Google is doing that lets you pay a monthly amount in order to have less ads shown to you. It works on any device as long as it's linked to your Google account and obviously only works with Google ads. What do you think of something like this? The production and consumption of content on the internet is always in a weird state where the producers are always trying to find a way to get money out of their content and consumers are always trying to find a way to get that content for free. Where is the happy medium for you? Is this something you would be interested in?

    Personally I think the idea is sound but the execution leaves much to be desired. It seems like Google is just testing the waters with this, just to see what people would pay. I would not pay $10 per month to see "25-50%" less ads, which seems vague to me. If I'm going to pay to reduce ads I want that reduction to be 100% or I wont go for it, given it takes me 2 minutes to install an extension that blocks all of that for free. How much "no ads at all" is worth I guess varies, I wouldn't pay too much to Google because they're not the only ad service.

    I believe authors deserve compensation for their work, so I like the idea of being able to give money to those I think deserve it. I would much rather have a per-site system where I can pay a set amount per month to support that site and not see ads. Patreon already accomplishes this in a lot of ways. Sleepy Cabin just ditched all ads on their site because their Patreon is doing well, this allows them to have unrestricted creative freedom and I think is a huge benefit for them in the long run. They don't have to worry about pleasing advertisers so they don't have to censor themselves. The system Google is trying to introduce seems like it has good intentions but I don't think it's enough. It may be reasonable from their perspective and maybe they're targeting a different demographic with this, but to me it just seems like a pointless fight against adblockers - most of whom are blocking ads for valid reasons and would prefer if it didn't affect profits for sites they care about.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,335
    Aw, darn you removed the Physics button under your name.

    I like this idea. Sort of. Like you said, it's kind of vague.

  3. #3
    🕷 🕸 🕷 🕸 🕷 Drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Moetropolis
    Posts
    11,650
    Tbh the only thing this would be really usefull for would be like Youtube and not much else. I don't think I'd be interested in this even if it did block 100% of adds though because I'm a theif and a pirate and if I can get it for free then I'm not gonna buy it
    H̶ ̶O̶ ̶O̶ ̶D̶ ̶S̶ ̶H̶ ̶I̶ ̶T̶ _! H̶ ̶O̶ ̶O̶ ̶D̶ ̶S̶ ̶H̶ ̶I̶ ̶T̶_

    H̶ ̶O̶ ̶O̶ ̶D̶ ̶S̶ ̶H̶ ̶I̶ ̶T̶ _! H̶ ̶O̶ ̶O̶ ̶D̶ ̶S̶ ̶H̶ ̶I̶ ̶T̶_


  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,413
    Like you said, I'd much rather have a concrete percentage, (preferably 100%), when you could just install Adblock and not have to pay a cent.

  5. #5
    ? En's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hear
    Posts
    2,481
    I'm curious. If this were to occur on Youtube and was a widespread program, how would it affect existing content creators relying on patreons as compensation for disabled ads? I suppose the primary concern would be if they earned more through patreon then Google, the Google program could actually be a hinderance to content creators. This probably requires a balancing of the cost so that it is low enough that people are willing to not use other freer means to accomplish the same thing and high enough to be of significant value for youtubers.
    Last edited by En; 09-08-2015 at 07:18 PM.
    Spoiler for Earnings:

  6. #6
    Bisecting Vorpal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    11,941
    Why would I pay money to not be pestered by someones product?

    When someone is nagging you do you give them money to go away? Unless you have a woman in your life, probably not.

  7. #7
    StickPage Cave Goblin Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,355
    Because that's not why they want you to pay money. In this case the idea is that you're paying to support the content creators that rely on ads to sustain themselves in exchange for ethically reducing the ads you see. This only works if you look at it from an ethical standpoint and not a selfish one.

  8. #8
    Bisecting Vorpal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    11,941
    So google is expecting its user base to subsidize their content creators?

    Mind you, this isn't about supporting the content creators for me because if you want to support them you could simply donate or purchase their merchandise.
    I'm not paying to not be pestered, that's absurd.

    But also, you're talking to someone that's been a pirate since before their teens.
    Last edited by Vorpal; 09-09-2015 at 01:36 AM.

  9. #9
    yes Scarecrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    AUS
    Posts
    9,123
    i find the idea insulting. it's like they're trying to hold my screen space hostage, despite how badly they're failing at it. why would anybody pay to see less ads, when they could just as easily pay nothing and see no ads?

    i think it's worth pointing out that ads were never intended as a means to make website owners money. they're a means to advertise, and are allowed to be there only because the website owner is willing to accept a cut of the advertisement's profits. the fact that website owners have become entirely dependent on ads to run their site is a different matter entirely, and one which i have nothing to do with and no obligation to encourage. because of this i don't feel any guilt whatsoever in purging ads from my browser entirely. if i want to support a website or an author specifically, i'll go out of my way to support them in another way, such as buying one of their products, or donating directly.

  10. #10
    StickPage Cave Goblin Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,355
    Yep I agree, seems like I think the same way you guys do. Google is going to have to get more creative to convert adblockers. Just to play devil's advocate though, do you really think you have a right to screen space that you don't own? Playing the role of a web developer, I've designed the look of the site and chosen specifically how screen space is used, not you. I feel like in that case if you don't like it you shouldn't access it at all, same with the "I don't like being pestered" argument. Where is the argument for those if the ads are part of the intended design and not obtrusive? You are receiving a website for consumption at the discretion of the owner, you are not entitled to it. I'd rather prevent you from visiting the site entirely than allow it to be modified since you're going to be stripping away the only thing that I get a return on and each time you visit the site you are costing some amount of money. Also people using ads from Google are not Google content creators, Google doesn't employ them and shouldn't be held financially responsible. They are providing a service that provides independent content creators with financial support in exchange for real estate in their work which they then sell to their advertisers. From that perspective ads aren't there to sell you things, they're there to make money to keep the site running as it's the most viable method for funding the platform. I don't think paid subscriptions or relying on donations are viable ways to fund every kind of website. Whether or not you agree with a website owner's dependency on ads for funding, do you not see an ethical problem with consuming that content while intentionally preventing them from receiving compensation? In the same vein what if content you wanted access to was behind a paywall? When would you support them directly vs. pirating their content?

    I'm mostly interested in this because of all this talk lately about Google trying ways to stop adblocking. There was not only this "contributor" thing but they also installed a chrome app that re-enabled YouTube ads on a lot of people's computers. I think these are poor ideas and wonder where the line is. There's also been a lot of new sites pop up to help authors go adfree like I mentioned earlier, so it's interesting to see all the different opinions on it.
    Last edited by Jeff; 09-09-2015 at 11:00 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •