Brilliant? Is it brilliant to simply revert to how the free market is supposed to work, where consumers pay producers because they think the product is worth it?
Ad-supported sites fool consumers into thinking they're getting something for free, when in fact they're still paying, just indirectly . And not just the original straight-up price, but a host of additional costs[1]. Don't believe me? Where do you think the advertisers get the money to buy ad space? Of course it's baked into the products consumers buy from them. There is no free lunch.
What does it say about your product if users aren't willing to pay for it? What does it say about your business when you tell users its free but don't tell them you've hidden your charges in the prices of the products that are advertised? That it's actually costing them more?[1]
"Ad-supported sites fool consumers into thinking ...."
Maybe those ad supported sites just have to pay the server bills.
And what does it say about you if you want to use a product and not aren't willing to pay for it? Not even indirectly via ads?
> "Maybe those ad supported sites just have to pay the server bills."
The place where I buy pizza has to pay for the ingredients, the rent, salaries, etc. These costs and a reasonable profit add up to $18 for a pie, which I pay, because their pizza is worth at least $18. What if their pizza wasn't so good, and too few customers thought it was worth $18? Is it right for them to hand out "free" pizza in a box covered with advertising inside and out, and the advertised products get marked up $22 to cover the pizza cost as well as the advertising overhead and collateral costs[1]? Let me be clear: the customers are getting a pizza that costs $18 for "free", but $22 is added to the cost of the other goods they buy. They don't realize this and the pizza shop is taking advantage of this ignorance.
> "And what does it say about you if you want to use a product and not aren't willing to pay for it? Not even indirectly via ads?"
If you're referring to me, I'm totally willing to pay for it. If you mean people in general, they fall into three categories:
1. They are willing to pay for it. They wish there weren't ads, and switch to ad-free, for-pay products when available.
2. They are willing to pay for it, but are happy to take what appears to be free.
3. They are not willing to pay for it, but are happy to take what appears to be free.
Both #2 and #3 don't realize that instead of being free, it costs a lot more. Or they are too lazy to find a for-pay product. Or they think they don't buy advertised products and are happy to mooch off of others.
-
[1] If I don't buy those products, someone else must be, in which case they are subsidizing my pizza. I'll bet the effects are regressive, in that people with lower incomes end up subsidizing people with higher. In any case, on average we all pay for the true cost of the "free" product plus the previously mentioned overhead and collateral costs.
Does Hacker News advertise? The pizza place I love doesn't advertise. Not even Google or Facebook advertise, and look where they are. Ironically they are guilty of hurting consumers, democracy and the free market as I've explained: by relying on ads rather than getting their money from us honestly.
Good products get found the natural way: customers tell other customers. Why? Because the product is good!
Most advertising is manipulation of perceptions of goodness. Or about using dominant market position and revenue to maintain that dominance, drowning out better rivals who can't afford a similar ad budget (Advertising people are honest about this and call it a moat).
Need to explain your product or its benefits? Put up a website. If the claims are true, customers will pass the link around. You only need to pay to get someone to insert your product in the grapevine if your product isn't good.
You speak of "free market" but we're not in the 18th century anymore; advertising is a foundation of modern capitalism, as much as (for example) banks and the whole financial system. The economy is full of "overheads" that you can hate if you only look at their downsides: when you buy some product you are also paying baked-in fees for credit card processing, subsidies for agriculture or fuel used in transportation, and many other things. Yet we put up with the banks, taxes, government regulations, and yes advertising too, because all these things have a net positive effect. Speaking of banks for example, we all hate banks but let's be honest and tell me if you could hope to buy a house without a loan: most people would need to first save money for decades, which very few people have the discipline to do, or the resources to do as they simultaneously have to pay rent. So the mortgage system is clearly better, it enabled way more people to afford buying houses and in time this improves the market for everybody via economies of scale etc. (well, for 99% of us anyway).
Ad-supported sites fool consumers into thinking they're getting something for free, when in fact they're still paying, just indirectly . And not just the original straight-up price, but a host of additional costs[1]. Don't believe me? Where do you think the advertisers get the money to buy ad space? Of course it's baked into the products consumers buy from them. There is no free lunch.
What does it say about your product if users aren't willing to pay for it? What does it say about your business when you tell users its free but don't tell them you've hidden your charges in the prices of the products that are advertised? That it's actually costing them more?[1]
-
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237
reply