|
|
 |
| [Mar 07, 2010, 2:56 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 53. |
Re: Metaverse |
Mar 8, 2010, 10:13 |
Beamer |
|
|
You seem to think that because you entered into this business, somehow you are OWED a revenue stream. That just isn't the way it works. Businesses and markets are forever changing without regard for those in said businesses. Should the mass production of the automobile for the average consumer have been halted because it was destined to put the horse buggy makers out of business? When your business model becomes obsolete or unsustainable, it's time to adapt. Good businesses know this.
Dude. C'mon. If people are still taking new horse drawn buggies then yes, the manufacturer is owed his revenue stream.
What you're advocating here is websites either charge admission or go out of business. That's a failing proposition. And you're also being Jerykk about it.
I think we all need to admit that ad-blocking is a dick move on our part. Perhaps one we're willing to live with, as ads tend to be very annoying, but still a dick move. We'd be better off avoiding sites with obnoxious ads than avoiding ads on all sites, as we're only biting the hand that feeds us here. We're giving less incentive for high quality content. That hurts us as much as anyone. Much like skipping through tivo ads hurts us by taking revenues away from the broadcast networks, giving them less incentive to gamble on the next Lost and more incentive to put cheapass Jay Leno show on at 10 pm. Thankfully cable networks, which we both pay for and see ads on, have revenue streams to fill the void.
That hasn't happened with websites. It never really will, as there are too many (unlike cable channels) and no easy way to split a unified charge (and people hate bite-size charges.)
Let's say Blue noticed every single one of his users was ad blocking, and his revenues therefore dried up so that the site was costing him thousands of dollars a year. In desperation he started charging $5 a year, hoping to offset it. How many people would pay it? How many others would just filter over to ve3d or some upstart hoping he'd have better success avoiding ad blocker and getting the Blues readers?
Not saying you should avoid adblocker, right now it's not at a critical point. But if we all used adblocker we'd have no free websites. That's what makes it a dick move. If it's something that, if everyone did it, everyone would suffer, it's a dick move. It's the Tragedy of the Commons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
