[bambax]

This article, like all the ones before it complaining about AdBlock, seem to conflate all kinds of contents like they're all the same.

Yet, they aren't. People gladly pay for content: books, mp3 (streamed or downloaded), going to the theater, subscribing to Netflix and/or cable, etc. etc.

The article argues that with the advent of adblocking all content will hide behind a paywall; but that will not happen... or not for long.

Paywalls work for high quality content (eg, The Economist); but not for low quality content.

Low quality content cannot survive behind a paywall, because nobody will pay for it; what will happen is that low quality content made for profit will die/disappear, and we'll all be better for it.

What will survive is high quality content made for profit or for free, and low quality content made for free (which we can ignore).

This whole debate exists only because current producers of low quality content have somehow convinced everyone that their content is in fact worthwhile, and that it's an accident and a crime that they'd be robbed of revenue, and that users are fools not wanting to pay for it.

This is rubbish. Users are not fools, and they are always right. What they will not pay for is worthless, literally.

[briHass]

Well said.

Maybe some of these individuals forget that many of us were on the Internet well before it became as "commercial" as it is now. The bulk of the content came from users that didn't expect or receive any payment for their writing...much like many of the biggest sites today: Reddit, etc. What wasn't around was shitty, click-bait junk written for no reason other than to drive ad impressions.

If 70% of what's on the web died due to lack of ad revenue, I don't think society would suffer some huge loss. Stating that ads are required to support content is begging the question; if people don't want to pay for it, the content isn't worth anything to begin with.

[stevesearer]

> if people don't want to pay for it, the content isn't worth anything to begin with

That isn't entirely true as the content is technically worth whatever the sponsors are willing to pay to make it happen. The university in my town puts on a summer series of movies in the park and Lynda.com has sponsored a number of the seasons. There is even a short ad played on the screen before the movie.

I wouldn't pay to go to the event, but am 100% happy letting Lynda.com pay for me.

[stevesearer]

There are a few podcasts I enjoy which are supported by companies like Mailchimp or even shows on NPR which are supported by non-profits and foundations. Even high quality shows on PBS have sponsors supporting them.

How does your view consider high quality content which is supported by advertising?

[akiselev]

What are examples of high quality content that is supported by advertising?

All of the examples I can think of, like radio, YouTube and other video sites, and television, happen to make their money from high quality advertisements: ones that were curated and have higher production values, not random ads from dubious ad networks (except for the YouTube text based ads).

Content paid for with advertising is paid for by advertisers (brands). Quality brands want quality content that will be watched by as many people in their target demographic as possible so they're willing to pay for it.

[stevesearer]

That's exactly what I'm wondering and thinking about. Are people fine with ad supported content as long as the ads are high quality?

I ask because I run an ad-supported site and try to use good practices and sell all of my own ads to brands that are highly relevant to my content (office furniture brand ads on an office design website).

Anyway, I have tried to keep up with what people are thinking on this topic because I want to make sure I'm staying ahead of the curve so I can stay in business :)