[Spivak]

If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free. As long as you believe that ads actually work and influence people then you are imposing a cost on your users.

There are websites which are actually free to end users. They don't serve ads, they might have a donation page, and largely exist because the operator simply wants to publish something. Most of the 'old web' embodies these qualities.

The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true. These two options are the most naive monetization strategies. My favorite counterexample is the Welcome to Nightvale Podcast. Their podcast is gratis and without ads. They make money through donations, selling swag, their book, and by performing live shows -- all which sell out extremely fast because I've been trying to get tickets recently.

The Internet is quite expensive because of ads.

[manigandham]

> The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true.

Really? Not true because why? You haven't actually provided any real counterexample of a 3rd and better option.

Payment is either direct (funds transferred) or indirect (attention monetized through ads). The podcast you mentioned is just direct (donations, selling books, selling tickets, etc). In fact they seem to make money doing other things for direct payment and do the podcast for free, so it's not even a real business model but rather just a hobby.

> The Internet is quite expensive because of ads.

The internet is incredibly free, open, democratic and accessible because of ads. If you had to pay for the same amount of content consumption your monthly bill would likely be in the hundreds of dollars per month.

[Spivak]

> You haven't actually provided any real counterexample of a 3rd and better option.

That's because there isn't such an option -- at least not that I know of. Ads can be added on top of pretty much any website to generate revenue independent of the actual content of the site itself. And if the content is valuable enough paywalls are also universal in this sense.

The '3rd option' I'm proposing is something dependent on the underlying business and admittedly requires creativity and business sense.

> The podcast you mentioned is just direct... but rather just a hobby.

That's quite a simplification -- without the podcast they wouldn't sell books, swag, tickets, or receive donations. You can consider their business model as a form of direct payment but no listener is required to give them any form of compensation and their model is much more successful than if they had simply paywalled their content.

> The internet is incredibly free, open, democratic and accessible because of ads.

I disagree and think it's none of those precisely because of ads -- at least as it applies to ad sponsored websites.

* Websites that serve ads are not free. We might have to agree to disagree on this point but as long as ads serve their intended purpose they impose a cost on every user that views them.

* Ad supported websites are not open, as every part of the ad network except for the literal content served to the client is closed and a trade secret.

* Ad supported websites are not democratic because advertisers will not want to have their brand associated with 'unsavory' topics or opinions which means that the overall content on the web is curated by small group ad networks that effectively 'bless' content on the web by providing them ad revenue.

* The accessibility of ad sponsored content is just an accidental byproduct of paying customers visiting the site. If ad networks had the tools to discriminate between people who had high disposable income then the web would no longer be accessible to the poor as it would make business sense to simply not serve them the page.

[manigandham]

> That's because there isn't such an option

This contradicts your original post. And it's true, there is no 3rd option. Very smart people have spent decades looking at alternatives and yet here we are.

> That's quite a simplification -- without the podcast they wouldn't sell books, swag, tickets, or receive donations.

Ok, let's reframe it then. It's a business that sells books, swag and tickets. And the podcast is a marketing cost center. Same outcome, they're a company that sells stuff for money. And sometimes people donate.

> Websites that serve ads are not free.

They are. The monetary sense is what we're talking about here. Not sure of this other "cost" your describing.

> Ad supported websites are not open, as every part of the ad network except for the literal content served to the client is closed and a trade secret.

What? By open I mean that websites are equally available to anyone regardless of logged in users or anonymous. This isn't a closed platform like Facebook where you have to be logged in to use it, thus revealing your identity.

> Ad supported websites are not democratic because advertisers will not want to have their brand associated with 'unsavory' topics or opinions which means that the overall content on the web is curated by small group ad networks that effectively 'bless' content on the web by providing them ad revenue.

That's not how it works. There's a tremendous amount of advertising material to fit virtually any vertical or environment. Sites are democratic because it's the audience that gives them value. Give the readers what they want and you get more readers and thus a more valuable audience to monetize. The site doesnt get to just make up whatever content it wants, it only works if there is a readership for it.

  > The accessibility of ad sponsored content is just an accidental byproduct of paying customers visiting the site. If ad networks had the tools to discriminate between people who had high disposable income then the web would no longer be accessible to the poor as it would make business sense to simply not serve them the page.

Again, this is not how it works. "poor" people are not indigent (and those people are most likely not online that much). They still buy plenty and there are products for every price point. Most ads are sold on an impression/awareness basis so there's always value in showing the message to more people. And ad networks already have access to data like household income. Most ad campaigns use both the context of the site as well as various data points of the user to target ads - this is why you see Rolex ads on the WSJ but not on your local news site. Either way ads monetize all users which in turn let's the publisher keep the site open to everyone, as in it's accessible to everyone regardless of who you are or where you're from. That's a good thing (whether it's a byproduct or not).

[jack9]

> If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free

It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is.

> The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true.

You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry. Google's search isn't profitable, but the reselling of data and injection of data side is. Just because you have an agenda, doesn't mean the ecosystem matches your ideal wishes. The internet itself transmits VAST (pun!) amounts of data and ads are a small portion of that compared to say...video. 300 Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute. How much of that are ads? It's about 2 hours. The internet is not expensive because of ads. They sit nicely on top of it, which is part of why they are tolerated.

[Spivak]

> It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is.

That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow. Imagine a website that required you to move your mouse in a circle for a minute before it allowed you to access the content. Would you argue that the website is still free? Is your time not valuable?

> You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry.

Right, I'm trying to consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.

[jack9]

> That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow

It's broader than "this is an ad this is not" when looking at "content", so fix your definition to the level of specificity you are comfortable with to start.

> consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.

I agree that it's a good initiative, but the masses (of which I'm included, as well as HN) do not produce businesses as much as (relatively useless) content.