Now thats brilliant. Instead of closing up the information make it available to the masses. Kind of like the long tail of newspapers.
You're definitely right though. The advertising potential would be phenomenal. And the cost of hardware being what it is hosting wouldnt be that outrageous. The big question is, will NYTd realize this? Who knows eh.
I think the point you are all missing is that if a site is annoying you with their advertisements you have 1 of 2 choices. One you can stop going there. No more ads no problem. Or two you can contact the site and work for change.
Either way you look at it the sites are not forcing anyone to see their advertisements. Users go to their content because they find it of value. If they find it of value they should be willing to pay the provider back in some way if the provider asks. If that means putting up with a banner or other form of advertising so be it. They are only trying to make a living. If they receive enough feedback that a certain advertising method is damaging their user base they will change. Some of the posters here need to understand that advertisements mean money. Not just for the product they are hawking but also for the site displaying that product. Thats the way it works. Hell why do you think Slashdot displays banners (many of which I have clicked on I might add).
That being said even I use adblock. When there is a particularily annoying ad on a site I block it. Then I send an email to the site admin telling them what ad I blocked and why. It is amazing the number of them that respond favorably.
I think the point you are all missing is that if a site is annoying you with their advertisements you have 1 of 2 choices. One you can stop going there. No more ads no problem. Or two you can contact the site and work for change.
Either way you look at it the sites are not forcing anyone to see their advertisements. Users go to their content because they find it of value. If they find it of value they should be willing to pay the provider back in some way if the provider asks. If that means putting up with a banner or other form of advertising so be it. They are only trying to make a living. If they receive enough feedback that a certain advertising method is damaging their user base they will change. Some of the posters here need to understand that advertisements mean money. Not just for the product they are hawking but also for the site displaying that product. Thats the way it works. Hell why do you think Slashdot displays banners (many of which I have clicked on I might add).
That being said even I use adblock. When there is a particularily annoying ad on a site I block it. Then I send an email to the site admin telling them what ad I blocked and why. It is amazing the number of them that respond favorably.
All the major newspapers (NYTimes, Boston Globe, etc) out here on the east coast have started to see their online revenues outpacing the growth of the offline ones. This is a trend that will only continue as these sites become outlets for information not only via text but also audio and video. This truly is an age where TV stations, Radio Stations and Newspapers (the old media) are going to be going head to head with the Googles and Yahoo's (new media). I bet we'll see some consolidations and maybe even some more AOL Time Warner style mergers (could they really have had foresight?).
There is no way that a cookie is relaying your email information. They only way a site can even look at a cookie is if they set it. Otherwise its a no go. The only way a cookie could contain your email address is you gave it previously to that site. In which case thats the source of your spam
I have blogged on this repeatedly and even mentioned a good article which should give some perspective on this whole cookie question. Its not that cookies are such a bad thing when used correctly. Some people dont want to use them and thats fine. For them let them log in repeatedly and see ads that arent relevant or contextual to what they have been doing or watching. Coming up with another way of tracking users isnt the problem. The problem is that users are scared of the tracking. Educate the masses on the benefits and advertisers would see positive results. Who knows maybe they wouldnt have to resort to making ever more annoying advertisements just to try and snare my attention.
For me archive.org always seems so slow. Not to mention not very user friendly. I want something fast. So what if its commercial based. I certainly dont have time to waste waiting forever for a page to load. I'd take a 15 second targeted ad clip over sluggishness anyday.
This really plays into The Long Tail scenario that is so often spoken of these days. I wonder how long before the major portals starts making deals with these owners of massive amounts of content. When a revenue model is established around this release of content we will see things really pick up. I am betting on instream advertising as the way they do it.
I have to say it sounds like an extremely interesting twist on the distribution of video content. For me to be able to upload content and distribute it for free is quite amazing. This means they will not only be gaining access to the subscribers or paying customers but also the families etc who are going to use it to share their videos. It benefits everyone. Google gets more impressions to sell advertising on and content producers get an easy and efficient market place/distribution system. Add the advanced searching that is sure to follow and this will be an extremely powerful resource. Of course when they start to put in some pre-roll or instream advertising for the unpaid content their revenues and profit margins will be even higher than they are now.
For any decent piece of content produced somebody is going to have to dedicate some time and resources to it. To do this in a steady stream it will require a near full time effort. Since the basis of P2P is going to be to distribute it free it will be very hard to get a DRM model to work. They could however come up with an ad supported system to make it equitable. I guess my only question is, would the community using this type of software be willing to accept that? Time will tell I guess.
I do see this as a trend of companies like Brightcove, Prodigem and Akimbo emerging to fill this new demand. It will be interesting to see what business models play out.
Slashdot Mirror
Now thats brilliant. Instead of closing up the information make it available to the masses. Kind of like the long tail of newspapers.
You're definitely right though. The advertising potential would be phenomenal. And the cost of hardware being what it is hosting wouldnt be that outrageous. The big question is, will NYTd realize this? Who knows eh.
I think the point you are all missing is that if a site is annoying you with their advertisements you have 1 of 2 choices. One you can stop going there. No more ads no problem. Or two you can contact the site and work for change.
Either way you look at it the sites are not forcing anyone to see their advertisements. Users go to their content because they find it of value. If they find it of value they should be willing to pay the provider back in some way if the provider asks. If that means putting up with a banner or other form of advertising so be it. They are only trying to make a living. If they receive enough feedback that a certain advertising method is damaging their user base they will change. Some of the posters here need to understand that advertisements mean money. Not just for the product they are hawking but also for the site displaying that product. Thats the way it works. Hell why do you think Slashdot displays banners (many of which I have clicked on I might add).
That being said even I use adblock. When there is a particularily annoying ad on a site I block it. Then I send an email to the site admin telling them what ad I blocked and why. It is amazing the number of them that respond favorably.
I think the point you are all missing is that if a site is annoying you with their advertisements you have 1 of 2 choices. One you can stop going there. No more ads no problem. Or two you can contact the site and work for change.
Either way you look at it the sites are not forcing anyone to see their advertisements. Users go to their content because they find it of value. If they find it of value they should be willing to pay the provider back in some way if the provider asks. If that means putting up with a banner or other form of advertising so be it. They are only trying to make a living. If they receive enough feedback that a certain advertising method is damaging their user base they will change. Some of the posters here need to understand that advertisements mean money. Not just for the product they are hawking but also for the site displaying that product. Thats the way it works. Hell why do you think Slashdot displays banners (many of which I have clicked on I might add).
That being said even I use adblock. When there is a particularily annoying ad on a site I block it. Then I send an email to the site admin telling them what ad I blocked and why. It is amazing the number of them that respond favorably.
All the major newspapers (NYTimes, Boston Globe, etc) out here on the east coast have started to see their online revenues outpacing the growth of the offline ones. This is a trend that will only continue as these sites become outlets for information not only via text but also audio and video. This truly is an age where TV stations, Radio Stations and Newspapers (the old media) are going to be going head to head with the Googles and Yahoo's (new media). I bet we'll see some consolidations and maybe even some more AOL Time Warner style mergers (could they really have had foresight?).
My 2 cents.
There is no way that a cookie is relaying your email information. They only way a site can even look at a cookie is if they set it. Otherwise its a no go. The only way a cookie could contain your email address is you gave it previously to that site. In which case thats the source of your spam
I have blogged on this repeatedly and even mentioned a good article which should give some perspective on this whole cookie question. Its not that cookies are such a bad thing when used correctly. Some people dont want to use them and thats fine. For them let them log in repeatedly and see ads that arent relevant or contextual to what they have been doing or watching. Coming up with another way of tracking users isnt the problem. The problem is that users are scared of the tracking. Educate the masses on the benefits and advertisers would see positive results. Who knows maybe they wouldnt have to resort to making ever more annoying advertisements just to try and snare my attention.
For me archive.org always seems so slow. Not to mention not very user friendly. I want something fast. So what if its commercial based. I certainly dont have time to waste waiting forever for a page to load. I'd take a 15 second targeted ad clip over sluggishness anyday.
This really plays into The Long Tail scenario that is so often spoken of these days. I wonder how long before the major portals starts making deals with these owners of massive amounts of content. When a revenue model is established around this release of content we will see things really pick up. I am betting on instream advertising as the way they do it.
I have to say it sounds like an extremely interesting twist on the distribution of video content. For me to be able to upload content and distribute it for free is quite amazing. This means they will not only be gaining access to the subscribers or paying customers but also the families etc who are going to use it to share their videos. It benefits everyone. Google gets more impressions to sell advertising on and content producers get an easy and efficient market place/distribution system. Add the advanced searching that is sure to follow and this will be an extremely powerful resource. Of course when they start to put in some pre-roll or instream advertising for the unpaid content their revenues and profit margins will be even higher than they are now.
Go Google Go!
For any decent piece of content produced somebody is going to have to dedicate some time and resources to it. To do this in a steady stream it will require a near full time effort. Since the basis of P2P is going to be to distribute it free it will be very hard to get a DRM model to work. They could however come up with an ad supported system to make it equitable. I guess my only question is, would the community using this type of software be willing to accept that? Time will tell I guess. I do see this as a trend of companies like Brightcove, Prodigem and Akimbo emerging to fill this new demand. It will be interesting to see what business models play out.