Several web sites that I like to visit are NOT allowing access because I use an ADBLOCKER...

[Article Accelerator]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Article Accelerator]
[quote=Ombligo]
I use adblocker, but also understand that primary news sites really need the revenue to stay in business. Newspapers, magazines, and the like are using those ads to survive not just milk you. Without that revenue, there will be no site to visit.

I'll gladly unblock once I know that I'm no longer being tracked or targeted.

I want Web sites to pretend they're paper magazines. Until they do, I'm blocking.
So, you want them to charge you $5.95 before you can read it?
$5.95, eh? I'm pretty sure electrons are cheaper than paper, glue, ink, gasoline, physical delivery costs and all the rest of the expenses of producing and delivering paper magazines. I don't think $5.95 is justifiable…

[max]

Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
[quote=Article Accelerator]
[quote=Ombligo]
I use adblocker, but also understand that primary news sites really need the revenue to stay in business. Newspapers, magazines, and the like are using those ads to survive not just milk you. Without that revenue, there will be no site to visit.

I'll gladly unblock once I know that I'm no longer being tracked or targeted.

I want Web sites to pretend they're paper magazines. Until they do, I'm blocking.
So, you want them to charge you $5.95 before you can read it?
$5.95, eh? I'm pretty sure electrons are cheaper than paper, glue, ink, gasoline, physical delivery costs and all the rest of the expenses of producing and delivering paper magazines. I don't think $5.95 is justifiable…
We got some quite expensive, high paid electrons, here....

[Ombligo]

Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=$tevie]

So, you want them to charge you $5.95 before you can read it?

$5.95, eh? I'm pretty sure electrons are cheaper than paper, glue, ink, gasoline, physical delivery costs and all the rest of the expenses of producing and delivering paper magazines. I don't think $5.95 is justifiable…
If you think that $5.95 was for the physical product, you are mistaken. Most likely less than $1 was for those costs. The expense is paying for the staff and expenses related to the article.

Staff salaries at those publications are in the $70k/yr range. Freelancers will get $1k+ for articles. I used to get $100 just to send a file photo to Time. If I had to go shoot something, then it was $150/hr (2 hr minimum) plus $100 license fee per image; so $400 minimum. If it was an event (like a political rally) it could easily get to my day rate of $1000 plus expenses and license fee. Don't even ask about breaking news - that could be $5000 just for first look rights, then another $5k for useage and licensing.

Those fees have gone down due to the internet, but then so has revenue. People have no understanding of how expensive it is to run a news organization. You can argue that it should be less, but it isn't.

[$tevie]

The problem is that people think the internet means everything should be free. However, they somehow don't think that THEY should work for free. It is a weird thought process.

[Article Accelerator]

Ombligo wrote:
[quote=Article Accelerator]
[quote=$tevie]

So, you want them to charge you $5.95 before you can read it?

$5.95, eh? I'm pretty sure electrons are cheaper than paper, glue, ink, gasoline, physical delivery costs and all the rest of the expenses of producing and delivering paper magazines. I don't think $5.95 is justifiable…
If you think that $5.95 was for the physical product, you are mistaken. Most likely less than $1 was for those costs. The expense is paying for the staff and expenses related to the article.
And presumably those expenses would be the same for producing the Web-based equivalent. Therefore, we're back to the difference in advertising modalities and practices for print vs. the Web.

[Article Accelerator]

$tevie wrote:
The problem is that people think the internet means everything should be free.

I hope you don't think that I thought that, $tevie…

[$tevie]

Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
The problem is that people think the internet means everything should be free.

I hope you don't think that I thought that, $tevie…
I am talking about people who object to advertising on the internet. I hate a lot of ads, too, but unless we are going to flat out pay upfront to look at sites, I don't see how people think online publications can survive.

[Onamuji]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Article Accelerator]
[quote=$tevie]
The problem is that people think the internet means everything should be free.

I hope you don't think that I thought that, $tevie…
I am talking about people who object to advertising on the internet. I hate a lot of ads, too, but unless we are going to flat out pay upfront to look at sites, I don't see how people think online publications can survive.
They can survive with static ads that don't blast noise and video at visitors.

[Onamuji]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Article Accelerator]
[quote=$tevie]
The problem is that people think the internet means everything should be free.

I hope you don't think that I thought that, $tevie…
I am talking about people who object to advertising on the internet. I hate a lot of ads, too, but unless we are going to flat out pay upfront to look at sites, I don't see how people think online publications can survive.
They can survive with static ads that don't blast noise and video at visitors and don't track people across the 'net.

It's not the ads that most people object to. It's the invasiveness and omnipresence of them.

[$tevie]

I must read the wrong news sites.