• Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      1 day ago

      Last year, you’d be correct. This year, bots DO purchase things. They also download and run things. Some marketers have gotten wise and have adjusted SEO and general product advertising to appeal to bots.

      • relativelyrobin@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That is a really good idea. I’m not gonna lie. I would love it if I could put like five bucks in a wallet and then it just takes a cent or two when I go to some article rather than having to fight through some local news site trying to get me to pay $9.99 a month to read one piece of rage bait. I’ll pay a nickel or maybe even a dime for a good one.

        I know they’re targeting AI agents, but it is only a matter of time. I say roll it out to consumers dude and I know that sounds fucked up, but like I would much rather just pay a nickel or a dime here and there than have ads making it impossible to even read the article. The people will compete on price and I bet it will stay really small for most stuff. It gets creators paid in a similar model to YouTube clicks or Spotify streams, but in a much more direct and equitable way. Google, AI has to pay for the content instead of just handing it over.

        • Promethiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I’m with you. My concern is that I haven’t yet figured out how it’s gonna be ruined for private consumers by corporate consumers yet, so can’t know how to prepare lol.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      A lot of sites wouldn’t exist without ads, because they want their stuff to be freely-accessible and don’t have any other revenue streams. It would also cut off lower income people that couldn’t afford to pay.

      The only business models that have really worked online have been:

      1. Ad-supported.
      2. You pay for the service yourself, like a monthly subscription.
      3. Someone else pays for the service for you, for example freemium services (paid users subsidize the free users), a lot of Lemmy servers (admins cover the hosting costs), etc.

      If ads go away, a lot of sites/services would have to become paid services, and smaller ones might just shut down entirely. We’d end up with even more consolidation of the market.

      • TeaWithDani@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        We could live without anything that uses ads to “sustain” itself. Nobody hosting ads on their service is doing so to “maintain” themselves. They just want profit for their labour… they are entitled too, but its a business choice, never a necessity.

        And yeah if I use something, I’ll always pay for no ads. Ads cost so much more of our lifespans and contribute so fucking little to those that host them. Garbage.

        I respect your take, but I think it is wrong.

      • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think donation/investment based freemium is the future of internet content once the bots kill ad viability

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I’ve tried that before, but barely anyone donates. People expect the world for free.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Yeah, my shareware did real well - 800 hours in development, $500 in income across the past 30 years. Oh, and it cost me $400 for the compiler tools back then - so my net profit is rolling in at $0.12 per hour invested. Warning: $440 of that $500 came from an extreme niche product you’re unlikely to find such a lucrative vein anymore. My game only netted $60 in return for 400 hours of development, but you could say I got the compiler “for free” off that niche product’s income.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        cut off lower income people that couldn’t afford to pay.

        There’s a shot of irony in there… Google doesn’t monetize poor people highly at all, but the poor people get “free” access with ads because some richer people also allow themselves to see the ads. What kind of communism is that?

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 hours ago

          It’s the same way that taxes work. Rich people contribute more than poorer people, but everyone can use things funded by public money (parks, police, fire fighters, public transport, schools, health care outside the USA, etc).

          I actually wonder if there should be more taxpayer-funded online services. Lemmy’s development was partially funded by government money (NLNet Foundation via the European Commission) for example.