Google May Be Forced to Sell Chrome

[Paul_Johnson]

I understand that they pay less, but there is a bit of a supply and demand thing going on here.

Remember, back in the print days, completely untargeted newspaper ads paid more than any of the online ads do today (which is why the newspaper industry has been in so much trouble)

That was because of market size alone. News papers are in trouble now because their readership has vanished.

If targeted ads based on tracking were to suddenly go away, contextual ads would be the best choice on the block, and would be in higher demand, and thus would also cost/pay more. Remember, the likes of HardOCP, Anandtech and Toms Hardware were able to do just fine in the era before unchecked corporate surveillance.

You don't know much about the history of those sites. Tom Pabst sold to Birch well before targeted ads rose to dominate. Anand sold to a corporate conglomerate just as they did. They both sold because the time to cash out was on the wall as the revenue stream was getting tougher and tougher.

In the end, they might not pay quite as much as the ultra targeted spy-ads, and I feel for the small media organizations, but not enough that I think it is a good idea to keep invasive spying for the sake of targeted ads.

As we used to say, big X up there in corner can fix all of your problems.

 

[Zarathustra]

As we used to say, big X up there in corner can fix all of your problems.

The problem is that the opt out strategy doesn't work anymore.

In th ebeginnig we were naive, and didn't realize how much data collectionw as going on behind the scenes, now that we are aware it is completely impossible to opt out as it is in absolutely EVERYTHING. You can't even buy a car or a TV today without having a product that is collecting data on you.

The only thing that has an even remote chance of fixing our modern dystopia is a complete upheaval of the status quo in the form of regulation.

An I firmly believe that if that were to happen, context-based ads would go from nothing to being the way to advertise again, and regain some if not most of their revenue capability. At least so I hope. I want sites to be able to earn a living, just not at the cost of everyones privacy.

 

[David_Schroth]

I understand that they pay less, but there is a bit of a supply and demand thing going on here.

Remember, back in the print days, completely untargeted newspaper ads paid more than any of the online ads do today (which is why the newspaper industry has been in so much trouble)

If targeted ads based on tracking were to suddenly go away, contextual ads would be the best choice on the block, and would be in higher demand, and thus would also cost/pay more. Remember, the likes of HardOCP, Anandtech and Toms Hardware were able to do just fine in the era before unchecked corporate surveillance.

In the end, they might not pay quite as much as the ultra targeted spy-ads, and I feel for the small media organizations, but not enough that I think it is a good idea to keep invasive spying for the sake of targeted ads.

Big Brother must end, by any means necessary, even if that involves the pitchforks.

Yet, ad budgets have evolved and more or less require the marketing boffins at companies to best connect marketing spend to desired results (i.e. buying more kit, in our case). There's also a huge shift in those budgets towards video as a preferred medium (hello, Reviewcast).

Regardless, Chrome is pulling the plug on third party cookies in the next couple of years, much like the other browsers have already done. There's some development of what will replace it by our ad network, but I wouldn't be shocked if it lead towards continued movement over to video dollars.

 

[Grimlakin]

I highly doubt that google is going to consider their ad business as part of the google chrome business. I also suspect that they will divest mobile/android chrome from the desktop chrome as well before parting with it.

For the android Chrome is built into the core pieces of the OS. Much like IE is built into the OS of windows.

 

[Paul_Johnson]

The problem is that the opt out strategy doesn't work anymore.

In th ebeginnig we were naive, and didn't realize how much data collectionw as going on behind the scenes, now that we are aware it is completely impossible to opt out as it is in absolutely EVERYTHING. You can't even buy a car or a TV today without having a product that is collecting data on you.

The only thing that has an even remote chance of fixing our modern dystopia is a complete upheaval of the status quo in the form of regulation.

An I firmly believe that if that were to happen, context-based ads would go from nothing to being the way to advertise again, and regain some if not most of their revenue capability. At least so I hope. I want sites to be able to earn a living, just not at the cost of everyones privacy.

I just checked on the admin side, the X does still work.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yet, ad budgets have evolved and more or less require the marketing boffins at companies to best connect marketing spend to desired results (i.e. buying more kit, in our case). There's also a huge shift in those budgets towards video as a preferred medium (hello, Reviewcast).

Regardless, Chrome is pulling the plug on third party cookies in the next couple of years, much like the other browsers have already done. There's some development of what will replace it by our ad network, but I wouldn't be shocked if it lead towards continued movement over to video dollars.

Interesting. I didn't realize there was a shift away from third party cookies. I use Firefox and I know they have the option to mostly block them, but I just assumed that these were ineffective due to various workarounds. I have nothing to back that up though.

I agree with your assessment. As much as I hate it (i refuse to view reviews in video format) if nothing changes more and more will shift towards video, but if there were an end to data collection and creating profiles on users, video should be hit just as much as non-video, and the resultant reviving of contextual ads may actually help non-video smaller sites. Who knows though. it is difficult to predict.

I tend to like the direct payment model though. No, not paywalls, they are useless, and everyone hates them. I have most of my frequent sites which I would be disappointed if they went away in my Patreon (I've been considering adding this site, but haven't gotten around to looking into it yet, and don't know if you have one)

Back in the 90's or early 2000's (can't remember) there was talk of funding web comics with a shared wallet that pays a few pennies every time you visit a comic. I really like this model as it better reflects how people read news sites these days. Who wants to pay for a full subscription to a site/paper when they only click a link to an article every once and a while? A news site wallet (to minimize transaction fees) that subtracts a small per article fee for all enrolled sites would be a great system IMHO.

I'm not anti site revenue. I want the sites I frequently visit to not just survive, but to thrive. I just feel there has to be a better way than intrusive spying.