I'd argue some magazines are basically ad pushers wrapped around a thin layer of minimum effort articles.
Hell, most of them, when I think about it.
Google, though.. ads are their core business.
Ad publishing platform. They don’t make the ad, that’s the ad company but they are distributors.
The term 'newshole' was used by newspaper publishers to describe the amount of space left to print news after the ads were all laid out.
The ad placements were planned out first, then news articles were literally edited to fit around them.
Is that where clickhole gets its name?
I agree about magazines being ad pushers. And they have the balls to charge $10+ for the "content".
He doesn’t know that Google powers ads across the web? Yeesh.
I am heavily invested into Google (my music, much of my bought series/movies, email, Google drive, Keep, Android, Chrome) and of course Google is a fucking ad company.
Across the web and byond!
He does. He compared that to a magazine. Did you not understand the point?
Magazines aren't involved ads in places other than their magazine. Google powers ads placed on websites that are not owned by Google. The equivalent would be something like Time being responsible for random billboards.
The OOP would be right if Google made all/most of its money from ads on Search and YouTube. They'd be a search and video company that makes its money through advertising. That's the correct analogy to magazines.
But Google also acts as a broker selling ads to entirely unrelated websites. That's what makes them an advertising company.
So, you think the argument of "they can't be a doctor as they are a swimmer" is a good argument? Obviously you can be 2 things.
But even then:
The problem is that it is ignorant to Google's business model. Google is not simply hosting ads in their products as a form of revenue. Google makes 11% of it's revenue by tracking and hosting ads on other Plattforms. The person calling google an ad company, obviously makes the point that google has a major interest in ads and tracking. 11% of your total revenue is a lot of money to have motivation for having a major interest in ads and tracking. (Btw. This is ignoring the ad revenue that they make on their own properties like YouTube. Which also benefits from the tracking of users on other site. In other words, google has even more of an interest in it then just 11%, in fact 80% of it's revenue is ads and tracking. But I want to focus on the "what is different from a magazine" part)
In other words, you can be both. Magazines can be an ad company too. And highlighting Google's interest in ads because 80% of their revenue is from ads and 11% from providing ads to other sites, is hardly wrong if talking about Google's relationship with ads.
Confidently Incorrect…
You hit the nail on the head with that one!
Ah yes. Google Adsense is just a myth.
The one thing that really sets it as an ad company is that there is no customer service unless it’s for ads publishing.
I dream of an ad free future.
Nah I'd have to disagree in that statement entirely. TV Stations are ad companies. It isn't shows with commercials every now and then, it's the other way around.
And have you read a Magazine in the last 30 years? They're entirely ads, including sponsored content.
Community and publicly owned stations are still content with ads to support, but that's a minority.
I'd agree if Google were just serving ads from a different source, but since they're serving ads that they themselves source they are an ad company.
That change only nerfed Adblockers and made Firefox the better supported platform for UBlock Origin but I think they talk about web environment integrety aka DRM for the web, that will break ad blockers enfirely for all sites that want to block them!
They are technically correct except google is adsense .. the ad market place.
So technically they are not correct, and factually they are not correct, an effectively they are not correct. Sounds like they are wrong
You had me in the first half, ngl
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quaks like a duck it might just be a duck!
but when you put lipstick on it!
Viola! Now its an Influencer.
I'd argue some magazines are basically ad pushers wrapped around a thin layer of minimum effort articles.
Hell, most of them, when I think about it.
Google, though.. ads are their core business.
Ad publishing platform. They don’t make the ad, that’s the ad company but they are distributors.
The term 'newshole' was used by newspaper publishers to describe the amount of space left to print news after the ads were all laid out. The ad placements were planned out first, then news articles were literally edited to fit around them.
Is that where clickhole gets its name?
I agree about magazines being ad pushers. And they have the balls to charge $10+ for the "content".
He doesn’t know that Google powers ads across the web? Yeesh.
I am heavily invested into Google (my music, much of my bought series/movies, email, Google drive, Keep, Android, Chrome) and of course Google is a fucking ad company.
Across the web and byond!
He does. He compared that to a magazine. Did you not understand the point?
Magazines aren't involved ads in places other than their magazine. Google powers ads placed on websites that are not owned by Google. The equivalent would be something like Time being responsible for random billboards.
The OOP would be right if Google made all/most of its money from ads on Search and YouTube. They'd be a search and video company that makes its money through advertising. That's the correct analogy to magazines.
But Google also acts as a broker selling ads to entirely unrelated websites. That's what makes them an advertising company.
So, you think the argument of "they can't be a doctor as they are a swimmer" is a good argument? Obviously you can be 2 things.
But even then: The problem is that it is ignorant to Google's business model. Google is not simply hosting ads in their products as a form of revenue. Google makes 11% of it's revenue by tracking and hosting ads on other Plattforms. The person calling google an ad company, obviously makes the point that google has a major interest in ads and tracking. 11% of your total revenue is a lot of money to have motivation for having a major interest in ads and tracking. (Btw. This is ignoring the ad revenue that they make on their own properties like YouTube. Which also benefits from the tracking of users on other site. In other words, google has even more of an interest in it then just 11%, in fact 80% of it's revenue is ads and tracking. But I want to focus on the "what is different from a magazine" part)
In other words, you can be both. Magazines can be an ad company too. And highlighting Google's interest in ads because 80% of their revenue is from ads and 11% from providing ads to other sites, is hardly wrong if talking about Google's relationship with ads.
Confidently Incorrect…
You hit the nail on the head with that one!
Ah yes. Google Adsense is just a myth.
The one thing that really sets it as an ad company is that there is no customer service unless it’s for ads publishing.
I dream of an ad free future.
Nah I'd have to disagree in that statement entirely. TV Stations are ad companies. It isn't shows with commercials every now and then, it's the other way around.
And have you read a Magazine in the last 30 years? They're entirely ads, including sponsored content.
Community and publicly owned stations are still content with ads to support, but that's a minority.
I'd agree if Google were just serving ads from a different source, but since they're serving ads that they themselves source they are an ad company.
Google serves ads for google?
Google AdSense serves ads for Google yes.
Just for the record, ad blockers will still exist despite the changes: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/x967w5/ubo_minus_mv3/
That change only nerfed Adblockers and made Firefox the better supported platform for UBlock Origin but I think they talk about web environment integrety aka DRM for the web, that will break ad blockers enfirely for all sites that want to block them!