
Reddit to Give 10% of Its 2014 Ad Revenue to Non-Profits Picked by Its Users - ruchir_21hj
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/28/reddit-to-give-10-of-its-2014-ad-revenue-to-non-profits-picked-by-its-users/
======
chrisblackwell
So a not yet profitable site is going to start giving away revenue. Very happy
I'm not an investor in that company.

~~~
lukasm
Let me rephrase that "So a not yet profitable site is going to spend 10% of a
new form of marketing. Very not happy I'm not an investor in that company" :)

~~~
incision
_> "... spend 10% of a new form of marketing..."_

Exactly.

Seems a big part of the Reddit appeal is the love for feeling a part of the
collective.

All at once this reinforces that sense, lends a suggestion of passive nobility
to using the site and pre-emptively defends an increase in advertising.

I expect they'll also see some jump in guilt tripping by the community around
adblocking as well.

~~~
lelandbatey
There are already ads on reddit that say "Thanks for not using adblock."
Though they may get more blatant as time passes.

~~~
incision
I'm thinking more among the community than from Reddit directly. You already
see a fair bit of that kind of peer pressure in some circles [0][1].

0:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/CoDCompetitive/comments/1ssvjm/if_yo...](http://www.reddit.com/r/CoDCompetitive/comments/1ssvjm/if_you_really_support_esports_subscribe_or_dont/)

1:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/1w2h95/adblock_di...](http://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/1w2h95/adblock_discussion/)

------
jordigh
I'm always suspicious of people proudly announcing that they're giving
something to charity. We already have a system in place for every organisation
to give part of their money for the public good: taxes. As a democratic
society, supposedly we already have mechanisms in place to decide how to spend
this money for the public good.

Why, then, is it laudable if an org decides to give to charity instead of
paying taxes? This takes the decision of how to spend for the public good away
from the public and instead the company decides. Is it because in practice we
distrust the government and our decision-making procedures too much and we
trust private companies more?

~~~
lutusp
> We already have a system in place for every organisation to give part of
> their money for the public good: taxes.

Yes, but without any personal discretion or choice. For example, I personally
think a woman's access to birth control and abortion is an essential right,
but because this is by no means a popular viewpoint, I donate directly to
charities that support my views.

Taxes aren't a way to support specific, desirable public goals, they only
maintain the status quo. If your view had merit, Bill Gates would try to pay
taxes to encourage redesign of condoms to improve Third World family planning
outcomes (one of Gates' current projects). But Gates knows this won't work --
as far as a vocal minority of American are concerned, family planning is the
work of the devil.

> As a democratic society, supposedly we already have mechanisms in place to
> decide how to spend this money for the public good.

You have a distorted idea of democracy. Democracy is not a centralized
decision-making process in which various views are amalgamated into a single
choice of action for all. Not to oversimplify, but democracy respects the
rights of individuals and diverse groups to act in a way that doesn't
interfere with any other group's similar rights. On this basis, private
charity accurately represents democracy much better than centralized taxation
does.

~~~
humanrebar
Ironically, it would have been more on the nose for you to briefly empathize
with a different position on birth control for the sake of this argument.

There is a very small minority (even among Catholics) that believe that birth
control is immoral, let alone that government should impose that moral view.
Nowhere in the near future will there be popular support, even within select
states or counties, for banning birth control.

So what's the issue? One of them is that there are cases before the Supreme
Court, including one involving Hobby Lobby, regarding whether private
businesses should be forced to pay for birth control (by means of tax
penalties) over moral objections. The "vocal minority" in question is
struggling to maintain their freedom of personal discretion in this respect.

In arguing that people should have personal choice, you are indirectly
agreeing with the very same minority you caricature.

~~~
lutusp
> Nowhere in the near future will there be popular support, even within select
> states or counties, for banning birth control.

If you live in the U.S., you're out of touch with popular opinion. The
majority are in favor of birth control, but there is certainly popular
opposition to birth control.

[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...](http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/religious-
rallies-across-usa-protest-birth-control-mandate/1#.UxGVWTmx27s)

> In arguing that people should have personal choice, you are indirectly
> agreeing with the very same minority you caricature.

That's absurd and a troll. Obviously anyone who speaks in favor of free speech
would have to receive the same reply from you, on the ground that free speech
is by definition a tolerance for unpopular views.

~~~
humanrebar
To be clear, according to Gallup [1], over 85% of American Catholics have no
issue with birth control. Not that this is solely a Catholic thing, but it's
an illustrative example.

Even in the link you provided, there is nobody protesting legal birth control.
They are protesting being forced to pay for other peoples' birth control. If
birth control was an out-of-pocket expense, there would be no issue here.

I was simply trying to point out that the government is willing to put people
out of business and litigate them all the way to the Supreme Court to mandate
free birth control.

You seem concerned that the government could trample over your conscience as
well, and we should all be concerned about that, but it's ironic that you
chose this particular issue as an example, considering current events.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-
cathol...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-catholics-
say-birth-control-morally.aspx)

~~~
lutusp
> Even in the link you provided, there is nobody protesting legal birth
> control.

Transparently false -- the people in the story are protesting legal birth
control.

> They are protesting being forced to pay for other peoples' birth control.

That's this week's explanation. These people are against birth control, and
they con't care what form it takes.

> I was simply trying to point out that the government is willing to put
> people out of business and litigate them all the way to the Supreme Court to
> mandate free birth control.

Yes, just the same way the government put people out of business and litigated
all the way to the Supreme Court to mandate an end to slavery. You very
clearly have no idea what you sound like.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Right... that's not going to trick us into advertising on Reddit again, which
is one of the biggest wastes of ad dollars out there. You couldn't sell Makeup
to the /r/makeup forum. They just don't click on ads, let alone buy anything.
We joked about how you're probably better off advertising on a gay porn blog.
I actually tried it. And I got more sales than on Reddit. I've tried 3
separate times and all three were wastes, I've read articles about others
trying and they found it to be a waste as well.

They're doing this to try to get their (often stereotyped as snarky and
condescending) users to click on ads for the "good of the world". It won't
matter because their audience's clicks don't convert into sales.

~~~
simias
I sometimes browse the frontpage of reddit and I feel like the best way to
advertise there is by making "real" submissions.

I've seen quite a lot of highly upvoted submissions like "look what my
girlfriend got me!" linking to a picture of some "geeky" product. Maybe I'm a
bit cynical but I can't help thinking 80% of them are just marketing in
disguise.

Also, you don't even have to pay to submit those stories. I'm not sure how
reddit could solve this problem.

------
izzydata
Ad revenue needs to die as a business model for websites. I will continue to
block all ads on all websites because I can and they are ugly.

~~~
jeremymims
Ok, education time.

You may not like ads but they heavily subsidize great content. In fact, the
price of a New York Times subscription would be close to $1,500 per year if it
weren't for advertisers keeping it closer to $300 (and that's if all their
existing subscribers could even afford it).

Alexander Hamilton (newspaper owner, secretary of the treasury, founder of the
Bank of New York) said:

"It is the advertiser who provides the paper for the subscriber. It is not to
be disputed, that the publisher of a newspaper in this country, without a very
exhaustive advertising support, would receive less reward for his labor than
the humblest mechanic."

The fact is people dramatically underestimate what it costs to produce high
quality content and that as a rule you'd need to spend much more than you'd
expect to have access to it.

Advertising has essentially made information free or cheap for the user for a
long time. Just because you think ads are ugly and annoying doesn't change
this fundamental reality.

~~~
geminitojanus
This fact is why newspapers are dead, and online content continues to blossom.
In the information age, there's absolutely no excuse for the content they
produce to cost $1500/year per subscription.

In fact, that's where we hit the real problem: the kind of content that is
covered with advertisements is usually _not very good content_ to begin with.

This is especially true of content aggregators and meta sites such as Reddit
and to some extent, this website. The content isn't even theirs: they are
simply hosting a discussion forum about the content. A new-agey one instead of
the old BB sites, but it's nonetheless exactly the same.

What content providers should be learning is that _people are willing to pay
for good content._ Quality absolutely matters. The 90s and 00s were all about
quantity, but now we're up to the rafters with disposable content. Look at the
shows with the best ratings today: Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Breaking Bad.
Exceptional content quality, heavily pirated because the content creators have
failed to adapt to new media distribution. The fact that I can torrent GoT
more easily than I can view it from HBO is tragic.

So there's your dose of education for the day.

~~~
tedsanders
I'm trying to learn more about this issue. Could you elaborate on the evidence
for people willing to pay for good content? I know almost no one who pays for
TV a la carte through iTunes or Amazon.

I also don't understand why Game of Thrones supports your argument. Of course
the shows that are pirated the most will be the ones that are (1) popular and
(2) expensive or hard to access. And of course if those shows were cheaper
they'd be pirated less. But I don't see how that relates to the idea that
people are willing to pay for good content. My roommates pirate GoT, but I am
skeptical they'd pay even if it was available for $4.99 an episode.

~~~
geminitojanus
> Could you elaborate on the evidence for people willing to pay for good
> content? I also don't understand why Game of Thrones supports your argument.

[http://bit.ly/1mLgOc3](http://bit.ly/1mLgOc3)

> I know almost no one who pays for TV a la carte through iTunes or Amazon.

You now know of me. I spend around $50/month downloading content from Amazon,
be it music or tv. I would buy Game of Thrones as it came out if I could, but
I can't.

Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. Especially if you've done
no investigation.

>I am skeptical they'd pay even if it was available for $4.99 an episode.

$5 might be a bit steep for some, $2-3 is just about perfect. But honestly I'd
_still_ pay $5 for content created at this level, if not just to encourage the
people creating this quality of content to keep doing it.

Your skepticism is powered by your lack of knowledge and research. Do the
work, then come back and comment.

~~~
tedsanders
Actually, this is an issue I'm trying to research and understand better which
is why I asked you my questions. Sorry if I offended you.

One thing I did try to find before asking you was data on the size of the a la
carte TV/movie market. Anecdotally I know no one who buys TV shows (probably
because I'm poor and tech savvy), but I thought I might be able to find
comprehensive data to change my beliefs. Unfortunately my Google Fu was not
good enough to find anything. I thought you might have a source you could
share with me.

(To be honest, I think your response was rude and I feel a little hurt. But
it's ok.)

Edit: In hindsight, some of the fault was mine. Of course there are people
willing to pay at every price (that is the idea behind a demand curve). I
guess what I'm really getting at is what are the best estimates of the shape
of the demand curve. Would HBO make more money if they made GoT more
accessible/cheaper? Is there evidence that a $2-$3 price point would be better
than $5 price point? What are the price elasticities of demand? I guess I kind
of wrapped up those more subtle questions into the question of people being
willing to pay for content.

------
ef47d35620c1
That's very cool. Allowing the users to have meaningful input will really set
them apart. I don't do reddit much, but this is very noble and generous of
them!

~~~
gatehouse
Yeah, unless the users choose charities that alienate other users. Is your
pageview going the planned parenthood or the NRA? Berkshire Hathaway
discontinued their shareholder directed charity because some (vocal) people
disapproved of the choices:
[http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/jul0303.pdf](http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/jul0303.pdf)

Anyway I wish them the best but I hope they know what they're getting into.

~~~
georgemcbay
They do seem to be thinking about exactly the sorts of problems you are
talking about. Not quite clear in the techcrunch blurb, but more explicitly
stated in the actual reddit blog post:

[http://www.redditblog.com/2014/02/decimating-our-ads-
revenue...](http://www.redditblog.com/2014/02/decimating-our-ads-revenue.html)

------
tehwebguy
This is cool, I wonder why they are using part of the ad rev though.
Advertisers want to advertise no matter what, like it's _basically_ just a
formula for $ <-> traffic. But I'll bet users would be more pumped to buy each
other reddit gold if part of that purchase went to charity.

~~~
humanrebar
It sounds like it's to provide an incentive to stop blocking reddit ads.

------
pxlpshr
Does anyone else feel like this is extremely suspicious (classic misdirection)
given the negativity surrounding the moderation of Snowden's latest leak?

~~~
untog
Are you serious? Of course it isn't. Not everything is a conspiracy theory,
you know. That was to to do with the moderators of /r/news and nothing to do
with Reddit itself.

~~~
MisterWebz
A company is trying to get some good press after a lot of bad press. Must be
some kind of conspiracy theory, right?

~~~
Crito
If I haven't already read about it in the newspaper, then it must be a loony
conspiracy theory. /s

------
josh-wrale
I wonder if it will be the EFF... ;-)

[http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/why_reddit_moderators_are_ce...](http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/why_reddit_moderators_are_censoring_glenn_greenwalds_latest_bombshell_partner/)

~~~
cratermoon
Is the NRA a non-profit? That's the sort of place I see redditors shooting
for.

------
pekk
This is a double-edged move. I will boycott Reddit if it donates to non-
profits I do not wish to support.

------
rando289
Link: company x gives to charity, 5 hours ago.

4 comments responding directly to the link, 3/4 negative.

117 comments responding to randomAnonymousUser[1-4].

(Internet (Hacker News)) culture at its finest.

------
tedchs
And down goes the click-through validity rate.

------
gesman
Non-profit == noble cause?

~~~
pekk
Not at all. Further, Reddit forms hiveminds with strongly idiosyncratic
opinions that squeeze out other valid views, and it's likely one of these
which is going to determine the direction of donations.

------
vonklaus
isn't reddit a non-profit?

------
tharri
Reddit has ads?

~~~
romanovcode
Yes, if you remove AdBlock (or similar) you'll see them.

Also it has plenty of hidden adds crafted as submissions.

~~~
aroch
They aren't hidden, the posts that are ads are clearly marked as such

~~~
romanovcode
I mean advertisement made by people disguised as some kind of post.

It's a risky business though because if they get caught they get masses of
anti-advertisement. Though one would say that best advertisement _is_ anti-
advertisement.

------
paulhauggis
This move is so people on Reddit stop using ad blockers, which is clearly
effecting their bottom line.

I don't think it will work, since Reddit already uses non-intrusive ads and
the majority of people block ads on principal alone.

Users don't want ads (because it's somehow intruding on your space), nobody
would be willing to pay for the site, and Reddit gold was seen as class
warfare (haves and have nots).

Anything that even seems like Reddit wants to bring in money is shunned
immediately by the user base.

Like most anti-capitalist Utopian groups, it's doomed.

~~~
CaptainSwing
Can we infer from this that using ad-block is a form of low intensity class
war? I (as an ad-block user) like this idea.

I think that its perhaps a bit of a stretch to call reddit an 'anti-
capitalist' group, but for sure the capitalists are failing to find a way to
extract profit from it, and this itself really interesting

Like other 'social media' (in the broad sense) enterprises reddit uses the
products of users unpaid labour to reach an audience, and it attempts to make
a profit from selling this audience to advertisers. Unfortunately for those
wanting to profit from reddit, its strong community is resistant to being
exploited in this manner. Im not claiming here that all or even most reddit
users are 'anti-capitalists', or directly opposed to the profit making of
reddit, but simply that there is not (or has not yet ben discovered) a means
of adequately monetising its community which doesn't give the effect of taking
control from said community, and things like the revolt against reddit gold
and the use of ad-block are movements in this struggle over ownership.

I dont, personally, see any resolution to this impasse which maintains both a
profit for reddit and the autonomy and control desired by the reddit
community, and in this we are in some sort of agreement. The two are
irreconcilable. I would choose to back the other horse though.

