Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I agree with your main point but your math is off by an order of magnitude:

(14,300,000 x $0.05 x 0.5)/1000 = $357.50/day

I still think Reddit could easily pay their costs by running ads, not sure why they are not doing so.

Their user base is outright hostile to the idea.

Users are actively hostile to ads in general. Reddit's userbase, in particular, has been spoiled by the staff's similar attitude towards ads. The fact remains that computing power, bandwidth, and storage takes money, which is easy for your average hostile-to-ads user to forget.

If they dropped in AdSense units, there would be an uproar for about a week, then people would adapt and life would go on with a significantly bolstered revenue stream. Worst that happens is that more users would still be adblocking, but given their page view volume compared to their expenses, I can't imagine that even that would be a net loss.

> The fact remains that computing power, bandwidth, and storage takes money, which is easy for your average hostile-to-ads user to forget.

Uh... therefore reddit gold. That's the point.

Reddit gold will probably bring in 2% of what adsense would bring in (If the userbase was 'better')

I think you are completely wrong about that. Even at a very low conversion rate subscriptions pull in an awful lot of money. Typically my subscription income outweighs my ad income by about 5 to 1 in a given month. And my site is far smaller than reddit.

The key to this is user retention, and if reddit users are loyal to reddit (which they seem to be, especially those willing to pull their credit cards) I wouldn't be surprised to see retentions on the order of 6 months or more.

What do you base the 2% on ?

If you look at the internet as a whole, the number of $ revenue from 'subscriptions' vs number of $ from advertising, then the % is probably far lower. <1%. Also my personal experience has been that it's far far easier to make money from advertising. Especially for something like Reddit where there is little incentive for people to pay.

For Reddit, yes you'll get a number of die-hard fans who want to subscribe. But I don't believe that there is a big enough value proposition for the userbase to do that en-masse. They may as well just set up their own reddit since the code is open source (And wouldn't be that hard to recreate if it wasn't).

It might be different if:

  A). Reddit wasn't spending crazy money on servers
  B). Reddit wasn't owned by a multinational corporation
  C). Reddit hadn't pandered to, and cultivated a staunchly
      anti advertising userbase.
Right now though, it's looking like they're going to try a subscription based news service. Which fails time and time again. People don't want to pay for online news.

Also from their latest blog post, it looks like they're just spending the 'reddit gold' money on more hardware! Instead of fixing the underlying issues.

I agree that their hardware strategies are bordering on the insane, I can host much (and really, like 10 times or so) cheaper by simply getting dedicated servers with fat pipes than I could ever do using EC2, that part makes no sense at all to me. Scaling issues aside, if they ran an efficient shop serverwise I think they could easily operate the whole thing from their subscription potential. Typically you can count on between 0.5 and 2% of your users signing up for a 'gold' service, provided you give them some extra goodies on top of the free product.

The 'news' angle is a silly one, but they could definitely think up features that people would pay for that are not available right now in the free product.

The real issue with reddit making money from advertising (aside from the ad blocking) is that the CPMs that are quoted here (between 2 and 9$) are not realistic for their number of pageviews. By the time all the unsold inventory is taken out you probably end with $0.05 ECPM or maybe 10 cts per click (and that would be pretty good).

I'm really interested in how much they were paying before for their bandwidth and hosting if going to EC2 actually lowered their costs, they must have had the worst deal on the net for that to be true.

Right now, $30K / month buys you 20 (very) fat servers and 20 Gbps flat rate, managed hosting.

I'd really like to see someone make the case they can get that kind of performance out of EC2 for a similar cost.

>Also from their latest blog post, it looks like they're just spending the 'reddit gold' money on more hardware!

And hiring a designer! Because, you know, that'll fix their load issues.

joking aside, a good designer can save you bandwidth money if they know what they are doing. (please note I used the word "good")

From elsewhere, only 10% of the cost is bandwidth. 90% is CPU?!!! Because Reddit is so computationally expensive apparently...

Considering reddit's current bare-bones design, a designer would have a hard time coming up with something eating less bandwidth, lest he removed all colors.

You can waste a lot of bytes on a bar-bones design if done poorly. A couple of years ago there was a blog post (can't find it now) about a designer redoing slashdot.org using css and that redesign had a pretty large % change in size.

Slashdot was tables-based back in the day, which can't help but be verbose. :)

(The point stands, though, that "basic" doesn't mean "light").

They have conditioned their user base to be hostile to the idea.

Maybe, but I'd guess a significant portion arrived that way. Advertising on the web is often extraordinarily obnoxious, and makes few friends.

It'll be interesting to see whether they're more hostile to advertisements or not having a site.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Most active redditors I know, including myself, have reddit whitelisted on AdBlock.

Whitelisting solves nothing. It's still a 'bad' userbase. It's been cultivated to be anti consumerist anti advertising etc.

Whitelisting on adblock will let through a tiny bit of CPM based revenue, but people won't click in the numbers that 'normal' people do.

How do you cultivate a user base in a particular direction, when all the content is submitted by the users?

The only way I can think of to cultivate an anti-ad userbase is to not have ads, but Reddit has had advertising for a long time. For a while it was even a bit obnoxious.

Right. You need to set the tone for a community while it is growing.

I was thinking that my numbers seemed high, but mentally chalked that up to the fact that they do $overflow pageviews/month. Thanks.

Still though, I agree. At something like a $2 CPM (which is NOT that hard to get for someone their size) they'd still be pulling in insane money for just one ad unit.

Using _pi's figure of $8 CPM then we get 160 times this, $57,200 ?

No on seems to be mentioning other revenue streams, user stats, customised reddits, merchandise sales, ...?

There's not a chance in the world that reddit could get $8 CPMs. They might be able to sell ads on one or two subreddits for that, but I doubt it.

They could get more than $8 because there would only be a single ad on the page. Roadblock rates (ie. when a single advertiser buys out every ad slot on the site) are $65+ CPM on sites like Gawker and Techcrunch. If you assume a 50% fill rate on reddit, it would be very realistic for the site to achieve a $20+ECPM.

The users now have an option to not see ads (ie. buy a gold subscription), so they can't really complain about having a single ad slot on the page for non-gold users.

To go further, they could not show the ad slot at all if there isn't a campaign running on the site (ie. don't show 'backfill') which would further increase the value of the slot.

$100k+ a month from that ad slot would be very very easy to achieve, and with minimal sales work (they could outsource it to Doubleclick or another network). Sites like Techcrunch and Gawker make millions from ad revenue with a fraction of the traffic - reddit could hit 6 figures a month with a single unit that isn't even displayed all the time.

It would be a perfect balance of retaining the style of the site along with bringing in revenue

TBH, when CN bought reddit, this is what I thought they would do

You can't compare content sites to aggregators. Even if you could, the Gawker properties have really good demographics (as far as advertisers are concerned).

Do you really think that they could pull $8 CPM?

What's digg getting? A bit of googling shows that most people who get front-paged see ECPM of <$1...

Why do you think that reddit would be so much higher?

(I agree, they should be showing more ads)

It's really their rate, check the link under my comment thread.

$130k/year with your numbers.

That'll cover the servers, easy, but what about salaries?

That's with a 5-cent CPM and a 50% block rate. Those are laughably conservative numbers. The actual numbers they could pull would be massively larger.

Just wondering, thanks for letting me know.

I have no idea what constitutes normal ad rates for a site because all the projects I've worked on have been pathological cases in either direction.

What would some realistic numbers for something like Reddit be?

Maybe a $0.50 CPM * 4 ad units/page * (1 - 0.25 adblock rate) * 14.3M/1000 = $21,450/day or ~7.83M/yr

At 33k/mo in servers costs it doesn't even remotely cover the servers.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact