Ads or no ad? Can it be so arbitrary?

Ads or no ad? Can it be so arbitrary?

All right, I'm kind of confused here. HMF explained the reason why the retail price will be lower and quantity will be higher with advertisement. However, the success of craigslist is base on no-ads. Then I'm kind of confused now.

So does advertisement attract more eyeballs or push eyeballs away? I was trying to discuss with my roommate, who majors in advertisement. She said if the amount of content remains the same then advertisement won't really hinder readers. So I think the key is the ratio of content and ads, and I'll probably assume users prefer higher content. (I was trying to develop a math variable to HMF's graph, and then I found it's going to be too complicated.)

Wait, I buy Sunday newspaper simply because the coupon. Isn't that an example of ads raise the quantity? (Even though the causal relationship is different from the one in HMF.) I'll rush to a website if there are coupons that I need, too. But that's coupon rather than pure ads. So should we discuss coupon and ads together or separately?

And readers seem to hold different tolerance of printed ads and online ads. The ads on a newspaper seem to be less annoying than website banner ads, at least that's how I feel. But why?

Still have no idea about the relationship between advertisement and news media.

The libertarian capitalism of Craigslist

I agree with Kate about Craig Newmark and the video link about Gov 2.0 was fascinating. It builds on the impression I got from the Wired article, which is that Newmark believes strongly in the ability of Americans to govern their affairs, whether they be buying and selling, campaigning, or... well, affairs. As Thomas Jefferson wrote it: "governments are instituted among them, deriving their just owers from the consent of the governed... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government." Newmark mentions the Founding Fathers in talking about Gov 2.0. I just think Craigslist started the idea - and did it well.

Newmark may be liberal but he’s created the ultimate tool for unfettered capitalism. The irony to both ideological leftists and law-and-order rightists (like state attorneys general) is that Craigslist has, apparently, proven the value of libertarian capitalism better than anybody could have imagined. Facilitate and get out of the way – it’s the ultimate tribute to economist Milton Friedman and to “grassroots democracy” (because not every posting on Craigslist is to buy and sell). And Wolf kind of misses the point on page 3, suggesting Newmark is a hypocrite for being the dictator of the ultimate experiment in digital democracy. However Newmark runs the inner workings of Craigslist he has protected the unfettered nature of the site with almost religious fanaticism. Okay, so he subjectively removes some postings, but my guess is it’s only because their language or content is offensive. This article is exceedingly cynical at the end, which is unfortunate because it seems like Wolf is trying to blame Craigslist for its content, when in fact the content is an artifact of democracy. I’ve used Craigslist to buy and sell and never had a problem. Paint me in the 99.9% - why whine about the remaining one-tenth?
And an aside from the Craigslist article - newspapers have lost $10 billion in declining advertising over the last decade? I know it’s not all due to Craigslist, but it’s amazing that papers have lost half their ad base.