5 ms·

>It means the available creative works—which in turn effectively means the engine of culture—is determined almost entirely by people who are well-off enough to

by vitd 11y ago

>It means the available creative works—which in turn effectively means the engine of culture—is determined almost entirely by people who are well-off enough to have the free time to do that. From where I sit, that's the problem ad-supported media has, not the other way around. Look at TV before Netflix/iTunes/etc. came along. It was pretty much a crap-fest of lowest-common-denominator programming that was created based on who sold the most ads. It left out large sections of the population (minorities, women, LGBT, etc.) for the most part, relegating them to stereotypes, if they were mentioned at all. It also limited content that discussed topics that were unpleasant to the media gateways. (I've heard it said that NBC News wasn't allowed to discuss nuclear power at all because GE, which owns NBC, was in that business and didn't want any bad press from their own company.) Now a television show on Netflix/HBO/etc. can discuss topics that it wants without having to worry about whether a sponsor might drop out, or they might offend someone, or because they didn't appeal enough to the mainstream. Removing ads has freed media. The current system isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than 3 major networks pumping out sitcoms about white fat guys married to beautiful women.

theg2 11y ago
You're missing the point that people are paying for Netflix/HBO as a premium/luxury service while many in this thread claim they won't even pay for content they like and will instead just ad block. You can bitch all you want about the poor state of journalism, but the institutions that are trying to maintain it in a market where no one wants to pay for it are struggling. People won't pay subscriptions (the majority), don't want ads, but still want all that content. The startup/software development equivalent is open source but that only works for largely one group of people: well off white males.
- AngrySkillzz 11y ago
  I'm not totally convinced that people actually "want" all that ad-supported content, if in this case we're talking about Internet articles and television programs. We consume it when it's there and easy to obtain, but that's a pretty low bar in terms of wanting something. Who's to say that we wouldn't find better uses for our time if all of that content disappeared? Maybe something we actually cared about enough to pay for?
  - geoelectric 11y ago
    Find a better use of your time and, for you at least, the content will disappear. Voila.
    - fwn 11y ago
      It happens even faster if you consume it and block all ads embedded. And sometimes there are even hidden gems between crap content!
jcrites 11y ago
> Look at TV before Netflix/iTunes/etc. came along. I think that undermines your point: Netflix and iTunes are paid content channels. TV used to be freely broadcast over the airwaves (still is, but used to be too) and needed to earn money exclusively from advertising. Netflix and iTunes were not the beginning of that trend. It started when cable TV came along, and began selling subscription access to content like HBO, Showtime, etc. which have no ads. The differentiator with Netflix and iTunes was the ability to stream TV over the Internet, and consequently pay for it without bundling it into cable, and paying for individual shows/movies a la carte. It's also taken a while for Netflix and Amazon to begin offering their own premium content. HBO has been in operation since the 1970s, though to be fair its critical mass really began in 1999 with The Sopranos. Netflix introduced streaming TV in 2007 and received its first real primetime Emmy nominations for its own content in 2013 (House of Cards) In 2015, HBO received 126 Primetime Emmy nominations (Game of Thrones), the most of any network, a spot HBO has held for 15 years in a row according to NYT. That year, Netflix received 34 nominations and the nascent Amazon Studios garnered 12 (Transparent).
erichocean 11y ago
> It was pretty much a crap-fest of lowest-common-denominator programming You're describing the vast majority of the content on Netflix today.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  It describes the vast majority of everything. The key point to realize is that it's a different vast majority for everybody.
- dota_fanatic 11y ago
  the vast majority of Netflix's content is a crap-fest of lowest-common-denominator programming Would you agree that there doesn't exist a similar or better way to obtain the highest quality programming? Netflix has a library (and interface) that many people have found sufficiently entertaining and edifying to the point that they'll drop all traditional content delivery platforms for it. It also doesn't have any ads beyond its contents' meta data like cover art, top casting, ui / categorization choices, etc. In able to access the opposite of crap-fest content, let's call it quality content, how is a person to reasonably find it and then consume it? Affordably and conveniently with a minimum amount of time searching? Especially with the never-ending flood of content, much of it inspired by the need to sell or be famous? There's just not enough time in the day to hunt for quality content for many, many people. It seems like Netflix is a better thing in comparison to what came before it, and ads are notably absent. What is the best version of content provision to the 7bil+, and why is it taking so long / so hard to implement? Personally, seems like a clear win to me towards that system is to automate away the middleman. :)
  - mikeryan 11y ago
    Would you agree that there doesn't exist a similar or better way to obtain the highest quality programming? No, cable or satllite both provide a greater breadth of highest quality programming. The cost and licensing terms are rough but it's a hell of a content offering

by vitd 11y ago

theg2 11y ago

You're missing the point that people are paying for Netflix/HBO as a premium/luxury service while many in this thread claim they won't even pay for content they like and will instead just ad block. You can bitch all you want about the poor state of journalism, but the institutions that are trying to maintain it in a market where no one wants to pay for it are struggling. People won't pay subscriptions (the majority), don't want ads, but still want all that content. The startup/software development equivalent is open source but that only works for largely one group of people: well off white males.

AngrySkillzz 11y ago
I'm not totally convinced that people actually "want" all that ad-supported content, if in this case we're talking about Internet articles and television programs. We consume it when it's there and easy to obtain, but that's a pretty low bar in terms of wanting something. Who's to say that we wouldn't find better uses for our time if all of that content disappeared? Maybe something we actually cared about enough to pay for?
- geoelectric 11y ago
  Find a better use of your time and, for you at least, the content will disappear. Voila.
  - fwn 11y ago
    It happens even faster if you consume it and block all ads embedded. And sometimes there are even hidden gems between crap content!

jcrites 11y ago

> Look at TV before Netflix/iTunes/etc. came along. I think that undermines your point: Netflix and iTunes are paid content channels. TV used to be freely broadcast over the airwaves (still is, but used to be too) and needed to earn money exclusively from advertising. Netflix and iTunes were not the beginning of that trend. It started when cable TV came along, and began selling subscription access to content like HBO, Showtime, etc. which have no ads. The differentiator with Netflix and iTunes was the ability to stream TV over the Internet, and consequently pay for it without bundling it into cable, and paying for individual shows/movies a la carte. It's also taken a while for Netflix and Amazon to begin offering their own premium content. HBO has been in operation since the 1970s, though to be fair its critical mass really began in 1999 with The Sopranos. Netflix introduced streaming TV in 2007 and received its first real primetime Emmy nominations for its own content in 2013 (House of Cards) In 2015, HBO received 126 Primetime Emmy nominations (Game of Thrones), the most of any network, a spot HBO has held for 15 years in a row according to NYT. That year, Netflix received 34 nominations and the nascent Amazon Studios garnered 12 (Transparent).

erichocean 11y ago

> It was pretty much a crap-fest of lowest-common-denominator programming You're describing the vast majority of the content on Netflix today.

oldmanjay 11y ago
It describes the vast majority of everything. The key point to realize is that it's a different vast majority for everybody.
dota_fanatic 11y ago
the vast majority of Netflix's content is a crap-fest of lowest-common-denominator programming Would you agree that there doesn't exist a similar or better way to obtain the highest quality programming? Netflix has a library (and interface) that many people have found sufficiently entertaining and edifying to the point that they'll drop all traditional content delivery platforms for it. It also doesn't have any ads beyond its contents' meta data like cover art, top casting, ui / categorization choices, etc. In able to access the opposite of crap-fest content, let's call it quality content, how is a person to reasonably find it and then consume it? Affordably and conveniently with a minimum amount of time searching? Especially with the never-ending flood of content, much of it inspired by the need to sell or be famous? There's just not enough time in the day to hunt for quality content for many, many people. It seems like Netflix is a better thing in comparison to what came before it, and ads are notably absent. What is the best version of content provision to the 7bil+, and why is it taking so long / so hard to implement? Personally, seems like a clear win to me towards that system is to automate away the middleman. :)
- mikeryan 11y ago
  Would you agree that there doesn't exist a similar or better way to obtain the highest quality programming? No, cable or satllite both provide a greater breadth of highest quality programming. The cost and licensing terms are rough but it's a hell of a content offering