4 ms·

Sounds good for upper middle class population. If your wages were $50,000/yr (aka US median wage) then you would think twice or may be thrice about anything tha

by sytelus 11y ago

Sounds good for upper middle class population. If your wages were $50,000/yr (aka US median wage) then you would think twice or may be thrice about anything that has word "subscription" in it. Also, consider the fact lot of subscriptions have poor overall value. Advertises allow you to try and move on without making any commitments. If all internet websites enforced subscriptions then you won't be browsing around so often. Finally, anyone who had been in media business for long enough knows that subscription is terrible business model. Subscriber churn is almost always ongoing threat putting significant pressure on aquition pipeline. If TV channels went subscription only, most would die quick horrible death. The open secret in media industry is that advertisers are forced to pay lot more money than return they would actually get which ultimately "subsidizes" the content creation.

natrius 11y ago
Advertisers aren't funding content to help the middle class. They're funding content to take the middle class's money. You might think advertising doesn't make people spend more, but there's a pretty big industry that disagrees with you. I don't care if it's hard to build a business on subscriptions. The alternative—building a business on addiction and manipulation—is immoral. I will happily watch it die.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  also they are not funding insightful writing, but poisonous clickbaits, that's the real thing that ruined it (and virus served by ad networks)
- icebraining 11y ago
  You might think advertising doesn't make people spend more, but there's a pretty big industry that disagrees with you. So what would people do with the money if ads didn't exist? Make quilts out of bills? People are going to spend it all, that's the whole purpose of money, ads just redirect who gets it.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    People would accumulate capital instead. After all, that's what the hyperwealthy do.
  - terryf 11y ago
    So, you are agains people having some savings and less junk that does not make them happier? You do realise that much of advertising is geared towards getting you to do that impulse purchase that you later regret? There are studies showing that people don't use their garages to park their cars, because they are full of stuff. Ads constantly remind me that the newer model of the blender that I have will make me sooo much cooler (blender is just an example). But the last year's blender that I have works perfectly well. Why should I like the fact that the website tells me that I'm old and boring because I don't have a perfect body and I have last year's blender model?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Yes, people buy a lot of crap they don't need. It's not clear to me that they would stop doing so without advertising, or whether ads are just getting them to buy different crap. Besides, with the constant concern about "aggregate demand", it's far from clear to me that people would actually be allowed to keep those savings.
devishard 11y ago
> Sounds good for upper middle class population. If your wages were $50,000/yr (aka US median wage) then you would think twice or may be thrice about anything that has word "subscription" in it. Garbage content is not an improvement over no content, no matter what your demographic. I'm also skeptical that there's a very large demographic for whom even $10/mo in subscription fees would break the bank. > If all internet websites enforced subscriptions then you won't be browsing around so often. Sounds great to me. Most of the time I spend on the internet is spent looking for decent content, and most of that time is spent sifting through garbage. > Finally, anyone who had been in media business for long enough knows that subscription is terrible business model. Excellent. I really hope the Buzzfeeds of the world go out of business. Advertisers and the garbage they fund make the world a worse place. They prop up businesses that provide negative value. They drain resources from businesses that provide value but have to advertise to the level of their competition's advertising. They introduce insecurity and complexity to our infrastructures. They waste the talents of thousands of brilliant minds who could be solving real problems. They sell people things they don't need or want, for prices they can't afford. Worst of all, they poison the collective consciousness with ignorance and outright lies. They deserve to go out of business. People are willing to pay for what they actually want, and people want good content, so creators of good content will be okay. The creators of garbage who need ads to legitimate their sorry existence, on the other hand, can burn.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I'm also skeptical that there's a very large demographic for whom even $10/mo in subscription fees would break the bank. But what can you buy with $10/m? The subscription to a single newspaper is more than that (and you often still get ads).
- RealityVoid 11y ago
  > Garbage content is not an improvement over no content, no matter what your demographic. I'm also skeptical that there's a very large demographic for whom even $10/mo in subscription fees would break the bank. I wholly disagree. You think from the perspective of an US citizen but there are other places on the map where 10$ would be a great deal. This would restrict these people's access to information that they might need just as mush as you do. The side effect would be effectively closing off parts of the internet to a great array of people. You'd eventually get at the same impasse the film industry is now. Bad distribution, unserrviced areas, article piracy would pop-up. My father earns ~300 EUR/month. How would you convince him to pay 10$/month for a website that publishes maybe ~5 articles that seem interesting to him a month? And your information staple is not just _one_ provider, but many providers, and you'd probably have to pay them all. The presence of paywalls would not necessarily exclude the existence of rubbish. Look at newspapers before internet, bad press also existed then, tabloids existed then. And people paid for them. No, the reason bad content exists is not because of the payment model, it's because people _like_ it. They enjoy shitty articles, they let themselves emotionally manipulated by factless press. We, as a collective, are pretty weak. But open, even ad-based access to information can improve this. Open access leads to a more diverse information stable and eventually, people settle for the, it not best, at least better information alternative. Thing that would not happen if you were stuck in your information bubble, as is with a sole or few information providers.

by sytelus 11y ago

natrius 11y ago

Advertisers aren't funding content to help the middle class. They're funding content to take the middle class's money. You might think advertising doesn't make people spend more, but there's a pretty big industry that disagrees with you. I don't care if it's hard to build a business on subscriptions. The alternative—building a business on addiction and manipulation—is immoral. I will happily watch it die.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
also they are not funding insightful writing, but poisonous clickbaits, that's the real thing that ruined it (and virus served by ad networks)
icebraining 11y ago
You might think advertising doesn't make people spend more, but there's a pretty big industry that disagrees with you. So what would people do with the money if ads didn't exist? Make quilts out of bills? People are going to spend it all, that's the whole purpose of money, ads just redirect who gets it.
- pjc50 11y ago
  People would accumulate capital instead. After all, that's what the hyperwealthy do.
- terryf 11y ago
  So, you are agains people having some savings and less junk that does not make them happier? You do realise that much of advertising is geared towards getting you to do that impulse purchase that you later regret? There are studies showing that people don't use their garages to park their cars, because they are full of stuff. Ads constantly remind me that the newer model of the blender that I have will make me sooo much cooler (blender is just an example). But the last year's blender that I have works perfectly well. Why should I like the fact that the website tells me that I'm old and boring because I don't have a perfect body and I have last year's blender model?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yes, people buy a lot of crap they don't need. It's not clear to me that they would stop doing so without advertising, or whether ads are just getting them to buy different crap. Besides, with the constant concern about "aggregate demand", it's far from clear to me that people would actually be allowed to keep those savings.

devishard 11y ago

> Sounds good for upper middle class population. If your wages were $50,000/yr (aka US median wage) then you would think twice or may be thrice about anything that has word "subscription" in it. Garbage content is not an improvement over no content, no matter what your demographic. I'm also skeptical that there's a very large demographic for whom even $10/mo in subscription fees would break the bank. > If all internet websites enforced subscriptions then you won't be browsing around so often. Sounds great to me. Most of the time I spend on the internet is spent looking for decent content, and most of that time is spent sifting through garbage. > Finally, anyone who had been in media business for long enough knows that subscription is terrible business model. Excellent. I really hope the Buzzfeeds of the world go out of business. Advertisers and the garbage they fund make the world a worse place. They prop up businesses that provide negative value. They drain resources from businesses that provide value but have to advertise to the level of their competition's advertising. They introduce insecurity and complexity to our infrastructures. They waste the talents of thousands of brilliant minds who could be solving real problems. They sell people things they don't need or want, for prices they can't afford. Worst of all, they poison the collective consciousness with ignorance and outright lies. They deserve to go out of business. People are willing to pay for what they actually want, and people want good content, so creators of good content will be okay. The creators of garbage who need ads to legitimate their sorry existence, on the other hand, can burn.

icebraining 11y ago
I'm also skeptical that there's a very large demographic for whom even $10/mo in subscription fees would break the bank. But what can you buy with $10/m? The subscription to a single newspaper is more than that (and you often still get ads).
RealityVoid 11y ago
> Garbage content is not an improvement over no content, no matter what your demographic. I'm also skeptical that there's a very large demographic for whom even $10/mo in subscription fees would break the bank. I wholly disagree. You think from the perspective of an US citizen but there are other places on the map where 10$ would be a great deal. This would restrict these people's access to information that they might need just as mush as you do. The side effect would be effectively closing off parts of the internet to a great array of people. You'd eventually get at the same impasse the film industry is now. Bad distribution, unserrviced areas, article piracy would pop-up. My father earns ~300 EUR/month. How would you convince him to pay 10$/month for a website that publishes maybe ~5 articles that seem interesting to him a month? And your information staple is not just _one_ provider, but many providers, and you'd probably have to pay them all. The presence of paywalls would not necessarily exclude the existence of rubbish. Look at newspapers before internet, bad press also existed then, tabloids existed then. And people paid for them. No, the reason bad content exists is not because of the payment model, it's because people _like_ it. They enjoy shitty articles, they let themselves emotionally manipulated by factless press. We, as a collective, are pretty weak. But open, even ad-based access to information can improve this. Open access leads to a more diverse information stable and eventually, people settle for the, it not best, at least better information alternative. Thing that would not happen if you were stuck in your information bubble, as is with a sole or few information providers.