3 ms·

> 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an i

> 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your audience won't ever see those ads in the first place. I think this is spot on. And some people are willing to pay. Another example of this is Youtubers and Patreon. Now, you can finally block ads without guilt and support those creators far more reliably. If the number of supporters dominates the ad revenue, it also encourages more quality and less quantity. For me, this is also where Youtube Red failed. It isn't transparent enough and I couldn't care less about all the "value-add" they tried to staple onto it. I'd rather pay ~$20/month distributed among roughly 6 channels via Patreon. Although it would be really nice to have a way to automatically give a few cents go to videos I watched and enjoyed (by some opt-out metric, e.g. watched more than 30%, or didn't hit dislike, or wasn't autoplayed "next up").

pmoriarty 10y ago
"some people are willing to pay" Isn't it a little perverse that the willingness of people to pay to block annoying ads provides an incentive to make ads ever more prevalent and annoying?
- fasquoika 10y ago
  http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12 http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12
- guitarbill 10y ago
  Depends on your threshold for annoying. While there are terrible ads, I think Youtube is okay. And I don't see it as an arms race at all. It could be a win/win situation. For companies, getting people to watch video ads is a win. For content creators, it's a win cause they get paid. For Youtube, it's a win cause they have a revenue stream. For viewers, it's a win because they don't have to pay anything. The problem is in many cases, if you did want to pay, either to get rid of ads or to support content creators in a greater way, there's not much choice. (Which is puzzling as for a walled garden like Youtube the solution is much, much simpler than for the web.)
rhizome 10y ago
And some people are willing to pay. How much would it cost to offest the advertising income loss?

pmoriarty 10y ago

"some people are willing to pay" Isn't it a little perverse that the willingness of people to pay to block annoying ads provides an incentive to make ads ever more prevalent and annoying?

fasquoika 10y ago
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12 http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12
guitarbill 10y ago
Depends on your threshold for annoying. While there are terrible ads, I think Youtube is okay. And I don't see it as an arms race at all. It could be a win/win situation. For companies, getting people to watch video ads is a win. For content creators, it's a win cause they get paid. For Youtube, it's a win cause they have a revenue stream. For viewers, it's a win because they don't have to pay anything. The problem is in many cases, if you did want to pay, either to get rid of ads or to support content creators in a greater way, there's not much choice. (Which is puzzling as for a walled garden like Youtube the solution is much, much simpler than for the web.)

rhizome 10y ago

And some people are willing to pay. How much would it cost to offest the advertising income loss?