4 ms·
> But the prevalence of password sharing suggests many of those customers [...] are watching popular shows [...] for free, robbing pay-TV providers and programm
by kodablah 9y ago
> But the prevalence of password sharing suggests many of those customers [...] are watching popular shows [...] for free, robbing pay-TV providers and programmers of [...] advertising dollars.
Can someone help me understand how it is robbing them of advertising dollars? I understand it's robbing them of fees (though I don't like the double-dip model and especially loathe the concept of retransmission fees). But I don't understand how more "free" eyeballs are costing advertising dollars. In fact, I would think more eyeballs would be an advertiser's goal.
- The_Egg_Man 9y agoThey probably get advertising dollars per subscriber. The people stealing passwords arent counted as subscribers so they dont get revenue for those.
- kodablah 9y agoAh, so they are being "robbed of advertising dollars" because they assume that password stealers would otherwise be legitimate subscribers? Ha. In the meantime, a non-subscriber viewing something isn't technically taking anyone's money and this type of weasel-wording keeps public opinion against them. Also, they would be wise to get advertising dollars per viewer as TV streams are often legally multiplexed in a household. This had traditionally been the case in the pre-digital world w/ Nielsen ratings.
- whiddershins 9y agoThis is a false premise, if they actually sell that way. Newspapers used to estimate IIRC that each paper was viewed by an average of three people, therefore the advertising “reach” was standardized as such. It’s all a bit arbitrary, in the case of paying for eyeballs, as opposed to clicks. The only revenue they are losing that is real revenue is subscription revenue.