10 ms·

TV, retail, advertising and cascading collapses

124 points by kawera 9y ago

walterbell 9y ago
Amazon reviews allow consumer brands (e.g. Anker) to be built without Procter & Gamble's style of packaged goods advertising. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/technology/cheap-consumer-devices-amazon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/technology/cheap-consumer...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
petepete 9y ago
It's unsurprising that TV's being hit where it hurts. Even when I (rarely) watch things with ads I go out of my way to be able to fast-forward them. The last thing I watched 'weekly' was Game of Thrones which in the UK is broadcast on Sky Atlantic. I just record the show when it's aired overnight (simultaneously with the US) and fast forward them at ×30. If I decide ad hoc to watch a programme now on a commercial channel I just pause it while I make a cup of tea or whatever, giving me enough time to skip the ads. It's a no-brainer. It was funny when Pru Leith suggested her viewers should do the same[0] [0] http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-22/worried-about-the-ads-in-the-great-british-bake-off-press-fast-forward-says-prue-leith/ http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-22/worried-about-the-...
- RodgerTheGreat 9y ago
  The radio times has an anti-adblocker modal over this article. The irony is palpable.
  - lakechfoma 9y ago
    I'm not getting that, what are you using? I'm using uBlock Origin. I wonder how those work, if they detect extensions or what
  - petepete 9y ago
    I didn't see anything, using uBlock Origin.
- post_break 9y ago
  I watched Game of Thrones using HBO Go. I was able to watch it as soon as it aired for like $20 for the season. Money well spent.
- at-fates-hands 9y ago
  > I just record the show when it's aired overnight (simultaneously with the US) and fast forward them at ×30 I'm in the same boat and do something similar. The only thing I really watch "live" are sports. English Football on the weekends, Hockey during the week. Any show I want to watch, I'll record it so I can focus on the substance of the show and fast forward through the commercials. This allows me to watch an hour show in roughly 40 minutes.
  - petepete 9y ago
    Yes, same. My subscription is mainly for Football, and when it's half time it's usually an excuse to go for a wander, take the bins out or put the kettle on.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  I've de-aded my media consumption to such a degree that ads are now actually weird to me. They get my attention solely because I'm so used to not seeing them. One thing that sticks out: A ton of TV advertising is the same ads that were running when I was a kid. Not all of it, but a lot more than I'd expect. Anyone else notice this?
  - jerf 9y ago
    When is "when you were a kid?" For me, seeing a 1980s ad is pretty funny. At least I had the excuse that I was a kid. (Though I recall even in the 90s thinking the whole "EXTREME!" thing was stupid. I think that may have been a pretty egregious case of geographic parochialness; surfer culture may seem totally radical when you're in Hollywood, with easy access to the beach almost year-round, but for anywhere else in the country who either doesn't live so far south, doesn't live near a surfable beach, or doesn't have the cash to fund such an expensive hobby, it was much less compelling.)
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      Ah fair point, should've been more specific. I was a kiddo in the late 90's. I was surprised how many of the ads, especially for things like those Life Alert buttons, were completely unchanged. Also I can't help but notice that 7/8ths of what's advertised on TV is for seniors.
      - jerf 9y ago
        Yes, that makes sense. While the initial thought might be "why change what works" my thought is that the whole operation strikes me as one that is just barely making enough to run the ads at all, rather than some sort of well-funded enterprise that is just not making new ads.
        FussyZeus 9y ago
        I dunno about that, caring for the elderly is a pretty booming business right now with the Baby Boom generation hitting their stride into the silver years. Frankly though they should really update it, some of the footage from their call centers shows people working at dual CRT desks with software that looks like it's straight out of War Games. If I was shopping for something for my mother, I'd want their service at LEAST running Windows 7.
ghaff 9y ago
With TV, I suspect we're seeing inertia or path dependence starting to break down in large numbers. A lot of people did/do watch TV linearly out of habit. Plop themselves down on the couch and watch. Would they have started doing that if they had a lot of other options? Maybe in some cases. (Don't underestimate the desire of some people to have something on in the background.) But probably a lot fewer. Something similar applies to a cable bundle. I lot of people have it. It's probably the easiest way to watch live sports. It may also be bundled in with other services they use. Etc. Canceling probably means changing some habits and losing access to at least some content. But they wouldn't necessarily have called up Comcast or DirecTV and initiated a subscription if they didn't already have one.
- koolba 9y ago
  > A lot of people did/do watch TV linearly out of habit. Plop themselves down on the couch and watch. I'm in this category. I've got a bunch of streaming subscriptions yet I usually end up channel surfing regular TV. Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe it's laziness (i.e. let them decide what I watch, I don't want to pick). Maybe it's the convenience of the interface (it just works, no connecting, changing channels is near instant, etc). Maybe a combo of all of those.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    >Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe it's laziness (i.e. let them decide what I watch, I don't want to pick). Maybe it's the convenience of the interface (it just works, no connecting, changing channels is near instant, etc). Maybe a combo of all of those. That's all likely true to some degree. Personally, I've probably become more and more a very intentional (and occasional) TV watcher and I've never been one to flip the TV on in, say, a hotel room for background when I walk in the door. I still have a cable bundle but I rarely use it.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I've never found value in TV (cable or otherwise) because it seems to be mostly ads these days, but I do a very similar thing in the car. I subscribe to SiriusXM radio (because most channels are commercial-free while FM radio around me is loaded with more ads than music). I have a music streaming service and music on my phone I can pick from, but more often than not I don't want to pick my music. Especially while I'm driving. So I turn on a station I like and can listen ad-free. And if I flip to another station, it's highly likely I'm flipping to another song being played, not to another ad being played like FM radio or TV. If cable TV could be commercial-free like satellite radio, I might be a subscriber. It's the same reason I cancelled my NYT.com subscription: I don't like paying for the privilege of watching advertisements. If I'm paying you money, I'd better get an ad-free experience. If my monthly fee doesn't cover the cost of replacing ads, then you're not charging me enough. Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.
brndnmtthws 9y ago
I hope this also means the end of shitty, wasteful blister/clamshell packaging. It's about time we use materials that decompose, occupy less volume, and don't damage my hands when opening them.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Now we get everything is a huge, wasteful, cardboard box. My flatmate recently ordered sponges from Amazon. A fucking cardboard box for something that you could buy at Wal-Greens for the same price, and where hundreds of them are shipped per box.
  - brndnmtthws 9y ago
    At least cardboard decomposes, whereas plastic remains in a landfill for eternity.
    - twobyfour 9y ago
      Those clamshells are now recyclable. Do you not recycle your cardboard? BTW, landfills aren't great environments for decomposition even for paper and cardboard - the weight and compression make for a hostile environment for aerobic microbes and for the larger animals (rodents, insects, worms) that usually help with the first round of decomposition and increasing the surface area available to the microbes. If you dig into a landfill, you can often find 75-year-old newspapers (made of some of the least durable materials around) completely intact. Mid-to-late 20thC landfills are the worst of all because there's so much plastic and styrofoam, the ratio of decomposable materials is very low.
      - bunderbunder 9y ago
        I don't know that that's really so bad. If we don't want that stuff for any particular reason, then I'd rather its carbon also stay underground rather than being converted into carbon dioxide and released back into the atmosphere.
  - 9y ago
djsumdog 9y ago
The thing that bothers me, about the retail space at least, is the increasing amount of waste and the increasing amount of consumerism. Many people buy PC components from Newegg or household goods from Amazon when they might be an entire $5 more at a retail store. The retails store version you can actually see and touch (more important for a bathmat, less important for a video card) and they're shipping in packages of 100 or 500. Stores typically do recycle all their cardboard. You buy it on-line, and it comes in a box. And those boxes add up, and many of them don't get reused or recycled depending on what part of the world you live in. Amazon pushes people to buy more through their ecosystem. We're buying more stuff we don't need than ever, and generating more waste than ever. Their dash button felt like the ultimate consumption waste tool. Amazon is pushing us into a world where we are continually buying. I'd rather we live in a world where we buy more are, fewer goods (with what we do buy being more expensive but durable). What a great world if our cellphones and devices lasted 8 years instead of 2. A world where we could buy independent games and media and know the creators got a full 85%~90% like with Bandcamp instead of the current bullshit 66% they get from Apple/Google/Amazon/Steam/Gog. A world where we spend less on goods and the goods last longer; a world that lets us spend more on art, could greatly reduce our overall pollution (not just the symbolic and useless measure of carbon) and could help create a more Army of Davids type world where people can legitimately live off their art.
- rossdavidh 9y ago
  I share your concern about excess consumerism, but it's hard to say that the old advertising-driven model was better. The very essence of broadcast media was trying to expose viewers to propaganda aimed at encouraging purchases. Malls are (or were) large spaces devoted to almost nothing else but shopping, and we built ridiculous numbers of them.
- mprovost 9y ago
  Even if the stores are more efficient with packaging/recycling, consumers still have to go to the store. What is the carbon footprint of 500 people driving to the store and back vs a UPS truck delivering 500 individual cardboard boxes? I don't know but I suspect that UPS is going to be smaller.
tarr11 9y ago
Really, whenever you change the channel, buying patterns change - people do not buy the same in malls as in department stores, nor in department stores as in small shops, and so people do not buy exactly the same things online as they do in supermarkets or malls. The channel shapes what is bought. Most shopping online still has an implicit power-law dynamic because of its two-dimensional layout, where being "above-the-fold" or "top of the list" garners the majority of customer attention (and therefore sales).
gwbas1c 9y ago
Regarding what people spend money on, I notice that with clothes. I saw a 1980s Mr. Roger's show yesterday and noticed that a middle-aged man wore a full suit to take his kids to a museum. Today most men don't spend that kind of money on clothes, but we all buy phones and telecom services. Most days I wear cheap jeans and t-shirts, but in another era I'd spend a lot more money on my clothes. I suspect that advertising will get stronger and stronger pushback. With so many options for entertainment and news delivery, I just don't consume anything that mandates ads. (IE, if the BBC or CNN force me to watch a 30 second ad I just ignore the video, if a website blocks my ad blocker I don't read the site.)
- soared 9y ago
  So you don't use broadcast tv, radio, most free apps, any road with signs/billboards, etc.? Advertising is in more places than you think.
  - wincy 9y ago
    Not OP, but I sold my TV, stopped listening to all radio (including NPR), deleted Facebook, and the city I live in banned billboards from the main highway. So it is possible, just takes being willing to really go against the grain. I send friends emails or text messages and connect with new people via Meetup, which I pay for. A bad side effect of this is that when I do hear ads or see a TV it's really, really difficult to filter it out.
    - CDotDot 9y ago
      > A bad side effect of this is that when I do hear ads or see a TV it's really, really difficult to filter it out. That brings to the forefront a feeling that I have noticed in the back of my mind recently: I notice ads that many people don't since I've tried to de-advertise my content consumption. Hulu/Spotify ads breaking up episodes/songs annoy me more than ever, perhaps increasing this cascading failure that the article features.
  - ACow_Adonis 9y ago
    Where I live, broadcast TV has just become a waste of time. If you don't have a car, there's no time/need to listen to a radio. As for billboards and other "in your face" advertising, i'd love to see it disappear, but there is one important factor that differentiates it from explicit tv, youtube, and radio ads: there isn't an explicit opportunity cost between their presence and the activity you're usually partaking in. So if you have you're attention elsewhere, they won't capture it and stop you partaking in the activity you're actually doing. Indeed, my mind has gotten so good at unconsciously filtering out those ads, I can't honestly say I see them. But then, I'm the kind of guy who will walk past a new store I'm not interested in for 6 months before someone else has to inform me it exists. Now, i'm not naive, I know that there's bloggers and newspaper articles and product placement (and all the more reason to stop reading the ones that deliberately do it), but its like junk food. Ok, maybe you can't get it down to zero. But you sure as hell can try to cut it back to a minimum, and its good to do so...
soared 9y ago
So what is the author trying to say? This post seems pretty incoherent. I don't understand the point, and he just flip flops through topics without connecting the dots. Also not a fan of this writing style.. > This ought probably to mean > Meanwhile, the same applies somewhat even > accelerating and interlocking ... discontinuous and cascading
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Google reported that there is over 1.5 billion hours consumed on average per day on YouTube. That is about 10 minutes per person on the planet. Now that is a crazy amount but what is more amazing is how fast it is growing as it is growing at over 50% per year. That is more hours than all of linear TV in the US combined. But then Google has the ability to target ads and therefore have less than linear TV. It is just hard to see how linear TV will be able to compete if they are going g to continue to have 14 minutes of ads per hour of TV. My kids are growing up without ads or far less than I did and there is little chance they would except 1/4 of viewing time being ads.

124 points by kawera 9y ago

Amazon reviews allow consumer brands (e.g. Anker) to be built without Procter & Gamble's style of packaged goods advertising. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/technology/cheap-consumer-devices-amazon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/technology/cheap-consumer...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

petepete 9y ago

It's unsurprising that TV's being hit where it hurts. Even when I (rarely) watch things with ads I go out of my way to be able to fast-forward them. The last thing I watched 'weekly' was Game of Thrones which in the UK is broadcast on Sky Atlantic. I just record the show when it's aired overnight (simultaneously with the US) and fast forward them at ×30. If I decide ad hoc to watch a programme now on a commercial channel I just pause it while I make a cup of tea or whatever, giving me enough time to skip the ads. It's a no-brainer. It was funny when Pru Leith suggested her viewers should do the same[0] [0] http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-22/worried-about-the-ads-in-the-great-british-bake-off-press-fast-forward-says-prue-leith/ http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-22/worried-about-the-...

RodgerTheGreat 9y ago
The radio times has an anti-adblocker modal over this article. The irony is palpable.
- lakechfoma 9y ago
  I'm not getting that, what are you using? I'm using uBlock Origin. I wonder how those work, if they detect extensions or what
- petepete 9y ago
  I didn't see anything, using uBlock Origin.
post_break 9y ago
I watched Game of Thrones using HBO Go. I was able to watch it as soon as it aired for like $20 for the season. Money well spent.
at-fates-hands 9y ago
> I just record the show when it's aired overnight (simultaneously with the US) and fast forward them at ×30 I'm in the same boat and do something similar. The only thing I really watch "live" are sports. English Football on the weekends, Hockey during the week. Any show I want to watch, I'll record it so I can focus on the substance of the show and fast forward through the commercials. This allows me to watch an hour show in roughly 40 minutes.
- petepete 9y ago
  Yes, same. My subscription is mainly for Football, and when it's half time it's usually an excuse to go for a wander, take the bins out or put the kettle on.
FussyZeus 9y ago
I've de-aded my media consumption to such a degree that ads are now actually weird to me. They get my attention solely because I'm so used to not seeing them. One thing that sticks out: A ton of TV advertising is the same ads that were running when I was a kid. Not all of it, but a lot more than I'd expect. Anyone else notice this?
- jerf 9y ago
  When is "when you were a kid?" For me, seeing a 1980s ad is pretty funny. At least I had the excuse that I was a kid. (Though I recall even in the 90s thinking the whole "EXTREME!" thing was stupid. I think that may have been a pretty egregious case of geographic parochialness; surfer culture may seem totally radical when you're in Hollywood, with easy access to the beach almost year-round, but for anywhere else in the country who either doesn't live so far south, doesn't live near a surfable beach, or doesn't have the cash to fund such an expensive hobby, it was much less compelling.)
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Ah fair point, should've been more specific. I was a kiddo in the late 90's. I was surprised how many of the ads, especially for things like those Life Alert buttons, were completely unchanged. Also I can't help but notice that 7/8ths of what's advertised on TV is for seniors.
    - jerf 9y ago
      Yes, that makes sense. While the initial thought might be "why change what works" my thought is that the whole operation strikes me as one that is just barely making enough to run the ads at all, rather than some sort of well-funded enterprise that is just not making new ads.
      - FussyZeus 9y ago
        I dunno about that, caring for the elderly is a pretty booming business right now with the Baby Boom generation hitting their stride into the silver years. Frankly though they should really update it, some of the footage from their call centers shows people working at dual CRT desks with software that looks like it's straight out of War Games. If I was shopping for something for my mother, I'd want their service at LEAST running Windows 7.

ghaff 9y ago

With TV, I suspect we're seeing inertia or path dependence starting to break down in large numbers. A lot of people did/do watch TV linearly out of habit. Plop themselves down on the couch and watch. Would they have started doing that if they had a lot of other options? Maybe in some cases. (Don't underestimate the desire of some people to have something on in the background.) But probably a lot fewer. Something similar applies to a cable bundle. I lot of people have it. It's probably the easiest way to watch live sports. It may also be bundled in with other services they use. Etc. Canceling probably means changing some habits and losing access to at least some content. But they wouldn't necessarily have called up Comcast or DirecTV and initiated a subscription if they didn't already have one.

koolba 9y ago
> A lot of people did/do watch TV linearly out of habit. Plop themselves down on the couch and watch. I'm in this category. I've got a bunch of streaming subscriptions yet I usually end up channel surfing regular TV. Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe it's laziness (i.e. let them decide what I watch, I don't want to pick). Maybe it's the convenience of the interface (it just works, no connecting, changing channels is near instant, etc). Maybe a combo of all of those.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe it's laziness (i.e. let them decide what I watch, I don't want to pick). Maybe it's the convenience of the interface (it just works, no connecting, changing channels is near instant, etc). Maybe a combo of all of those. That's all likely true to some degree. Personally, I've probably become more and more a very intentional (and occasional) TV watcher and I've never been one to flip the TV on in, say, a hotel room for background when I walk in the door. I still have a cable bundle but I rarely use it.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I've never found value in TV (cable or otherwise) because it seems to be mostly ads these days, but I do a very similar thing in the car. I subscribe to SiriusXM radio (because most channels are commercial-free while FM radio around me is loaded with more ads than music). I have a music streaming service and music on my phone I can pick from, but more often than not I don't want to pick my music. Especially while I'm driving. So I turn on a station I like and can listen ad-free. And if I flip to another station, it's highly likely I'm flipping to another song being played, not to another ad being played like FM radio or TV. If cable TV could be commercial-free like satellite radio, I might be a subscriber. It's the same reason I cancelled my NYT.com subscription: I don't like paying for the privilege of watching advertisements. If I'm paying you money, I'd better get an ad-free experience. If my monthly fee doesn't cover the cost of replacing ads, then you're not charging me enough. Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.

brndnmtthws 9y ago

I hope this also means the end of shitty, wasteful blister/clamshell packaging. It's about time we use materials that decompose, occupy less volume, and don't damage my hands when opening them.

djsumdog 9y ago
Now we get everything is a huge, wasteful, cardboard box. My flatmate recently ordered sponges from Amazon. A fucking cardboard box for something that you could buy at Wal-Greens for the same price, and where hundreds of them are shipped per box.
- brndnmtthws 9y ago
  At least cardboard decomposes, whereas plastic remains in a landfill for eternity.
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    Those clamshells are now recyclable. Do you not recycle your cardboard? BTW, landfills aren't great environments for decomposition even for paper and cardboard - the weight and compression make for a hostile environment for aerobic microbes and for the larger animals (rodents, insects, worms) that usually help with the first round of decomposition and increasing the surface area available to the microbes. If you dig into a landfill, you can often find 75-year-old newspapers (made of some of the least durable materials around) completely intact. Mid-to-late 20thC landfills are the worst of all because there's so much plastic and styrofoam, the ratio of decomposable materials is very low.
    - bunderbunder 9y ago
      I don't know that that's really so bad. If we don't want that stuff for any particular reason, then I'd rather its carbon also stay underground rather than being converted into carbon dioxide and released back into the atmosphere.
- 9y ago

djsumdog 9y ago

The thing that bothers me, about the retail space at least, is the increasing amount of waste and the increasing amount of consumerism. Many people buy PC components from Newegg or household goods from Amazon when they might be an entire $5 more at a retail store. The retails store version you can actually see and touch (more important for a bathmat, less important for a video card) and they're shipping in packages of 100 or 500. Stores typically do recycle all their cardboard. You buy it on-line, and it comes in a box. And those boxes add up, and many of them don't get reused or recycled depending on what part of the world you live in. Amazon pushes people to buy more through their ecosystem. We're buying more stuff we don't need than ever, and generating more waste than ever. Their dash button felt like the ultimate consumption waste tool. Amazon is pushing us into a world where we are continually buying. I'd rather we live in a world where we buy more are, fewer goods (with what we do buy being more expensive but durable). What a great world if our cellphones and devices lasted 8 years instead of 2. A world where we could buy independent games and media and know the creators got a full 85%~90% like with Bandcamp instead of the current bullshit 66% they get from Apple/Google/Amazon/Steam/Gog. A world where we spend less on goods and the goods last longer; a world that lets us spend more on art, could greatly reduce our overall pollution (not just the symbolic and useless measure of carbon) and could help create a more Army of Davids type world where people can legitimately live off their art.

rossdavidh 9y ago
I share your concern about excess consumerism, but it's hard to say that the old advertising-driven model was better. The very essence of broadcast media was trying to expose viewers to propaganda aimed at encouraging purchases. Malls are (or were) large spaces devoted to almost nothing else but shopping, and we built ridiculous numbers of them.
mprovost 9y ago
Even if the stores are more efficient with packaging/recycling, consumers still have to go to the store. What is the carbon footprint of 500 people driving to the store and back vs a UPS truck delivering 500 individual cardboard boxes? I don't know but I suspect that UPS is going to be smaller.

tarr11 9y ago

Really, whenever you change the channel, buying patterns change - people do not buy the same in malls as in department stores, nor in department stores as in small shops, and so people do not buy exactly the same things online as they do in supermarkets or malls. The channel shapes what is bought. Most shopping online still has an implicit power-law dynamic because of its two-dimensional layout, where being "above-the-fold" or "top of the list" garners the majority of customer attention (and therefore sales).

gwbas1c 9y ago

Regarding what people spend money on, I notice that with clothes. I saw a 1980s Mr. Roger's show yesterday and noticed that a middle-aged man wore a full suit to take his kids to a museum. Today most men don't spend that kind of money on clothes, but we all buy phones and telecom services. Most days I wear cheap jeans and t-shirts, but in another era I'd spend a lot more money on my clothes. I suspect that advertising will get stronger and stronger pushback. With so many options for entertainment and news delivery, I just don't consume anything that mandates ads. (IE, if the BBC or CNN force me to watch a 30 second ad I just ignore the video, if a website blocks my ad blocker I don't read the site.)

soared 9y ago
So you don't use broadcast tv, radio, most free apps, any road with signs/billboards, etc.? Advertising is in more places than you think.
- wincy 9y ago
  Not OP, but I sold my TV, stopped listening to all radio (including NPR), deleted Facebook, and the city I live in banned billboards from the main highway. So it is possible, just takes being willing to really go against the grain. I send friends emails or text messages and connect with new people via Meetup, which I pay for. A bad side effect of this is that when I do hear ads or see a TV it's really, really difficult to filter it out.
  - CDotDot 9y ago
    > A bad side effect of this is that when I do hear ads or see a TV it's really, really difficult to filter it out. That brings to the forefront a feeling that I have noticed in the back of my mind recently: I notice ads that many people don't since I've tried to de-advertise my content consumption. Hulu/Spotify ads breaking up episodes/songs annoy me more than ever, perhaps increasing this cascading failure that the article features.
- ACow_Adonis 9y ago
  Where I live, broadcast TV has just become a waste of time. If you don't have a car, there's no time/need to listen to a radio. As for billboards and other "in your face" advertising, i'd love to see it disappear, but there is one important factor that differentiates it from explicit tv, youtube, and radio ads: there isn't an explicit opportunity cost between their presence and the activity you're usually partaking in. So if you have you're attention elsewhere, they won't capture it and stop you partaking in the activity you're actually doing. Indeed, my mind has gotten so good at unconsciously filtering out those ads, I can't honestly say I see them. But then, I'm the kind of guy who will walk past a new store I'm not interested in for 6 months before someone else has to inform me it exists. Now, i'm not naive, I know that there's bloggers and newspaper articles and product placement (and all the more reason to stop reading the ones that deliberately do it), but its like junk food. Ok, maybe you can't get it down to zero. But you sure as hell can try to cut it back to a minimum, and its good to do so...

soared 9y ago

So what is the author trying to say? This post seems pretty incoherent. I don't understand the point, and he just flip flops through topics without connecting the dots. Also not a fan of this writing style.. > This ought probably to mean > Meanwhile, the same applies somewhat even > accelerating and interlocking ... discontinuous and cascading

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Google reported that there is over 1.5 billion hours consumed on average per day on YouTube. That is about 10 minutes per person on the planet. Now that is a crazy amount but what is more amazing is how fast it is growing as it is growing at over 50% per year. That is more hours than all of linear TV in the US combined. But then Google has the ability to target ads and therefore have less than linear TV. It is just hard to see how linear TV will be able to compete if they are going g to continue to have 14 minutes of ads per hour of TV. My kids are growing up without ads or far less than I did and there is little chance they would except 1/4 of viewing time being ads.