4 ms·

> Many don't, because it would cut into the data that could be collected and remarketed. The reason advertising companies collect all this data is to use it f

by sidr 8y ago

> Many don't, because it would cut into the data that could be collected and remarketed. The reason advertising companies collect all this data is to use it for marketing/advertising (among other things). The truth of the matter is that Google et. al. would lose users if they charged them what it actually cost to run and continually improve their services and make a profit (which is their prerogative/duty as for-profit companies). Consumers may say that they'd be open to paying for services, but I have a strong suspicion this is not true at a large enough scale to be even worth exploring. People paying for online streaming services versus cable may be a counter to that argument, although then it seems like it takes decades for the ad-fatigue to set in...or the ratio of ads to content has to steadily keep increasing until it reaches the tipping point where people would rather pay (and still throw a fit when Netflix raises their prices).

philipkglass 8y ago
People paying for online streaming services versus cable may be a counter to that argument, although then it seems like it takes decades for the ad-fatigue to set in. Pay-TV over cable arrived in the US in 1972. Netflix's streaming service was first available in 2007. The problem wasn't that people took decades to be annoyed by advertising on cable but that for decades Netflix (Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Now) did not exist. Once paid commercial-free streaming services arrived, uptake was rapid.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  Your example doesn't refute his point. 20 years ago, I knew plenty of people who would be willing to pay good money for a TV service without ads. Today I find almost no one willing to pay enough for, say, Facebook without ads. Most people I asked say $0 or $1/month. To get the same revenue as they currently do, FB would need to charge $20/year to everyone. Since many (most) will not pay that amount, they need to charge even higher. I don't see how a company like Facebook would make that much profit without ads. And to be frank, decent enough non-ad supported alternatives exist. I can't get one person in real life to switch to them. News is another example that mostly hasn't worked without ad money. There are some examples (e.g. government funded), but even those don't have enough reach compared to what the ad supported ones did 20 years ago. That it worked for TV is not an indicator that the general model can be applied to all ad-supported services out there.
salawat 8y ago
My point was that advertising has gone off the rails, and on the offensive. Advertising is "Hey, we're here!" What they do now is more akin to attempted social engineering/psychological manipulation. It's disgusting to see, disrespectful to everyone, and if I had to guess, I'd say it is fueling a counterculture that could very possibly put a leash on the current understanding of free 'marketing' speech. News and the main stream media have the same problem. They focus so much on paperclip maximizing for viewership that the quality of actual useful productive content is being degraded in order to 'lock in' target audiences.

by sidr 8y ago

philipkglass 8y ago

People paying for online streaming services versus cable may be a counter to that argument, although then it seems like it takes decades for the ad-fatigue to set in. Pay-TV over cable arrived in the US in 1972. Netflix's streaming service was first available in 2007. The problem wasn't that people took decades to be annoyed by advertising on cable but that for decades Netflix (Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Now) did not exist. Once paid commercial-free streaming services arrived, uptake was rapid.

BeetleB 8y ago
Your example doesn't refute his point. 20 years ago, I knew plenty of people who would be willing to pay good money for a TV service without ads. Today I find almost no one willing to pay enough for, say, Facebook without ads. Most people I asked say $0 or $1/month. To get the same revenue as they currently do, FB would need to charge $20/year to everyone. Since many (most) will not pay that amount, they need to charge even higher. I don't see how a company like Facebook would make that much profit without ads. And to be frank, decent enough non-ad supported alternatives exist. I can't get one person in real life to switch to them. News is another example that mostly hasn't worked without ad money. There are some examples (e.g. government funded), but even those don't have enough reach compared to what the ad supported ones did 20 years ago. That it worked for TV is not an indicator that the general model can be applied to all ad-supported services out there.

salawat 8y ago

My point was that advertising has gone off the rails, and on the offensive. Advertising is "Hey, we're here!" What they do now is more akin to attempted social engineering/psychological manipulation. It's disgusting to see, disrespectful to everyone, and if I had to guess, I'd say it is fueling a counterculture that could very possibly put a leash on the current understanding of free 'marketing' speech. News and the main stream media have the same problem. They focus so much on paperclip maximizing for viewership that the quality of actual useful productive content is being degraded in order to 'lock in' target audiences.