4 ms·

I understand this but it doesn't really counteract my point: it pays for stuff. It (helps) pay for your bus stop (or at least it does in the states), it's on pa

I understand this but it doesn't really counteract my point: it pays for stuff. It (helps) pay for your bus stop (or at least it does in the states), it's on paid television because you'd have to pay EVEN MORE for it, and movies on top of that. Now, if you made an argument that the entire structure is screwed up and the people at the top deserve to make less and therefore not needing as much cash flow and therefore we should be able to cut the ads, THEN I might agree...

esotericn 8y ago
Nah. I don't believe that my train or bus would cost substantially more without the advertising. And even if it did, it's just an internalization of costs. The advertising (if it works) pulls money in through a side channel (someone sees an ad and later buys a thing). It makes far more sense to just pay for the bus. Other examples, like ads at the side of the road, don't even pay for anything. Driving along the road, I see an ad in a farmer's field. I'm not using that field in any meaningful sense. edit: I actually looked up the transport example. Transport for London had approximately a 1:20 ratio of advertising to fare revenue last year. So, I'd have to pay approximately 5% more, or 7 pence per bus fare, to not have adverts plastered on the inside and outside of buses, tubes, station platforms, corridors within stations, and probably various roads under TfL authority as well. I think the world in which we pay 7 pence more for bus fare and have nice artwork on the bus or something instead of hair loss adverts that call us ugly balds is better.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  I'd rather pay £129 for my Zone 2 pass than £135 without ads. The £6 I can buy a kebab with. Even bought the Kindle with special offers. Preferred it to the one I have without.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    If it ever happens, I'll gladly pay 12 more and you can have a kebab and a pint on me. ;) I reckon if we ever get to that point, by then the pint alone might be 12 quid though. Soz.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      Haha, every month? I'd happily take that trade. If only since I'd enjoy the company.

esotericn 8y ago

Nah. I don't believe that my train or bus would cost substantially more without the advertising. And even if it did, it's just an internalization of costs. The advertising (if it works) pulls money in through a side channel (someone sees an ad and later buys a thing). It makes far more sense to just pay for the bus. Other examples, like ads at the side of the road, don't even pay for anything. Driving along the road, I see an ad in a farmer's field. I'm not using that field in any meaningful sense. edit: I actually looked up the transport example. Transport for London had approximately a 1:20 ratio of advertising to fare revenue last year. So, I'd have to pay approximately 5% more, or 7 pence per bus fare, to not have adverts plastered on the inside and outside of buses, tubes, station platforms, corridors within stations, and probably various roads under TfL authority as well. I think the world in which we pay 7 pence more for bus fare and have nice artwork on the bus or something instead of hair loss adverts that call us ugly balds is better.

scarejunba 8y ago
I'd rather pay £129 for my Zone 2 pass than £135 without ads. The £6 I can buy a kebab with. Even bought the Kindle with special offers. Preferred it to the one I have without.
- esotericn 8y ago
  If it ever happens, I'll gladly pay 12 more and you can have a kebab and a pint on me. ;) I reckon if we ever get to that point, by then the pint alone might be 12 quid though. Soz.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Haha, every month? I'd happily take that trade. If only since I'd enjoy the company.