4 ms·

It's like reducing broadcast TV/radio as "advertising companies". They make their money selling ad time and develop/buy programming to attract viewers and justi

It's like reducing broadcast TV/radio as "advertising companies". They make their money selling ad time and develop/buy programming to attract viewers and justify the cost of that ad time. But to everyone else, they're a source of information and entertainment that's available to anyone with an antenna, a tuner, and a speaker/display. And again, it's not as if broadcast media are universally great, but there's value in them outside of the advertising business.

FabHK 7y ago
In many countries, public broadcasters have explicit government funding and a government charter to educate and inform (including an injunction to refrain from promoting vested interests). Thus, they are fundamentally different from commercial broadcasters and Google. Now, if we had a publicly funded search engine, that might not be a bad idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting
riversflow 7y ago
>It's like reducing broadcast TV/radio as "advertising companies". They make their money selling ad time and develop/buy programming to attract viewers and justify the cost of that ad time. Yes. I would call broadcast TV advertisers. Have you given mass media a critical analysis lately? It’s chalk full of subtle product placement and other brainwash, on top of in-your-face advertisements every few minutes. The Simpsons made fun of this a decade ago, and it seems to have only gotten worse. I limit television exposure just the same as Google exposure. I speak for myself only of course, but jumping to defend Google with broadcast tv made me laugh.
- soylentcola 7y ago
  Didn't intend to "defend" any company or industry really. Just wanted to point out that there are multiple transactions taking place. Advertiser/ad platform is one of them, but it's not the only one.
resfirestar 7y ago
Mass media is an interesting choice of example given the recent digital media collapse. There, too, people who were recruited on idealistic visions of “journalism” are being forced by their bosses to reckon with the fact that their job is not to report stories they consider important, but to create content that turns a profit on ad revenue.
derefr 7y ago
The analogy works in other cases, though. Local newspapers are pretty much exactly "advertising companies", with advertising making up two thirds or more of each printed page, and no real care given to the journalism side of things. Given that there clearly are "advertising companies" (or "users-as-product" companies) masquerading as user-serving companies, it might be sensible to talk about a spectrum between user-serving and user-as-product, and where companies fall on this spectrum. You can be, say, 30% a user-serving company, and 70% a user-as-product company. You could also trend in one direction or the other over time.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I would absolutely put broadcast media in the bucket of advertising companies. For any given hour of TV you're lucky to get 30 minutes of content that is free from advertising (includes product placement), it's probably even worse at this point for terrestrial radio. Hence why the switch to netflix, spotify, hulu etc... has been such a disruptor.

FabHK 7y ago

In many countries, public broadcasters have explicit government funding and a government charter to educate and inform (including an injunction to refrain from promoting vested interests). Thus, they are fundamentally different from commercial broadcasters and Google. Now, if we had a publicly funded search engine, that might not be a bad idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting

riversflow 7y ago

>It's like reducing broadcast TV/radio as "advertising companies". They make their money selling ad time and develop/buy programming to attract viewers and justify the cost of that ad time. Yes. I would call broadcast TV advertisers. Have you given mass media a critical analysis lately? It’s chalk full of subtle product placement and other brainwash, on top of in-your-face advertisements every few minutes. The Simpsons made fun of this a decade ago, and it seems to have only gotten worse. I limit television exposure just the same as Google exposure. I speak for myself only of course, but jumping to defend Google with broadcast tv made me laugh.

soylentcola 7y ago
Didn't intend to "defend" any company or industry really. Just wanted to point out that there are multiple transactions taking place. Advertiser/ad platform is one of them, but it's not the only one.

resfirestar 7y ago

Mass media is an interesting choice of example given the recent digital media collapse. There, too, people who were recruited on idealistic visions of “journalism” are being forced by their bosses to reckon with the fact that their job is not to report stories they consider important, but to create content that turns a profit on ad revenue.

derefr 7y ago

The analogy works in other cases, though. Local newspapers are pretty much exactly "advertising companies", with advertising making up two thirds or more of each printed page, and no real care given to the journalism side of things. Given that there clearly are "advertising companies" (or "users-as-product" companies) masquerading as user-serving companies, it might be sensible to talk about a spectrum between user-serving and user-as-product, and where companies fall on this spectrum. You can be, say, 30% a user-serving company, and 70% a user-as-product company. You could also trend in one direction or the other over time.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I would absolutely put broadcast media in the bucket of advertising companies. For any given hour of TV you're lucky to get 30 minutes of content that is free from advertising (includes product placement), it's probably even worse at this point for terrestrial radio. Hence why the switch to netflix, spotify, hulu etc... has been such a disruptor.