3 ms·
"Content costs money to make so companies need money to make it" is a true statement. "Companies therefore must run advertisements to make content because a si
by phone8675309 6y ago
"Content costs money to make so companies need money to make it" is a true statement.
"Companies therefore must run advertisements to make content because a significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" does not follow from that.
There are many industries that typically do not run advertisements for their content - book publishing comes to mind here - and they seem to get by just fine.
90% of everything is crap, so 90% of entertainment disappearing because production houses and producers stop whoring themselves out to Madison Ave and big brands is a net positive for society. Make the 10% of things you can get funded by the target audience without having to mentally and emotionally manipulate them (which is what advertising is) and you'll still have too much content for the average person to consume.
Advertising is immoral, and advertising to children is both immoral and explicitly evil.
- manigandham 6y ago> "significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" This is true for most online content. For various reasons, content that's not music or video has an assumption of being free. Book publishing is not comparable. > "90% of everything is crap" Maybe, but everyone has a different 90% so there's no "average". Content is made to match demand and there's something for everyone. > "mentally and emotionally manipulate them ... Advertising is immoral" Everything is manipulation and influence. Recommending something to your friends is a form of advertising (and even officially called "word of mouth marketing"). I agree that advertising should have better safeguards since it's influence for a price, but calling it immoral gets into some strange philosophical territory that doesn't accomplish anything productive.