4 ms·

No, not all my "media" was subsidized by ads before the internet. The author also fails to support the title, other than to weakly imply that somehow excluding

No, not all my "media" was subsidized by ads before the internet. The author also fails to support the title, other than to weakly imply that somehow excluding ads on Netlifx has something to do with increased ad revenue on Facebook.

mrweasel 6y ago
Sports was the first think that came to mind when reading the article. True, previously TV based ads where worth more, and could help pay for licensing right, but those licensing fees as also balloned and consumers have to pay more directly. Sports is one area of media that will truly be disrupted as we’re already pushing the limit of what people will pay and advertising is no longer able to pay the difference.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  Especially ufc, I thought the only reason ppv could be so expensive was because people were having parties to cover it. I can't believe so many people paid so much during the pandemic.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    When there's nothing else to do, I can see people who are bored and lonely increasingly likely to spend money on something that they used to enjoy pre-pandemic in order to try and gain some enjoyment in an otherwise pretty depressing situation.
anon98356 6y ago
I think you have your cause and effect the wrong way around there. The argument put forward is that Netflix is forced to use a subscription model because Facebook and Google have almost complete control of the advertising market. In the specific case of Netlfix this probably isn't true as their business model is an online version of a business that already charged a subscription (cable TV). However in businesses that traditionally relied on advertising e.g. the New York Times as mentioned in the article, the transition to the internet is leading to more upfront charging i.e. Paywalls because they aren't getting the ad revenue required to offer their services for free. My personal take from the article isn't that all content use to be supported by ads (although I would suggest that a lot more of it was than most people realise). The issue is that the near duopoly Facebook and Google have on web advertising, mean those producing the content can no longer rely on advertising to fund themselves. As a result we are seeing more and more paywalls being put up to fund these businesses. The potential end result of this is that finding content will continue to be free and probably even get easier. Finding content you can consume for free however, is likely to get a lot tougher.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Just a question, what's stopping NYT from using their own native ad experience embedded into their web page instead of relying on Google and Facebook? It's not like building an onsite tracking ad is secret stuff, is it? Rather, if ads are going to be better than those on Google and Facebook, they could charge a premium simply for eyeballs right?
  - anon98356 6y ago
    I believe they do use their own ad platform. But I would guess that the pricing of ads on Facebook and Google mean that even if they could charge a premium, it wouldn't be enough to sustain the business. There is only so much of a premium you can charge before no is willing to pay for your product.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Netflix's business is an online version of their old business, which was a mail-in version of Blockbuster. No ads were involved in take-home videos, that I recall, other than late attempts at unskippable promos by the studios who released the movies themselves (that was after I gave up renting videos). I don't see any causal relationship at all.
  - anon98356 6y ago
    As I said in my second line, in the case of Netflix, I don't think this applies. Their business model has always been to charge users for content. However when looking at the rise in the number of papers going behind a paywall like the NY times, there is an argument to be made that this is being driven by the fact it is no longer viable to run an ad supported business because Google and Facebook have control of too much of the market
mattl 6y ago
Other than PBS/BBC, what other media isn't subsidized by ads?
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  If you mean broadcast media, there have always been independent streams and feeds supported by listeners and hobbyists. There are even more since the internet began. But I took "media" to mean something more broad, including recordings, printed literature, and performances, which traditionally were mostly ad-free (excluding periodicals).

mrweasel 6y ago

Sports was the first think that came to mind when reading the article. True, previously TV based ads where worth more, and could help pay for licensing right, but those licensing fees as also balloned and consumers have to pay more directly. Sports is one area of media that will truly be disrupted as we’re already pushing the limit of what people will pay and advertising is no longer able to pay the difference.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago
Especially ufc, I thought the only reason ppv could be so expensive was because people were having parties to cover it. I can't believe so many people paid so much during the pandemic.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  When there's nothing else to do, I can see people who are bored and lonely increasingly likely to spend money on something that they used to enjoy pre-pandemic in order to try and gain some enjoyment in an otherwise pretty depressing situation.

anon98356 6y ago

I think you have your cause and effect the wrong way around there. The argument put forward is that Netflix is forced to use a subscription model because Facebook and Google have almost complete control of the advertising market. In the specific case of Netlfix this probably isn't true as their business model is an online version of a business that already charged a subscription (cable TV). However in businesses that traditionally relied on advertising e.g. the New York Times as mentioned in the article, the transition to the internet is leading to more upfront charging i.e. Paywalls because they aren't getting the ad revenue required to offer their services for free. My personal take from the article isn't that all content use to be supported by ads (although I would suggest that a lot more of it was than most people realise). The issue is that the near duopoly Facebook and Google have on web advertising, mean those producing the content can no longer rely on advertising to fund themselves. As a result we are seeing more and more paywalls being put up to fund these businesses. The potential end result of this is that finding content will continue to be free and probably even get easier. Finding content you can consume for free however, is likely to get a lot tougher.

fakedang 6y ago
Just a question, what's stopping NYT from using their own native ad experience embedded into their web page instead of relying on Google and Facebook? It's not like building an onsite tracking ad is secret stuff, is it? Rather, if ads are going to be better than those on Google and Facebook, they could charge a premium simply for eyeballs right?
- anon98356 6y ago
  I believe they do use their own ad platform. But I would guess that the pricing of ads on Facebook and Google mean that even if they could charge a premium, it wouldn't be enough to sustain the business. There is only so much of a premium you can charge before no is willing to pay for your product.
readflaggedcomm 6y ago
Netflix's business is an online version of their old business, which was a mail-in version of Blockbuster. No ads were involved in take-home videos, that I recall, other than late attempts at unskippable promos by the studios who released the movies themselves (that was after I gave up renting videos). I don't see any causal relationship at all.
- anon98356 6y ago
  As I said in my second line, in the case of Netflix, I don't think this applies. Their business model has always been to charge users for content. However when looking at the rise in the number of papers going behind a paywall like the NY times, there is an argument to be made that this is being driven by the fact it is no longer viable to run an ad supported business because Google and Facebook have control of too much of the market

mattl 6y ago

Other than PBS/BBC, what other media isn't subsidized by ads?

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
If you mean broadcast media, there have always been independent streams and feeds supported by listeners and hobbyists. There are even more since the internet began. But I took "media" to mean something more broad, including recordings, printed literature, and performances, which traditionally were mostly ad-free (excluding periodicals).