4 ms·
If you are willing to pay then you are also a lot more valuable as a target for ads. There is no chance of ad reduction. Unfortunately, “post purchase monetizat
by benttoothpaste 6y ago
If you are willing to pay then you are also a lot more valuable as a target for ads. There is no chance of ad reduction. Unfortunately, “post purchase monetization” is a new buzzword.
- ahelwer 6y agoExactly. There was a netflix series a few years back called Maniac where characters could choose to listen to in-person sales pitches if they're unable to afford bus fare, for example. Such a scheme would not work because if you're too poor to avoid bus fare then you're too poor to be likely to purchase an advertised product. Analogously & conversely, if you're willing to loosen your purse strings for paid content then you're also likely to have disposable income to pay for advertised products. This is why Facebook will never offer a paid ad-free service; it would remove all the actually valuable advertising targets from their pool of users.
- mobjack 6y agoIn practice, paid websites have much less obtrusive ads. There are less incentives to ruin the experience for those who are directly giving them money.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoI am going to use Hulu as an example. They have both and the moment they attempt to introduce ads into their streams in my paid option, I will drop them like a hot cake. I am have no problem paying for service. I do not want ads and I make that clear. Ideally, they wouldn't try to sell my profile either, but baby steps. Post-purchase is technically still there, but less obtrusive to me.
- xref 6y agoPrime Video has already dipped their toe in that pool, showing trailers for other series instead of starting your show. Feels like the DVD era all over again, just waiting for the FBI warning screen to appear