2 ms·

Music - concert shirts, terrestrial radio. Even streaming paid streaming services slip in sponsorship mentions. HBO - Owned by AT&T and WarnerMedia, literally W

Music - concert shirts, terrestrial radio. Even streaming paid streaming services slip in sponsorship mentions. HBO - Owned by AT&T and WarnerMedia, literally WM has $8B in rev much from their platforms and brands that do sell advertising. Paintings and sculpture - you think museums aren’t an advertisement in of themselves? You don’t think cities and communities don’t subsidize those for cultural reasons do you? It’s a draw. But sure, some “art” is not advertisement saturated, but make no mistake—the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it.

margalabargala 5y ago
IMO calling museums advertisements for a city/community is a stretch of the definition for the purpose of this discussion- like yeah, it could technically be considered that way, but it's so broad that it sort of renders the whole point moot. > the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it. I think your point there is the crux of the whole thing for me. I see a big distinction between a piece of media that has an advertisement literally embedded within it by the creator and presented as part of the finished whole (example, a podcast where they shill some service or other) versus an ad-free piece of media where some other third party distributor shows advertisements alongside the media. The podcast in question further up the thread falls into the first bucket, while, for example, a hard news piece by a journalist that is then displayed on a website with banner ads is quantitatively different. In the latter, the piece of media exists, and can be experienced in its totality with all ads taken away, while in the podcast example, the ads are inextricable from the whole without altering the work itself.
- kcplate 5y ago
  I think we are just defining “media” differently. Yours is not wrong…art, music, etc…it’s certainly media…as the plural of “medium”. I’m defining media more as the distributor or publisher of created works. I’d argue that short of a direct pay for content model, that most publishers/distributors are using advertising in some form as either their for profit business model, or to supplement and offset the publishing costs.

margalabargala 5y ago

IMO calling museums advertisements for a city/community is a stretch of the definition for the purpose of this discussion- like yeah, it could technically be considered that way, but it's so broad that it sort of renders the whole point moot. > the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it. I think your point there is the crux of the whole thing for me. I see a big distinction between a piece of media that has an advertisement literally embedded within it by the creator and presented as part of the finished whole (example, a podcast where they shill some service or other) versus an ad-free piece of media where some other third party distributor shows advertisements alongside the media. The podcast in question further up the thread falls into the first bucket, while, for example, a hard news piece by a journalist that is then displayed on a website with banner ads is quantitatively different. In the latter, the piece of media exists, and can be experienced in its totality with all ads taken away, while in the podcast example, the ads are inextricable from the whole without altering the work itself.

kcplate 5y ago
I think we are just defining “media” differently. Yours is not wrong…art, music, etc…it’s certainly media…as the plural of “medium”. I’m defining media more as the distributor or publisher of created works. I’d argue that short of a direct pay for content model, that most publishers/distributors are using advertising in some form as either their for profit business model, or to supplement and offset the publishing costs.