4 ms·

It's not just online. For instance, Hulu's ad-free subscription cost is almost twice that of it's regular cost. This isn't a new phenomenon either; here's a son

• zinekeller 5y ago
  > This isn't a new phenomenon either; here's a song advertising a paid TV service from the 1960's that list no advertisements as one of the reasons to pay for the service. And how many have actually bothered to? The problem is that you're treating it as a black-and-white thing which is not true at all. It is true that there's a percentage of people who do prefer advertising, 17% in current online advertising (which shows that majority hate online advertising) and 54% in traditional advertising (both are for the US only, data tend to fluctuate but in general this holds nearly everywhere but Asia where they tend to view advertising as more favourable). There is, of course, a balance where the majority of people will be fine. For example, European television and radio stations do have limits on advertising: it definitely helped a lot that it allowed them to know what new services and products are available. Coincidently, they have strong consumer protection - lies in advertising are actively patrolled and most people do get angry when the advertisement is misleading. Unfortunately, the US - which tends to have low-quality, clickbaity commercials - never saw a better alternative, and concluded that all advertising is bad. I'm not surprised that there's a backlash against advertising - they indeed lost the trust in people. Unfortunately, the American model served as the global model online, so here we are.
  • bnralt 5y ago
    We have premium subscriptions that show that people value no advertising. I haven't ever seen any premium subscription that shows anyone values advertising. Have you ever seen any subscription that says the user will get more advertisements if they pay more? I think most people would view the concept as ridiculous. Hulu could have two premium options, one where you pay more for no advertising, and another where you pay more for extra ads. If what you are saying is true, every company is leaving money on the table by ignoring this demographic. I think it's more likely that this demographic doesn't exist in any meaningful way.
    • zinekeller 5y ago
      > I haven't ever seen any premium subscription that shows anyone values advertising. So you haven't touched industrial magazines. Explains everything. Pre-internet, the way that you can actually get information in a field is to have a publisher collect advertisements from related companies and send it to you. That's beyond "hate", it's the opposite: you are interested in any offerings but are not sure of who will you go to.
      • selfhoster11 5y ago
        Fortunately, now we do have the internet. And if I ever want or need something, I can research it myself on demand or ask my friends, rather than rely on advertisers wasting my valuable time and attention with their junk.
      • TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        This was covered earlier in the thread. Print buyers in certain markets - mostly technical - appreciated the catalog model. This does not mean they would pay more for advertising. There were markets - specifically classifieds and listings - where buyers did very much want to pay for ads. But those were very specialised, and it's debatable whether a personal sales listing (dating notice, pet offer, etc) is in any way similar to a corporate ad. Realistically, absolutely no one was going to pay for a version of Computer Shopper which had zero independent content and was just a giant ad directory. Just as absolutely no one [1] will pay money to view a movie presentation made entirely of ads. Or watch a TV channel [2]. Or listen to a radio stream. Or view a web site. [1] It's possible there are a few individuals who would do this, but clearly not enough to support a viable market. [2] You might think Home Shopping Network, but HSN is free to air not pay to view.