7 ms·

The article is proposing offering a two tiers, one with ads and one without, which is what most of Netflix's competitors do. That would allow you and others wh

by jefftk 5y ago

The article is proposing offering a two tiers, one with ads and one without, which is what most of Netflix's competitors do. That would allow you and others who feel similarly to continue watching ad-free.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> That would allow ̶𝗒̶𝗈̶𝗎̶ ̶𝖺̶𝗇̶𝖽̶ ̶𝗈̶𝗍̶𝗁̶𝖾̶𝗋̶𝗌̶ ̶𝗐̶𝗁̶𝗈̶ ̶𝖿̶𝖾̶𝖾̶𝗅̶ ̶𝗌̶𝗂̶𝗆̶𝗂̶𝗅̶𝖺̶𝗋̶𝗅̶𝗒̶ ̶𝗍̶𝗈̶ ̶𝖼̶𝗈̶𝗇̶𝗍̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗎̶𝖾̶ ̶𝗐̶𝖺̶𝗍̶𝖼̶𝗁̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗀̶ ̶𝖺̶𝖽̶-̶𝖿̶𝗋̶𝖾̶𝖾̶.̶ ̶ Netflix to make more money out of nothing.
rglullis 5y ago
Imagine if we had a company that managed to produce its products with minimal waste and had an efficient recycling program. It would be a little bit more expensive to run because it was paying for the externalities, but the profit margins were high enough that a business could still be had without destroying itself. Now, a bunch of competitors show up and they just don't care about the environment. They dump all the waste on their neighbors. Their products cost a less than the main company, but they give you a "green option" where you can pay a bit more to offset (some) of the externalities. What you are proposing is that the company goes down in their principles to compete with their toxic competitors. For what?
- jefftk 5y ago
  That is a pretty terrible analogy. For starters, there are no externalities in people choosing to subscribe to an ad-supported version.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Ads themselves are the toxic waste. You work with ads at Google (aka, the biggest mind polluter there is) so I understand why you might think otherwise.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      Ok, let's take a step back and look at your analogy. Pollution is a classic problem of externalities: one party is doing something that has costs, but those costs fall on people who are uninvolved. You have a company that is producing lots of pollution while creating products (A), the people who buy those products (B), and the people who are harmed by pollution (C). The reason that A doesn't take appropriate steps to avoid creating pollution is that neither A nor B suffer most of the costs of the pollution; those fall on C. Netflix adding an ad-funded option does not fit that model because, as I said above, there are no externalities. It is a transaction entirely between Netflix and its viewers, with no uninvolved third parties who receive "toxic waste". Each potential subscriber can decide whether they prefer to pay larger amount for the current experience, or a smaller amount and also have to view ads.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” > I said above, there are no externalities. A point that you are missing is one that is often overlooked and deserves a proper essay, but to keep it short: the quality of the products is affected by the business model. I contend that ads themselves are the waste, but it is not just those directly watching the ads that suffer from it. When a service becomes funded by ads, the best metric for quality (customers willing to pay for the product) gets separated from the best metric for its sustainability (revenue and profitability). This is why a large part of why journalism is horrible today: any news editor has to prioritize what gives them eyeballs over "quality reporting", so no matter how many actual subscribers a newspaper still has, it is still going to be over-polarized, play to outrage culture and more "infotainment" than actual journalism. More examples? - Spotify and the Joe Rogan drama. Whether you agree/disagree and support/disapprove of whatever he is talking about on his show, would you agree that this whole thing would be a nothingburger if his audience were limited to the people willing to pay money to hear him? - The whole of the sports industry. Remove "broadcast rights" and all the advertising that comes with it, and there would not be NBA kowtowing to China, or FIFA pushing a World Cup built in Qatar on the back of slave labor, or F-1 in bed with the Saudis, etc, etc. Streaming services are already bad in the sense that they rather cater to quantity over quality, but at least the fact that people have to pay something is some kind of filter on "minimum quality". With an ad-funded model this filter is completely removed and everything starts getting produced for the lowest common denominator.

by jefftk 5y ago

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

> That would allow ̶𝗒̶𝗈̶𝗎̶ ̶𝖺̶𝗇̶𝖽̶ ̶𝗈̶𝗍̶𝗁̶𝖾̶𝗋̶𝗌̶ ̶𝗐̶𝗁̶𝗈̶ ̶𝖿̶𝖾̶𝖾̶𝗅̶ ̶𝗌̶𝗂̶𝗆̶𝗂̶𝗅̶𝖺̶𝗋̶𝗅̶𝗒̶ ̶𝗍̶𝗈̶ ̶𝖼̶𝗈̶𝗇̶𝗍̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗎̶𝖾̶ ̶𝗐̶𝖺̶𝗍̶𝖼̶𝗁̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗀̶ ̶𝖺̶𝖽̶-̶𝖿̶𝗋̶𝖾̶𝖾̶.̶ ̶ Netflix to make more money out of nothing.

rglullis 5y ago

Imagine if we had a company that managed to produce its products with minimal waste and had an efficient recycling program. It would be a little bit more expensive to run because it was paying for the externalities, but the profit margins were high enough that a business could still be had without destroying itself. Now, a bunch of competitors show up and they just don't care about the environment. They dump all the waste on their neighbors. Their products cost a less than the main company, but they give you a "green option" where you can pay a bit more to offset (some) of the externalities. What you are proposing is that the company goes down in their principles to compete with their toxic competitors. For what?

jefftk 5y ago
That is a pretty terrible analogy. For starters, there are no externalities in people choosing to subscribe to an ad-supported version.
- rglullis 5y ago
  Ads themselves are the toxic waste. You work with ads at Google (aka, the biggest mind polluter there is) so I understand why you might think otherwise.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    Ok, let's take a step back and look at your analogy. Pollution is a classic problem of externalities: one party is doing something that has costs, but those costs fall on people who are uninvolved. You have a company that is producing lots of pollution while creating products (A), the people who buy those products (B), and the people who are harmed by pollution (C). The reason that A doesn't take appropriate steps to avoid creating pollution is that neither A nor B suffer most of the costs of the pollution; those fall on C. Netflix adding an ad-funded option does not fit that model because, as I said above, there are no externalities. It is a transaction entirely between Netflix and its viewers, with no uninvolved third parties who receive "toxic waste". Each potential subscriber can decide whether they prefer to pay larger amount for the current experience, or a smaller amount and also have to view ads.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” > I said above, there are no externalities. A point that you are missing is one that is often overlooked and deserves a proper essay, but to keep it short: the quality of the products is affected by the business model. I contend that ads themselves are the waste, but it is not just those directly watching the ads that suffer from it. When a service becomes funded by ads, the best metric for quality (customers willing to pay for the product) gets separated from the best metric for its sustainability (revenue and profitability). This is why a large part of why journalism is horrible today: any news editor has to prioritize what gives them eyeballs over "quality reporting", so no matter how many actual subscribers a newspaper still has, it is still going to be over-polarized, play to outrage culture and more "infotainment" than actual journalism. More examples? - Spotify and the Joe Rogan drama. Whether you agree/disagree and support/disapprove of whatever he is talking about on his show, would you agree that this whole thing would be a nothingburger if his audience were limited to the people willing to pay money to hear him? - The whole of the sports industry. Remove "broadcast rights" and all the advertising that comes with it, and there would not be NBA kowtowing to China, or FIFA pushing a World Cup built in Qatar on the back of slave labor, or F-1 in bed with the Saudis, etc, etc. Streaming services are already bad in the sense that they rather cater to quantity over quality, but at least the fact that people have to pay something is some kind of filter on "minimum quality". With an ad-funded model this filter is completely removed and everything starts getting produced for the lowest common denominator.