8 ms·

The hard, spikey, jagged, foul tasting pill to swallow then: Society needs to pay directly for content.

kadoban 4y ago
Much of society either is paying or is willing to pay. Note that even in places that we _do_ pay, for example cable TV, we still get ads.
- afavour 4y ago
  Right but that means you're not paying full price, since the ads subsidise it. So to modify the OP's point, people are going to need to be prepared to pay more for content and IMO we're already at price saturation point now.
  - mjhay 4y ago
    Not necessarily - it's what the market will bear, not the cost itself. This just means the target market will tolerate the ads, not that they are subsidizing the cost of the TV. The extra revenue could just as easily be gravy - especially because this is probably the result of some implicit collusion.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      This is my expectation of the market, based on at least the following two points: 1) Video games are sold at full price and still include ads and microtransactions 2) Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. I hold the opinion that executives at many of these companies hold the view, "Why only get some of our customer's money when we can get all of it?" (though they probably word it differently, something about recurring revenue and monetizing the existing customer base).
      - ryandrake 4y ago
        > Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. This is why I laugh whenever some new ad-free service launches. People forget history and then are surprised when it repeats itself. Any service that touts itself as "the ad-free version of X," will eventually be stuffed full of ads.
      - _chu1 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Where does the myth that cable TV was ad free come from? Cable TV was never as free. Cable was first introduced to bring broadcast TV - with ads to places that couldn’t get reception. Then the “Superstations” like TBS and WGN came to cable. They were local broadcast channels that used satellites to broadcast nationwide to cable companies. Then came cable TV channels like CNN, ESPN, MTV etc with ads. Cable TV has always had ads.
        falcolas 4y ago
        For something that's supposedly a myth, the expectation was spread broadly enough that the NY Times wrote an article about it. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv... Also, there were some Cable TV channels, sometimes bundled with other channels, that explicitly did not have ads (HBO, to name one), just to complicate things further.
        scarface74 4y ago
        I’ve seen that article before. Cable never marketed itself as being ad free > Although cable television was never conceived of as television without commercial interruption… HBO has always been a premium add on to basic cable. Just like it is today and it still doesn’t have ads. > But scores of big companies, including General Foods, American Express, Procter & Gamble and Pepsico, are already cable advertisers, along with innumerable used-car dealers and other local businesses that can afford cable's relatively low rates. > Many cable channels have yet to begin operating, and those now running commercials, such as Ted Turner's 24-hour Cable News Network or U.S.A. Network's ''You'' program for women, carry 30-second and one-minute commercials that are a standard feature of regular television.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    Even that doesn't really work. I'm "not paying full price" only because they force upon me hundreds of channels that I don't want, including really pricey ones like every sport. The bullshit I actually watch, I'd be shocked if I'm not paying more than full price for. The real problem is that content creation/disribution industries are addicted to ridiculous pricing and distribution policies. Nobody can buy what they want, at reasonable terms, we're stuck with them playing stupid games that hurt everyone (likely including themselves).
  - cmiles74 4y ago
    Strong disagree on this one. I'm pretty sure someone looks at the service that lacks (to their mind) sufficient advertising and is making decent revenue and thinks something like "Wow, a couple (more) ads and this could make a lot more money!" And then (more) ads are added. Unless there's some dis-incentive we can expect to see more ads in more places. People abandoning the service doesn't seem to be enough, I suspect the longer someone has a particular service the more they become accustomed to it and the more pain it takes to get them to move to another service.
  - asdff 4y ago
    Even if you are paying full price, inevitably the complany will have some brilliant CEO who figures out that not showing ads constantly is leaving money on the table.
- jordanpg 4y ago
  There is also a class component to ads. I find ads intolerable, but I am privileged enough to be able to afford to make them go away in almost all cases. For those on a very tight budget, Disney+ with ads, Kindle with ads, podcasts with ads, etc. are the only thing that is affordable. I suspect for many in the lowest income brackets, traditional cable TV with good old fashioned commercials is a primary source of entertainment. Thus, we also need to keep in mind that those who cannot afford to make commercials go away are subsidizing this further for those who can in an unfortunate irony.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    This might seem crass but if I was in a situation where I couldn't afford the ad-free version of a streaming service, I would simply abstain from the service entirely. I understand many don't care, but I hate ads with an intensity I cannot describe with words.
    - rendall 4y ago
      > I hate ads with an intensity I cannot describe with words As the upstream commenter, I am in complete alignment. Whenever I have been too broke not to be advertised at, I have always completely opted out.
- zyx321 4y ago
  The only channels that promised fewer ads because you pay for it and delivered on it (not switching to double dipping within a decade) are the ones financed by mandatory TV license fees. People do pay and it does not work. The only thing that works is government regulations.
Invictus0 4y ago
Society doesn't pay enough for TV as is? No one even wants the hundreds of channels they stuff into the cable subscriptions.
bfhchnds 4y ago
Not quite. A while back we used to pay for cable tv and the programming used to have tons of ads. Now, we assumed the premium you pay for Apple products was because 'you' were not the product, unlike say Android, but looks like with some clever marketing about privacy focus Apple was just building up their own ad business. I think paying for content/product doesn't ensure you wont see ads, well perhaps it doea but until the company decides it needs higher margins.
freeone3000 4y ago
Amazon Prime Video requires a paid Amazon Prime subscription. You are paying for the content. You also paid for the TV you watch it on, and you pay for the delivery service to your house. There's money every step of the way, so, having advertising on top of that? Insane.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Depending on the service you may be paying a subsidized price. Around 1994 my parents were paying $110~ USD for a cable package in suburban NY. It was basic cable, the extra premium channels, and HBO. Adjusted for inflation that's $210, I know that inflation doesn't always tell the entire economic story but now I'm paying Netflix $20, HBO $15, Disney+ $6.76, Hulu is free with my cell phone plan but let's say $10. That's $52, my internet is $65 however I would have that anyway for many other reasons. Even if you added that in it's still much less expensive that in the past. The quality is also significantly better, and I can choose to watch most shows when I want.
  - ahelwer 4y ago
    Subsidized doesn't mean anything in this context. These services aren't offered below cost, they're very profitable. Companies will always view not showing ads as leaving money on the table, regardless of how much profit they're already making.
lapetitejort 4y ago
People call me crazy for paying for reddit and YouTube premium. The fact is, they're some of the few places where I can pay directly to host the servers and pay the creators. I won't considering using any other social network where I can't contribute directly, versus indirectly with my data and eyeballs.
InCityDreams 4y ago
The uk's BBC isnt that hard, spikey, jagged or foul.
tomjen3 4y ago
We already do that, since ads presumably make the companies money. Thus the overall effect of this should be that we make products cheaper, since they won't have to pay marketing budgets. Network effect companies (e.g Facebook) would see how useless their network effects are when only some are willing to pay, and they therefore can't get all their friends updates. And most creators will find out just how little their content is worth (you probably need to be in the top 50% just to make pennies per hour). I would say bring it on, but most sites would run into the problem that for their media customer it wouldn't be worth the effort to click the apple pay (or whatever) button to get access.
h1fra 4y ago
Well I paid for a TV, cable network, netflix, disney plus, hbo, prime, switch, playstation and still got tracked and ad displayed. I'm a huge advocate of paying for content and artist (when you have the budget for) but what they are doing has nothing to do about it.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Pay for games? They shove ads in them, game engines even have support for this. Pay for subscription services? They show you ads for their own shows at best or half a minute of paid advertising before every episode at worst. Pay for anything at all? They track everything you do whether you pay or not. Worse: now they know you have disposable income since you're spending money on frivolous entertainment. The value of your attention just went up and so did the opportunity cost of not advertising to you. The more society pays, the more annoyed the executives get at the money they're leaving on the table. What society needs to do is make advertising illegal. Just straight up prohibit it, consequences be damned. No buts, no compromises. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Which means realistic micropayment solutions must be discovered first.
waynesonfire 4y ago
It's not that simple. The demand to reach a target demographic isn't going away. Thus, as the difficulty of reaching that demographic increases so does the cost advertisers are willing to pay. Also, it's common for companies to offer a paid service and then double dip with an advertisement offering as well.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
I remember paying for DVDs and being forced to watch trailers after putting the disc in the tray. Even when we directly pay for content they can't help but add advertisements.
iamevn 4y ago
I would love to pay my local sports team or NBC or something money directly for broadcasts of all their games but it's impossible because the exclusive streaming rights are split out across at least 3 different services that I'd need to pay far too much for on top of my season tickets.
ouid 4y ago
Society needs to pay for the creation of content. Patreon is a pretty good model.

Much of society either is paying or is willing to pay. Note that even in places that we _do_ pay, for example cable TV, we still get ads.

afavour 4y ago
Right but that means you're not paying full price, since the ads subsidise it. So to modify the OP's point, people are going to need to be prepared to pay more for content and IMO we're already at price saturation point now.
- mjhay 4y ago
  Not necessarily - it's what the market will bear, not the cost itself. This just means the target market will tolerate the ads, not that they are subsidizing the cost of the TV. The extra revenue could just as easily be gravy - especially because this is probably the result of some implicit collusion.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    This is my expectation of the market, based on at least the following two points: 1) Video games are sold at full price and still include ads and microtransactions 2) Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. I hold the opinion that executives at many of these companies hold the view, "Why only get some of our customer's money when we can get all of it?" (though they probably word it differently, something about recurring revenue and monetizing the existing customer base).
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      > Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. This is why I laugh whenever some new ad-free service launches. People forget history and then are surprised when it repeats itself. Any service that touts itself as "the ad-free version of X," will eventually be stuffed full of ads.
    - _chu1 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Where does the myth that cable TV was ad free come from? Cable TV was never as free. Cable was first introduced to bring broadcast TV - with ads to places that couldn’t get reception. Then the “Superstations” like TBS and WGN came to cable. They were local broadcast channels that used satellites to broadcast nationwide to cable companies. Then came cable TV channels like CNN, ESPN, MTV etc with ads. Cable TV has always had ads.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        For something that's supposedly a myth, the expectation was spread broadly enough that the NY Times wrote an article about it. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv... Also, there were some Cable TV channels, sometimes bundled with other channels, that explicitly did not have ads (HBO, to name one), just to complicate things further.
        scarface74 4y ago
        I’ve seen that article before. Cable never marketed itself as being ad free > Although cable television was never conceived of as television without commercial interruption… HBO has always been a premium add on to basic cable. Just like it is today and it still doesn’t have ads. > But scores of big companies, including General Foods, American Express, Procter & Gamble and Pepsico, are already cable advertisers, along with innumerable used-car dealers and other local businesses that can afford cable's relatively low rates. > Many cable channels have yet to begin operating, and those now running commercials, such as Ted Turner's 24-hour Cable News Network or U.S.A. Network's ''You'' program for women, carry 30-second and one-minute commercials that are a standard feature of regular television.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Even that doesn't really work. I'm "not paying full price" only because they force upon me hundreds of channels that I don't want, including really pricey ones like every sport. The bullshit I actually watch, I'd be shocked if I'm not paying more than full price for. The real problem is that content creation/disribution industries are addicted to ridiculous pricing and distribution policies. Nobody can buy what they want, at reasonable terms, we're stuck with them playing stupid games that hurt everyone (likely including themselves).
- cmiles74 4y ago
  Strong disagree on this one. I'm pretty sure someone looks at the service that lacks (to their mind) sufficient advertising and is making decent revenue and thinks something like "Wow, a couple (more) ads and this could make a lot more money!" And then (more) ads are added. Unless there's some dis-incentive we can expect to see more ads in more places. People abandoning the service doesn't seem to be enough, I suspect the longer someone has a particular service the more they become accustomed to it and the more pain it takes to get them to move to another service.
- asdff 4y ago
  Even if you are paying full price, inevitably the complany will have some brilliant CEO who figures out that not showing ads constantly is leaving money on the table.
jordanpg 4y ago
There is also a class component to ads. I find ads intolerable, but I am privileged enough to be able to afford to make them go away in almost all cases. For those on a very tight budget, Disney+ with ads, Kindle with ads, podcasts with ads, etc. are the only thing that is affordable. I suspect for many in the lowest income brackets, traditional cable TV with good old fashioned commercials is a primary source of entertainment. Thus, we also need to keep in mind that those who cannot afford to make commercials go away are subsidizing this further for those who can in an unfortunate irony.
- skyyler 4y ago
  This might seem crass but if I was in a situation where I couldn't afford the ad-free version of a streaming service, I would simply abstain from the service entirely. I understand many don't care, but I hate ads with an intensity I cannot describe with words.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > I hate ads with an intensity I cannot describe with words As the upstream commenter, I am in complete alignment. Whenever I have been too broke not to be advertised at, I have always completely opted out.
zyx321 4y ago
The only channels that promised fewer ads because you pay for it and delivered on it (not switching to double dipping within a decade) are the ones financed by mandatory TV license fees. People do pay and it does not work. The only thing that works is government regulations.

Invictus0 4y ago

Society doesn't pay enough for TV as is? No one even wants the hundreds of channels they stuff into the cable subscriptions.

bfhchnds 4y ago

Not quite. A while back we used to pay for cable tv and the programming used to have tons of ads. Now, we assumed the premium you pay for Apple products was because 'you' were not the product, unlike say Android, but looks like with some clever marketing about privacy focus Apple was just building up their own ad business. I think paying for content/product doesn't ensure you wont see ads, well perhaps it doea but until the company decides it needs higher margins.

freeone3000 4y ago

Amazon Prime Video requires a paid Amazon Prime subscription. You are paying for the content. You also paid for the TV you watch it on, and you pay for the delivery service to your house. There's money every step of the way, so, having advertising on top of that? Insane.

themitigating 4y ago
Depending on the service you may be paying a subsidized price. Around 1994 my parents were paying $110~ USD for a cable package in suburban NY. It was basic cable, the extra premium channels, and HBO. Adjusted for inflation that's $210, I know that inflation doesn't always tell the entire economic story but now I'm paying Netflix $20, HBO $15, Disney+ $6.76, Hulu is free with my cell phone plan but let's say $10. That's $52, my internet is $65 however I would have that anyway for many other reasons. Even if you added that in it's still much less expensive that in the past. The quality is also significantly better, and I can choose to watch most shows when I want.
- ahelwer 4y ago
  Subsidized doesn't mean anything in this context. These services aren't offered below cost, they're very profitable. Companies will always view not showing ads as leaving money on the table, regardless of how much profit they're already making.

lapetitejort 4y ago

People call me crazy for paying for reddit and YouTube premium. The fact is, they're some of the few places where I can pay directly to host the servers and pay the creators. I won't considering using any other social network where I can't contribute directly, versus indirectly with my data and eyeballs.

InCityDreams 4y ago

The uk's BBC isnt that hard, spikey, jagged or foul.

tomjen3 4y ago

We already do that, since ads presumably make the companies money. Thus the overall effect of this should be that we make products cheaper, since they won't have to pay marketing budgets. Network effect companies (e.g Facebook) would see how useless their network effects are when only some are willing to pay, and they therefore can't get all their friends updates. And most creators will find out just how little their content is worth (you probably need to be in the top 50% just to make pennies per hour). I would say bring it on, but most sites would run into the problem that for their media customer it wouldn't be worth the effort to click the apple pay (or whatever) button to get access.

h1fra 4y ago

Well I paid for a TV, cable network, netflix, disney plus, hbo, prime, switch, playstation and still got tracked and ad displayed. I'm a huge advocate of paying for content and artist (when you have the budget for) but what they are doing has nothing to do about it.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Pay for games? They shove ads in them, game engines even have support for this. Pay for subscription services? They show you ads for their own shows at best or half a minute of paid advertising before every episode at worst. Pay for anything at all? They track everything you do whether you pay or not. Worse: now they know you have disposable income since you're spending money on frivolous entertainment. The value of your attention just went up and so did the opportunity cost of not advertising to you. The more society pays, the more annoyed the executives get at the money they're leaving on the table. What society needs to do is make advertising illegal. Just straight up prohibit it, consequences be damned. No buts, no compromises. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

Which means realistic micropayment solutions must be discovered first.

waynesonfire 4y ago

It's not that simple. The demand to reach a target demographic isn't going away. Thus, as the difficulty of reaching that demographic increases so does the cost advertisers are willing to pay. Also, it's common for companies to offer a paid service and then double dip with an advertisement offering as well.

BitwiseFool 4y ago

I remember paying for DVDs and being forced to watch trailers after putting the disc in the tray. Even when we directly pay for content they can't help but add advertisements.

iamevn 4y ago

I would love to pay my local sports team or NBC or something money directly for broadcasts of all their games but it's impossible because the exclusive streaming rights are split out across at least 3 different services that I'd need to pay far too much for on top of my season tickets.

ouid 4y ago

Society needs to pay for the creation of content. Patreon is a pretty good model.