3 ms·

For now. Eventually the greed is going to get to the point where ads are mandatory regardless of what package you choose. It's just a slow burn similar to what

For now. Eventually the greed is going to get to the point where ads are mandatory regardless of what package you choose. It's just a slow burn similar to what happened in publishing. First there were ads. Then there were popup ads. It took an entire army of people to get rid of the popups. So they increased the ads, got more sophisticated on placement, and made them far more insidious in terms of privacy violation. Then they added paywalls, but removed the ads. Now they're adding ads to paywalled content because of "added value for our customers" when they aren't also doing sponsored newsletters.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I don't think this is a realistic take. There are a large number of consumers willing to pay for no adds, and fewer barriers to market entry than cable. Even cable, with its relative monopoly had packages with no adds like HBO.
- phone8675309 4y ago
  When cable first started many, many channels had no ads either, and they caved once they realized they could get away with it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarface74 4y ago
    No many channels were not ad free when cable first started. Only channels that were premium, When cable first started, it was a method to rebroadcast local stations where you couldn’t get a signal over the air. The first basic cable only channels were also ad supported.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  I recall hearing about spammers and mailing lists that some advertisers are a special kind of stupid who think "willing to pay not to see ads" means "extra lucrative demographic". Hearsay but it seems consistent with bad advertising practices like "punch the monkey and autoplay banner ads".
mywittyname 4y ago
If you're attracting eyeballs, and not selling some time in front of those eyeballs to advertisers, then you're leaving a lot of money on the table.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  For paying eyeballs is under the assumption that those eyeballs are yours permanently and won't leave. It is that kind of thinking which got cable disrupted hard.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  If you're waiting for that golden goose to produce more eggs, instead of cutting it open and taking them all at once, are you also leaving a lot of money on the table? I am probably more extreme than most, but I simply will not pay you if your offering has ads.
joegahona 4y ago
Your publishing analogy is interesting, but I would tweak it, because most of "publishing" online was free and anonymous, not paid, so the analogy to streaming video services isn't a fair one. What _has_ happened, however, is that even paid subscriptions on publishing sites such as the NY Times include ads. That's bullshit, and I really hope streaming video doesn't go that direction. Do any paid online video services NOT offer an ad-free experience now? To my knowledge they all do. Yes, Netflix has rumblings about starting an ads tier, but the OP is still correct, as far as I know, that the option for ad-free viewing still exists.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I don't think this is a realistic take. There are a large number of consumers willing to pay for no adds, and fewer barriers to market entry than cable. Even cable, with its relative monopoly had packages with no adds like HBO.

phone8675309 4y ago
When cable first started many, many channels had no ads either, and they caved once they realized they could get away with it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface74 4y ago
  No many channels were not ad free when cable first started. Only channels that were premium, When cable first started, it was a method to rebroadcast local stations where you couldn’t get a signal over the air. The first basic cable only channels were also ad supported.
Nasrudith 4y ago
I recall hearing about spammers and mailing lists that some advertisers are a special kind of stupid who think "willing to pay not to see ads" means "extra lucrative demographic". Hearsay but it seems consistent with bad advertising practices like "punch the monkey and autoplay banner ads".

mywittyname 4y ago

If you're attracting eyeballs, and not selling some time in front of those eyeballs to advertisers, then you're leaving a lot of money on the table.

Nasrudith 4y ago
For paying eyeballs is under the assumption that those eyeballs are yours permanently and won't leave. It is that kind of thinking which got cable disrupted hard.
marssaxman 4y ago
If you're waiting for that golden goose to produce more eggs, instead of cutting it open and taking them all at once, are you also leaving a lot of money on the table? I am probably more extreme than most, but I simply will not pay you if your offering has ads.

joegahona 4y ago

Your publishing analogy is interesting, but I would tweak it, because most of "publishing" online was free and anonymous, not paid, so the analogy to streaming video services isn't a fair one. What _has_ happened, however, is that even paid subscriptions on publishing sites such as the NY Times include ads. That's bullshit, and I really hope streaming video doesn't go that direction. Do any paid online video services NOT offer an ad-free experience now? To my knowledge they all do. Yes, Netflix has rumblings about starting an ads tier, but the OP is still correct, as far as I know, that the option for ad-free viewing still exists.