3 ms·

In the early days of cable, one of the benefits offered was few to no ads[1]. The idea was subscription fees would usually cover the cost of the programming, an

In the early days of cable, one of the benefits offered was few to no ads[1]. The idea was subscription fees would usually cover the cost of the programming, and advertising wasn't needed for revenue. I definitely expect the cycle to repeat, personally. [1] 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...

scarface74 4y ago
This is clearly and obviously a well worn trope and false. Cable TV started as a method to rebroadcast broadcast TV with ads in places that could not get broadcast TV. Then HBO came along. But was always a premium channel. Then the Superstations came along that were rebroadcast of local channels nationally like TBS and WGN with ads. Then cable channels like CNN, MTV, and ESPN came along - with ads. There has never been a time that cable TV was ad free.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Yes, and if one reads that article--rather than just the headline--it's largely about how many viewers assumed that paying for cable would mean they'd have fewer ads but that wasn't actually happening.
  - beowulfey 4y ago
    To me the article read as if cable as it was at the time of writing had minimal advertising, but networks were planning to introduce more of them. I thought it fit the comparison with Youtube slowly ramping up ads really well.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Since most “cable” channels were just rebroadcast over the air channels early on, there was no reason to expect that there were going to be fewer ads. In fact, in the 80s, there was a lot more infomercials on cable TV than today. The only reason there were fewer ads was because cable channels were still trying to get companies to advertise.
      - beowulfey 4y ago
        I was referring to the premium channels specifically
shostack 4y ago
Agreed. It's smart business to offer ad free to get people hooked, then ramp up the monetization once you have dominance. If people will continue to pay and get ads you are leaving money on the table as a business.

scarface74 4y ago

This is clearly and obviously a well worn trope and false. Cable TV started as a method to rebroadcast broadcast TV with ads in places that could not get broadcast TV. Then HBO came along. But was always a premium channel. Then the Superstations came along that were rebroadcast of local channels nationally like TBS and WGN with ads. Then cable channels like CNN, MTV, and ESPN came along - with ads. There has never been a time that cable TV was ad free.

ghaff 4y ago
Yes, and if one reads that article--rather than just the headline--it's largely about how many viewers assumed that paying for cable would mean they'd have fewer ads but that wasn't actually happening.
- beowulfey 4y ago
  To me the article read as if cable as it was at the time of writing had minimal advertising, but networks were planning to introduce more of them. I thought it fit the comparison with Youtube slowly ramping up ads really well.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Since most “cable” channels were just rebroadcast over the air channels early on, there was no reason to expect that there were going to be fewer ads. In fact, in the 80s, there was a lot more infomercials on cable TV than today. The only reason there were fewer ads was because cable channels were still trying to get companies to advertise.
    - beowulfey 4y ago
      I was referring to the premium channels specifically

shostack 4y ago

Agreed. It's smart business to offer ad free to get people hooked, then ramp up the monetization once you have dominance. If people will continue to pay and get ads you are leaving money on the table as a business.