4 ms·
The flip side is that advertisers pay for "services" that the public consumes for free, e.g. radio, free-to-air TV, most of the internet - especially search and
by GianFabien 4y ago
The flip side is that advertisers pay for "services" that the public consumes for free, e.g. radio, free-to-air TV, most of the internet - especially search and social media.
In the early days of radio and TV - to my knowledge in England, Australia, NZ (and its colonies?), you had to pay a license fee. In those days you had like 1-2 TV stations to choose from. People hated paying those fees and in many countries they were abolished. Likewise, I doubt that people would pay to have access Google search & Gmail, Facebook etc. As long as advertisers subsidize "free services", they are likely to remain.
- coffeebeqn 4y agoThat’s an interesting example because people very much want to pay for TV channels and streaming channels?
- ben_w 4y agoTV license still exists in the UK, which you need even if you only watch iPlayer. Similar thing exists here in Germany (or at least Berlin, I don't know all the federalisms yet) except unlike the UK you can't opt out by not having a TV or equivalent.
- jemmyw 4y agoPresumably though we pay more for the advertised goods and services in order that they can afford the advertising to pay for the services we consume for free. If we removed the advertising part of that then everything could be cheaper.
- charcircuit 4y agoNo, the price would be the same and the company would just pocket the money instead of spending it on advertising. If they do not get enough customers to sustain the company it will shut down.