5 ms·

Because it’s more profitable to have something that is paid for AND has ads. Same thing happened with cable TV when it first came out, it was advertised as ad

Because it’s more profitable to have something that is paid for AND has ads. Same thing happened with cable TV when it first came out, it was advertised as ad free. Then it filled up with ads, and the streaming services came along promising no ads. Now the circle is repeating itself. Here is the NYTimes in 1981 on the topic 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...

TehCorwiz 3y ago
Greed is cyclical.
drtz 3y ago
Thanks for sharing that NYT article. > ...critics say that the use of sponsorship could make cable programmers more vulnerable to censorship or control by advertisers, particularly in light of recent efforts by organizations such as the Moral Majority and its offshoot, the Coalition for Better Television. 40+ years later I think it's pretty clear this was an accurate prediction. > A much-cited - and widely disputed - study by the Benton & Bowles advertising agency found that the public would accept advertising if it meant a reduction or a holding-of-the-line on subscription fees... This is great until a year later when YoY revenue growth is flat and prices are increased anyway.
apwell23 3y ago
> Because it’s more profitable to have something that is paid for AND has ads. how does it work for HBO then.
- asdff 3y ago
  They use an embedded marketing strategy that isn't as obvious that you are watching advertising.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    That explains the Starbucks cup in Game of Thrones season 8
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      If it was ever leaked that the Starbucks cup thing was a deliberate marketing stunt, I would be zero percent surprised.
- burnte 3y ago
  No one said paid only doesn't work, the commenter simply pointed out the obvious that TWO revenue streams is better than one.
  - apwell23 3y ago
    yea i was asking why its not better for hbo
    - burnte 3y ago
      No one said this wouldn't be better for HBO. They absolutely could make more revenue showing ads, that's not the model they're on, presently, however.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vel0city 3y ago
The article doesn't once say cable TV never had ads; it only says the public had some perception that would be the case. In fact, it even talks about how cable channels were bringing in millions of dollars in ad revenues despite being very small markets at the time. In reality, cable TV had ads from day one, decades before this article was published. Originally every cable TV station had ads, because they were just retransmissions of broadcast stations which ran ads. The first nation-wide cable TV station had ads, and many of the early cable-only channels (CNN, USA, others) had ads.

TehCorwiz 3y ago

Greed is cyclical.

drtz 3y ago

Thanks for sharing that NYT article. > ...critics say that the use of sponsorship could make cable programmers more vulnerable to censorship or control by advertisers, particularly in light of recent efforts by organizations such as the Moral Majority and its offshoot, the Coalition for Better Television. 40+ years later I think it's pretty clear this was an accurate prediction. > A much-cited - and widely disputed - study by the Benton & Bowles advertising agency found that the public would accept advertising if it meant a reduction or a holding-of-the-line on subscription fees... This is great until a year later when YoY revenue growth is flat and prices are increased anyway.

apwell23 3y ago

> Because it’s more profitable to have something that is paid for AND has ads. how does it work for HBO then.

asdff 3y ago
They use an embedded marketing strategy that isn't as obvious that you are watching advertising.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  That explains the Starbucks cup in Game of Thrones season 8
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    If it was ever leaked that the Starbucks cup thing was a deliberate marketing stunt, I would be zero percent surprised.
burnte 3y ago
No one said paid only doesn't work, the commenter simply pointed out the obvious that TWO revenue streams is better than one.
- apwell23 3y ago
  yea i was asking why its not better for hbo
  - burnte 3y ago
    No one said this wouldn't be better for HBO. They absolutely could make more revenue showing ads, that's not the model they're on, presently, however.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

vel0city 3y ago

The article doesn't once say cable TV never had ads; it only says the public had some perception that would be the case. In fact, it even talks about how cable channels were bringing in millions of dollars in ad revenues despite being very small markets at the time. In reality, cable TV had ads from day one, decades before this article was published. Originally every cable TV station had ads, because they were just retransmissions of broadcast stations which ran ads. The first nation-wide cable TV station had ads, and many of the early cable-only channels (CNN, USA, others) had ads.