4 ms·

In the 90's my econ teacher said that in the future the difference between the rich and the poor will be the amount of ads the see. I thought he attributed it t

by bradly 3y ago

In the 90's my econ teacher said that in the future the difference between the rich and the poor will be the amount of ads the see. I thought he attributed it to Ray Bradbury, but I may be mistaken.

londons_explore 3y ago
He's wrong. The rich see just as many ads, because their eyeballs/attention is worth way more, so companies are far more incentivised to show them ads, Thats why most companies are shying away from 'pay to see no ads' business models. The very people who pay are your biggest earners from the most valuable ads with the highest conversion values.
- elcomet 3y ago
  But there are much less of those people. I'm not convinced by what you're saying
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    In free to play games a big chunk of the money comes from a small minority of people. I assume ads follow a similar distribution.
    - elcomet 3y ago
      But not necessarily high or low income.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  I think you're confusing rich and upper middle class
- jzb 3y ago
  I don't think this is the case. One of my younger brothers is in a way lower income bracket and only streams things via free services like Tubi. I tried watching a few things on that service - couldn't stand how many ads there were/are. Likewise, I pay for YouTube premium or whatever instead of dealing with ads, and used to subscribe to Spotify to avoid the ads, etc. Now that streaming has overtaken cable, the need to be ad-free to lure users over is gone. Streaming is the preferred way to consume content, so now they're free to inflict ads on people because they don't think users are going to go backwards. And as each streaming service adopts ads, it lowers the barrier for others. Plus the streamers are in need of more revenue and ads are just too attractive and easy to turn to. But lower income folks are always going to see more ads. More billboards in their neighborhoods, more ads via radio, streaming, TV, whatever.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  By having their eyes (or person) hold more value, it's more cost-effective to try to extract their value through personalized connections. Less ads, more human connections.
- david38 3y ago
  Absolutely false. I pay a pretty penny to not see ads. My daughters don’t either. Social discussion on school reveals they miss a LOT of ads.
tyingq 3y ago
Maybe not accounting for pirated setups :)
pndy 3y ago
It's more about basic vs premium aka "pay more for better quality/service" divide. Even a simple stuff as food got divided: you can have your cheap prepacked cold cut filled with soy protein, artificial aromas or you can pay more for a real ham.
jdboyd 3y ago
It is pretty hard for the rich to opt out of smart TVs.
- paularmstrong 3y ago
  It's really not. Commercial display TVs without smart features are expensive, but easily affordable to the affluent.
- pokerface_86 3y ago
  [dead]

by bradly 3y ago

In the 90's my econ teacher said that in the future the difference between the rich and the poor will be the amount of ads the see. I thought he attributed it to Ray Bradbury, but I may be mistaken.

londons_explore 3y ago

He's wrong. The rich see just as many ads, because their eyeballs/attention is worth way more, so companies are far more incentivised to show them ads, Thats why most companies are shying away from 'pay to see no ads' business models. The very people who pay are your biggest earners from the most valuable ads with the highest conversion values.

elcomet 3y ago
But there are much less of those people. I'm not convinced by what you're saying
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  In free to play games a big chunk of the money comes from a small minority of people. I assume ads follow a similar distribution.
  - elcomet 3y ago
    But not necessarily high or low income.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
candiddevmike 3y ago
I think you're confusing rich and upper middle class
jzb 3y ago
I don't think this is the case. One of my younger brothers is in a way lower income bracket and only streams things via free services like Tubi. I tried watching a few things on that service - couldn't stand how many ads there were/are. Likewise, I pay for YouTube premium or whatever instead of dealing with ads, and used to subscribe to Spotify to avoid the ads, etc. Now that streaming has overtaken cable, the need to be ad-free to lure users over is gone. Streaming is the preferred way to consume content, so now they're free to inflict ads on people because they don't think users are going to go backwards. And as each streaming service adopts ads, it lowers the barrier for others. Plus the streamers are in need of more revenue and ads are just too attractive and easy to turn to. But lower income folks are always going to see more ads. More billboards in their neighborhoods, more ads via radio, streaming, TV, whatever.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
By having their eyes (or person) hold more value, it's more cost-effective to try to extract their value through personalized connections. Less ads, more human connections.
david38 3y ago
Absolutely false. I pay a pretty penny to not see ads. My daughters don’t either. Social discussion on school reveals they miss a LOT of ads.

tyingq 3y ago

Maybe not accounting for pirated setups :)

pndy 3y ago

It's more about basic vs premium aka "pay more for better quality/service" divide. Even a simple stuff as food got divided: you can have your cheap prepacked cold cut filled with soy protein, artificial aromas or you can pay more for a real ham.

jdboyd 3y ago

It is pretty hard for the rich to opt out of smart TVs.

paularmstrong 3y ago
It's really not. Commercial display TVs without smart features are expensive, but easily affordable to the affluent.
pokerface_86 3y ago
[dead]