4 ms·

The bait-and-switch model is absolutely amazing as well. Start by offering a service covered with ads. Then add paid tier to get rid of ads. Next add tier with

by Ekaros 2y ago

The bait-and-switch model is absolutely amazing as well. Start by offering a service covered with ads. Then add paid tier to get rid of ads. Next add tier with payment and ads. And finally add ads back to every possible tier. Not to forget about keeping them in content all the time.

CrimsonCape 2y ago
If you have ever seen the prank interview between Elijah Wood and Dominic Monaghan, "Do you wear wigs? Have you worn wigs? Will you wear wigs?" and Elijah breaks down laughing in total shock at how hilariously bad the interview is... ...I just picture a similar conversation with a CEO going: "Sir, shareholders want to see more improvement this quarter." CEO: "Do we run ads? Have we run ads? Will we run ads this time?" (The answer is inevitably yes to all of these)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- smgit 2y ago
  Some one has to pay for those Ads. That creates limits to growth of an Ad based ecosystem. So the thing to pay attention too is not Revenue growth or Profit growth of a Platform but Price of an Ad, Price to increase reach, price to Pay to Boost your post, price of a presidential campaign etc etc. These prices cant grow forever just like with housing prices or we get the equivalent of a Housing Bubble. Want to destabilize the whole system pump up ad prices.
  - the_other 2y ago
    This doesn’t make sense to me. Ads on the main networks are sold by auction. Price pumping is built into the system.
normalaccess 2y ago
Advertising is just the surface layer—the excuse. Digital ads rely on collecting as much personal data as possible, but that data is the real prize. This creates a natural partnership with intelligence agencies: they may not legally collect the data themselves, but they can certainly buy access. This isn’t new. Facebook, for example, received early funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, and its origins trace back to DARPA’s canceled LifeLog project—a system designed to track and catalog people’s entire lives. Big Tech and government surveillance have been intertwined from the start. That’s why these companies never face real consequences. They’ve become quasi-government entities, harvesting data on billions under the guise of commerce.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- zeroq 2y ago
  Years ago a friend working in security told me that every telco operator in Elbonia has to have a special room in their HQ that's available 24/7 to some goverment officials. Men in black come and go as they please, and while what is actually happening in that room remains a mystery, they can tap straight to the system from within with no restrictions or traceability. Growing up in soviet bloc I took that story at face value. After all democracy was still a new thing, and people haven't invented privacy concerns yet. Since then I always thought that some sort of cooperation between companies like Facebook or Google and CIA/DOD was an obvious thing to everyone.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    PRISM [1] is the best evidence of how short-lived most people's memories are. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook were the first 4 members. It makes it pretty funny when companies like Apple (who also joined more than a decade ago) speak about trying to defend customer's privacy against government intrusion. There's so much completely cynical corporate LARPing for PR. And if one wants to know why big tech from China isn't welcome, be it phones or social media, it's not because fear of them spying on Americans, but because of the infeasibility of integrating Chinese companies into our own domestic surveillance systems. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
  - weikju 2y ago
    Nice story, but… > Years ago a friend working in security told me that every telco operator in Elbonia See info about the fictional country of Elbonia here, from the Dilbert comics: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert
  - theoreticalmal 2y ago
int_19h 2y ago
To quote the email from Hulu that recently dropped into my inbox: > We are clarifying that, as we continue to increase the breadth and depth of the content we make available to you, circumstances may require that certain titles and types of content include ads, even in our 'no ads' or 'ad free' subscription tiers. So at this point they aren't even bothering to rename the tier from "ad free" even as they put ads in it. Or maybe it's supposed to mean "the ads come free with it" now? Newspeak indeed.
- majormajor 2y ago
  This goes back to the release of the no-ads Hulu plan. Due at the time to fun shenanigans and weirdness around the exact licensing deals for a few shows. (At least one of those shows is VERY long-running now https://www.reddit.com/r/greysanatomy/comments/12prhpf/no_ads_on_hulu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/greysanatomy/comments/12prhpf/no_ad... - not sure if there have been any new ones through the years or currently )
- dustingetz 2y ago
  are they talking about trailers?
- mikestew 2y ago
  Oh, it has been that way with Hulu for at least a decade. Source: I paid money for their OG “ad-free” tier back in the day, only to end up seeing ads.
- mikrotikker 2y ago
  Arrr matey climb aboard yer don't need Hulu where we're going
- webspinner 2y ago
  Yes that's definitely newspeak! It's also the reason why I run adblock. It's gotten me in trouble a few times with streaming services, they don't love it. I still run it.
  - Snowfield9571 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by Ekaros 2y ago

CrimsonCape 2y ago

If you have ever seen the prank interview between Elijah Wood and Dominic Monaghan, "Do you wear wigs? Have you worn wigs? Will you wear wigs?" and Elijah breaks down laughing in total shock at how hilariously bad the interview is... ...I just picture a similar conversation with a CEO going: "Sir, shareholders want to see more improvement this quarter." CEO: "Do we run ads? Have we run ads? Will we run ads this time?" (The answer is inevitably yes to all of these)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
smgit 2y ago
Some one has to pay for those Ads. That creates limits to growth of an Ad based ecosystem. So the thing to pay attention too is not Revenue growth or Profit growth of a Platform but Price of an Ad, Price to increase reach, price to Pay to Boost your post, price of a presidential campaign etc etc. These prices cant grow forever just like with housing prices or we get the equivalent of a Housing Bubble. Want to destabilize the whole system pump up ad prices.
- the_other 2y ago
  This doesn’t make sense to me. Ads on the main networks are sold by auction. Price pumping is built into the system.

normalaccess 2y ago

Advertising is just the surface layer—the excuse. Digital ads rely on collecting as much personal data as possible, but that data is the real prize. This creates a natural partnership with intelligence agencies: they may not legally collect the data themselves, but they can certainly buy access. This isn’t new. Facebook, for example, received early funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, and its origins trace back to DARPA’s canceled LifeLog project—a system designed to track and catalog people’s entire lives. Big Tech and government surveillance have been intertwined from the start. That’s why these companies never face real consequences. They’ve become quasi-government entities, harvesting data on billions under the guise of commerce.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zeroq 2y ago
Years ago a friend working in security told me that every telco operator in Elbonia has to have a special room in their HQ that's available 24/7 to some goverment officials. Men in black come and go as they please, and while what is actually happening in that room remains a mystery, they can tap straight to the system from within with no restrictions or traceability. Growing up in soviet bloc I took that story at face value. After all democracy was still a new thing, and people haven't invented privacy concerns yet. Since then I always thought that some sort of cooperation between companies like Facebook or Google and CIA/DOD was an obvious thing to everyone.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  PRISM [1] is the best evidence of how short-lived most people's memories are. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook were the first 4 members. It makes it pretty funny when companies like Apple (who also joined more than a decade ago) speak about trying to defend customer's privacy against government intrusion. There's so much completely cynical corporate LARPing for PR. And if one wants to know why big tech from China isn't welcome, be it phones or social media, it's not because fear of them spying on Americans, but because of the infeasibility of integrating Chinese companies into our own domestic surveillance systems. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
- weikju 2y ago
  Nice story, but… > Years ago a friend working in security told me that every telco operator in Elbonia See info about the fictional country of Elbonia here, from the Dilbert comics: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert
- theoreticalmal 2y ago

int_19h 2y ago

To quote the email from Hulu that recently dropped into my inbox: > We are clarifying that, as we continue to increase the breadth and depth of the content we make available to you, circumstances may require that certain titles and types of content include ads, even in our 'no ads' or 'ad free' subscription tiers. So at this point they aren't even bothering to rename the tier from "ad free" even as they put ads in it. Or maybe it's supposed to mean "the ads come free with it" now? Newspeak indeed.

majormajor 2y ago
This goes back to the release of the no-ads Hulu plan. Due at the time to fun shenanigans and weirdness around the exact licensing deals for a few shows. (At least one of those shows is VERY long-running now https://www.reddit.com/r/greysanatomy/comments/12prhpf/no_ads_on_hulu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/greysanatomy/comments/12prhpf/no_ad... - not sure if there have been any new ones through the years or currently )
dustingetz 2y ago
are they talking about trailers?
mikestew 2y ago
Oh, it has been that way with Hulu for at least a decade. Source: I paid money for their OG “ad-free” tier back in the day, only to end up seeing ads.
mikrotikker 2y ago
Arrr matey climb aboard yer don't need Hulu where we're going
webspinner 2y ago
Yes that's definitely newspeak! It's also the reason why I run adblock. It's gotten me in trouble a few times with streaming services, they don't love it. I still run it.
- Snowfield9571 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]