4 ms·
It literally never fails. If you pay to avoid ads, you are merely letting them know that you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff. You're doin
by matheusmoreira 13d ago
It literally never fails.
If you pay to avoid ads, you are merely letting them know that you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff. You're doing their job for them by segmenting yourself into the upper echelons of the market.
At some point, some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to show up and notice how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to all of those people full of disposable income.
- mahboi 13d agoConsumers do seem less willing to waste time watching ads than before, though. Cable TV was insane.
- MarkWayneNewton 13d agoThe seas are always open, friend.
- carlosjobim 13d agoYou can cancel a subscription. That's how subscriptions work. That means that any future changes is not a concern for current offerings. And I can't understand why hackers never acknowledge this. I can put gas in the tank of my car. In the future, they might lower the quality of the gas - or even make it more expensive! That doesn't change anything about the gas that I will currently put in my car. > you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff Advertisers already know that a hundred percent of the population have $20 in disposable monthly income, because they can pay with credit. So they don't learn anything new.
- wright08 13d agoI am morbidly curious of your definition of 'the population', could you elaborate?
- carlosjobim 13d agoSo you don't die: The population in the regions where these subscriptions are offered. Every region where a streaming subscription costs $20 per month, 100% of the population has $20 in disposable income per month whether they actually have the money or not, because credit is offered for consumption. Every region where a streaming subscription costs $5 per month, 100% of the population has $5 in disposable income per month for the same reason. The original argument I responded to, is a typical hacker trope and of logical fallacy that gets repeated infinitely. It goes like this: "Just because somebody spent $10 or $20 on something which I would never want to buy, means they must be extremely rich and extremely wasteful with their money. So advertiser are drooling and crawling over each other to get their hands on this cash." If that's the case, then advertisers clearly must also target tattooed people as the most valuable customer group possible, since every tattoo is proof that somebody once had 50 dollars.
- wat10000 13d agoThe gas analogy is a good one, because those fuckheads also shove advertising in your face when you're already giving them money for a product. The issue isn't your ability to cancel individual services. The issue is the increasing difficulty of living life as part of society without constantly having advertising shoved down our throats.
- bunderbunder 13d agoThis is part of why last year I mostly switched to just borrowing DVDs from my public library. Avoiding ads by not paying seems to do the trick rather nicely. The quality and variety is better than what I can find on any one streaming service, too.
- jerf 13d agoEvery year it gets more and more important to learn how to not be sucked in by a small amount of convenience. "Capitalism" has figured out how to abuse your desire for maximum convenience. You need to figure out what your price is for it, and stick to it like glue. The funny thing is the sooner you get off of some particular convenience treadmill the easier it is to stay off.
- bunderbunder 13d agoThe funny thing is, it may be less convenient but it's also more enjoyable. Endlessly scrolling some algorithmic feed hunting for something to watch can be done without getting off the couch, but it isn't actually fun. Walking to the library with my family to return a stack of books and movies and check out some new stuff is one of the highlights of our weekend. For anyone who's wondering where to start, I'd like to suggest that your library probably has a copy of WALL-E.
- eecks 13d agoWhy DVD and not Blu-Ray?
- bunderbunder 13d agoThey've got those, too, but I didn't feel like paying extra for a Blu-Ray player.
- Melatonic 13d agoI love libraries but DVD are pretty ancient in terms of video quality
- 13d ago
- dwedge 13d agoIt's interesting that I've seen this argument 4 times on hacker news, all in the past 2 weeks and never before. Really is quite a small bubble
- matheusmoreira 13d agoI've made this argument here on Hacker News dozens of times over many years now.
- dwedge 13d agoIt could be my bias
- GuinansEyebrows 13d agoto what do you attribute the increase you've noticed?
- jollyllama 13d agoYou're not wrong. But the only solutions appear to be varying levels of being a free-rider, which means the thing you like probably gets deleted anyway when it's deemed unprofitable. The long-term solution is probably to only consume locally-made goods and content, public-domain content, or vintage goods.
- javcasas 13d ago> which means the thing you like probably gets deleted anyway when it's deemed unprofitable And the difference from the current situation is?
- jollyllama 13d agoSome longer amount of time, potentially. Point taken.