3 ms·

The argument is pretty simple: if you destroy the advertising revenue that content depends on, we’ll end up in a cultural wasteland, or, worse, a culture plague

The argument is pretty simple: if you destroy the advertising revenue that content depends on, we’ll end up in a cultural wasteland, or, worse, a culture plagued by advertising that masquerades as content. Isn't this true for things that are already paid for anyways? The car from Transformers seems to ring a bell. The argument that advertising kills content doesn't really hold its salt for me, if people are not willing to pay for content is it that great anyways? The argument really only eliminates niche content.

nemothekid 13y ago
Its not whether people are willing to pay for content, its can people really afford premium content? Ad-less content isn't very attractive when you have pay $99 per episode. Essentially advertisers have been subsidizing content for years and the question is can people really afford premium TV content and in what capacity? I'm not sure what the exact numbers are but its something to consider when thinking about the " if people are not willing to pay for content is it that great anyways". People may like the content but might be priced out. The next thing is consider is in the TV industry, you don't pay per content. Consider the film industry which is relatively ad-less, but they make most of their money from theaters. Imagine the backlash that would occur if comcast said it would remove ads, but you had to pay $13 for each show you watched.
- jeena 13y ago
  Excuse my ignorance but where do the advertisers get the money to pay for the content? They get it from me if I buy their product. So instead giving my money to the advertiser who then gives it to the artist, why wouldn't I just give it to the artist myself (like with Netflix, etc.)? I don't have the numbers but I am quite sure that movies at the theater woudldn't be that much more expensive either. The advertisers don't invest their own money, they invest the money they get from us the customers obviously. And they only can invest as much as we buy, not more. Wouldn't cutting out the middleman save some bugs too?
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    I'm just speculating here but I could think of some reasons why advertising is a better revenue model than direct charging for a studio (also I think the theater model doesn't depend on ads. For ads I mean tv/cable/ota). 1.) Better price discrimination. Instead of 3 people paying $5.99, I could convince an advertiser to advertise 3 different products at different price points. If the advertisements were 100% effective and I got a 10% commission, it could result in one person buying a $500 Louis vuitton bag and another buying a Macy's store brand bag at ($50). That gets me a revenue of $55 compared to $18 if I sold direct. (I know that TV ads don't actually work this way, as you can't track whether a commercial led to a sale of a product) 2.) The advertiser may be willing to pay more for the ad spot than you are for the content. Again speculating here, but if an advertiser is willing to pay $20 per view and you will pay $10, then the studio is incentivised to go the ad route. (I think this is most likely, as people were livid when Netflix had to increase price of their streaming package meaning consumer could be more price sensitive). All in all, I have to believe that advertisers haven't been pissing their money for decades, and that studios aren't so consumer hostile that they would bend infinitely for advertisers. If the charge-the-consumer-directly model actually worked I don't think studios would be so hostile to Netflix, and HBO would likely offer a streaming package that didn't depend on the cable package.
- blueblob 13y ago
  I think that perhaps excessive salaries of some actors/actresses might die out. Digital distribution should be making things cheaper. Entertainment is already very expensive because people are willing to pay for it. It is made more expensive because of cable companies forcing you to bundle and pay for content you will not watch. It is not necessarily just ads that are subsidizing the content, but also other people who are paying for this content they are not viewing. I don't think ads are going to disappear any time soon, but I think that a lot of shows in the TV industry wouldn't make it without ads (and probably shouldn't make it anyways with so few people watching them).

nemothekid 13y ago

Its not whether people are willing to pay for content, its can people really afford premium content? Ad-less content isn't very attractive when you have pay $99 per episode. Essentially advertisers have been subsidizing content for years and the question is can people really afford premium TV content and in what capacity? I'm not sure what the exact numbers are but its something to consider when thinking about the " if people are not willing to pay for content is it that great anyways". People may like the content but might be priced out. The next thing is consider is in the TV industry, you don't pay per content. Consider the film industry which is relatively ad-less, but they make most of their money from theaters. Imagine the backlash that would occur if comcast said it would remove ads, but you had to pay $13 for each show you watched.

jeena 13y ago
Excuse my ignorance but where do the advertisers get the money to pay for the content? They get it from me if I buy their product. So instead giving my money to the advertiser who then gives it to the artist, why wouldn't I just give it to the artist myself (like with Netflix, etc.)? I don't have the numbers but I am quite sure that movies at the theater woudldn't be that much more expensive either. The advertisers don't invest their own money, they invest the money they get from us the customers obviously. And they only can invest as much as we buy, not more. Wouldn't cutting out the middleman save some bugs too?
- nemothekid 13y ago
  I'm just speculating here but I could think of some reasons why advertising is a better revenue model than direct charging for a studio (also I think the theater model doesn't depend on ads. For ads I mean tv/cable/ota). 1.) Better price discrimination. Instead of 3 people paying $5.99, I could convince an advertiser to advertise 3 different products at different price points. If the advertisements were 100% effective and I got a 10% commission, it could result in one person buying a $500 Louis vuitton bag and another buying a Macy's store brand bag at ($50). That gets me a revenue of $55 compared to $18 if I sold direct. (I know that TV ads don't actually work this way, as you can't track whether a commercial led to a sale of a product) 2.) The advertiser may be willing to pay more for the ad spot than you are for the content. Again speculating here, but if an advertiser is willing to pay $20 per view and you will pay $10, then the studio is incentivised to go the ad route. (I think this is most likely, as people were livid when Netflix had to increase price of their streaming package meaning consumer could be more price sensitive). All in all, I have to believe that advertisers haven't been pissing their money for decades, and that studios aren't so consumer hostile that they would bend infinitely for advertisers. If the charge-the-consumer-directly model actually worked I don't think studios would be so hostile to Netflix, and HBO would likely offer a streaming package that didn't depend on the cable package.
blueblob 13y ago
I think that perhaps excessive salaries of some actors/actresses might die out. Digital distribution should be making things cheaper. Entertainment is already very expensive because people are willing to pay for it. It is made more expensive because of cable companies forcing you to bundle and pay for content you will not watch. It is not necessarily just ads that are subsidizing the content, but also other people who are paying for this content they are not viewing. I don't think ads are going to disappear any time soon, but I think that a lot of shows in the TV industry wouldn't make it without ads (and probably shouldn't make it anyways with so few people watching them).