3 ms·
Those families are indirectly paying that price today, through their ad-influenced purchases. Not only are they paying for the end-product, but they're paying
by RodericDay 11y ago
Those families are indirectly paying that price today, through their ad-influenced purchases.
Not only are they paying for the end-product, but they're paying for the arms-race between advertisers as well, and that's a huge industry.
The amount of money the ad industry deals out to "content providers" must necessarily be less than the amount they get paid by their clients, which in turn must be less than the amount people paid to those clients.
If the distribution is not uniform, and some people benefit from the ad-influenced overspending of others, the business is then predatory.
- nothis 11y agoThat's an interesting way to look at it, if I understand it correctly: Advertising itself is a problematic concept. Why should we weep? Everyone would be equally affected by this, it's not like someone is getting an advantage. Maybe this hurting advertising is a net positive for all of us. It forces people to actually pay for stuff directly rather than by being subconsciously tricked into buying more of the stuff advertised, later. The worst case scenario I have seen people come up with is more sponsored articles but I doubt that is a sustainable business model. Honestly, I never understood why I can read the New York Times online for free. I'm not feeling bad about it, but it's fucking strange. Baby steps, but I really hope something like Contributor (https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/) becomes popular. Preferably not run by google.
- minthd 11y agoI agree - the direct , and especially indirect price[1] people pay for ads is huge. [1]ads have a huge impact on society and on the psych of people.
- Nursie 11y agoIndeed. When tobacco advertising was banned in the UK, tobacco profits soared because they no longer had to take part in the arms race.