Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html
361 comments
> the exact same commercial for anti-AIDS drugs sixteen times per hour.
European here, I will go over my surprise / weirdness about having ads for chronic disease medication like that, to ask : do you actually, you as the patient, choose which medication you receive for disease like that? Does your opinion override that of the doctor? Is it not ultimately a moot choice both by you and the doctor because the one you will get is the one your insurance covers?
I have a hard time reconciling what (little) I know about in the US medical system between insurance behavior, doctor choice, and ads aimed at patient choice.
I understand ads for non prescription drugs and little things like cough, but ads for HIV treatment I can't fathom.
As for your question, while the ad might be massively bad targeting for you, it might still be the best they have where you fit in the restriction set by the ad publisher, so better they get money on a poor match than no money at all. Usually a publisher that has terrible targeting.
European here, I will go over my surprise / weirdness about having ads for chronic disease medication like that, to ask : do you actually, you as the patient, choose which medication you receive for disease like that? Does your opinion override that of the doctor? Is it not ultimately a moot choice both by you and the doctor because the one you will get is the one your insurance covers?
I have a hard time reconciling what (little) I know about in the US medical system between insurance behavior, doctor choice, and ads aimed at patient choice.
I understand ads for non prescription drugs and little things like cough, but ads for HIV treatment I can't fathom.
As for your question, while the ad might be massively bad targeting for you, it might still be the best they have where you fit in the restriction set by the ad publisher, so better they get money on a poor match than no money at all. Usually a publisher that has terrible targeting.
Every time I am visiting USA, I am flabbergasted at the medication ads on TV. Not just for off-the-counter stuff like paracetamol or anti-inflammation medication but actual freaking prescription only drugs.
And they actually ask you to speak to your doctor about the drug. Haha what? Shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have? And if I don't trust his/her treatment plan then why not switch to a different doctor?
And they actually ask you to speak to your doctor about the drug. Haha what? Shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have? And if I don't trust his/her treatment plan then why not switch to a different doctor?
Playing devil's advocate... doctors are neither omniscient nor perfect.
> Shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have?
Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand? In a perfect world, yes. But we live in an imperfect world where sub-optimal choices are made due to time constraints, lack of knowledge/experience, etc. Doctors are not exempt from this same phenomenon, in fact it may be amplified because there's just so much more knowledge you need to index and access compared to programming. Just as you don't know about every web framework in existence, doctors don't know about every medicine in existence.
"Ask your web designer to see if using Svelte is right for you."
> Shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have?
Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand? In a perfect world, yes. But we live in an imperfect world where sub-optimal choices are made due to time constraints, lack of knowledge/experience, etc. Doctors are not exempt from this same phenomenon, in fact it may be amplified because there's just so much more knowledge you need to index and access compared to programming. Just as you don't know about every web framework in existence, doctors don't know about every medicine in existence.
"Ask your web designer to see if using Svelte is right for you."
>Playing devil's advocate... doctors are neither omniscient nor perfect.
There's been some research into this subject, and, in this case, it would seem that you are indeed advocating for the devil. I haven't read any of the papers myself, but the stories I've heard via channels such as the Science-Based Medicine blog or PusCast suggest that drug advertising - both to doctors and direct to consumers - tends to result in both higher health care costs and poorer patient outcomes, because it increases the odds that a doctor will prescribe a more expensive and less safe or less effective (or at least no more safe or effective) drug.
It's supposedly down to the drug companies' incentive structures. Once a patent expires, they often start tweaking the molecule to come out with new drugs that behave similarly, but are chemically different enough to qualify for a new patent. They then sink a lot of money into trying to convince doctors to prescribe it instead. Their avenue for doing this is advertising, which doesn't have to clear nearly as high an evidentiary bar as any of the scientific channels for disseminating information.
There's been some research into this subject, and, in this case, it would seem that you are indeed advocating for the devil. I haven't read any of the papers myself, but the stories I've heard via channels such as the Science-Based Medicine blog or PusCast suggest that drug advertising - both to doctors and direct to consumers - tends to result in both higher health care costs and poorer patient outcomes, because it increases the odds that a doctor will prescribe a more expensive and less safe or less effective (or at least no more safe or effective) drug.
It's supposedly down to the drug companies' incentive structures. Once a patent expires, they often start tweaking the molecule to come out with new drugs that behave similarly, but are chemically different enough to qualify for a new patent. They then sink a lot of money into trying to convince doctors to prescribe it instead. Their avenue for doing this is advertising, which doesn't have to clear nearly as high an evidentiary bar as any of the scientific channels for disseminating information.
[deleted]
>>shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have?
>Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand?
Are you implying non technical users would somehow be able to make a crucial technical design decision because they saw an ad somewhere? That seems quite absurd.
In my professional experience, every time a non technical stakeholder has tried to force a specific technology to solve a complex problem, it has been disastrous.
>Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand?
Are you implying non technical users would somehow be able to make a crucial technical design decision because they saw an ad somewhere? That seems quite absurd.
In my professional experience, every time a non technical stakeholder has tried to force a specific technology to solve a complex problem, it has been disastrous.
> Are you implying non technical users would somehow be able to make a crucial technical design decision because they saw an ad somewhere? ... In my professional experience, every time a non technical stakeholder has tried to force a specific technology to solve a complex problem, it has been disastrous.
No, and in fact I am against TV advertisements of prescription medications. However, what I am challenging is the attitude Europeans (and some Americans) have that doctors should never be questioned, for they always know what's best and you should just shut up and follow their advice.
See, general practitioners have a very small amount of time to understand and diagnose your problem, draw the correct solution from their vast stores of knowledge, and prescribe something before moving to the next patient. In most cases they don't have time to stew about what your disease might be for hours and hours on end.
But guess who does have time to stew and research for hours, days, and months? The patient. And in the cases of chronic diseases, the patients can often become more expert in their disease (and related medicines and side-effects) than your average general practitioners.
So in summary, I believe:
- No, we should not allow TV adverts for prescription drugs
- Yes, patients should do online research about their diseases, including potential treatments and drugs
- Yes, patients should ask their doctor questions and make suggestions, presenting findings they've gathered
- Yes, patients shouldn't hesitate in getting a second opinion from a different doctor. Not all doctors have the same experience level.
- No, doctors should not bristle at this but encourage research, correcting misconceptions and answering their patients' questions. It's their body, after all
No, and in fact I am against TV advertisements of prescription medications. However, what I am challenging is the attitude Europeans (and some Americans) have that doctors should never be questioned, for they always know what's best and you should just shut up and follow their advice.
See, general practitioners have a very small amount of time to understand and diagnose your problem, draw the correct solution from their vast stores of knowledge, and prescribe something before moving to the next patient. In most cases they don't have time to stew about what your disease might be for hours and hours on end.
But guess who does have time to stew and research for hours, days, and months? The patient. And in the cases of chronic diseases, the patients can often become more expert in their disease (and related medicines and side-effects) than your average general practitioners.
So in summary, I believe:
- No, we should not allow TV adverts for prescription drugs
- Yes, patients should do online research about their diseases, including potential treatments and drugs
- Yes, patients should ask their doctor questions and make suggestions, presenting findings they've gathered
- Yes, patients shouldn't hesitate in getting a second opinion from a different doctor. Not all doctors have the same experience level.
- No, doctors should not bristle at this but encourage research, correcting misconceptions and answering their patients' questions. It's their body, after all
We are in agreement. Doctors advice should definitely not be unquestionable. In fact, there are a number of studies which show iatrogenesis as being one of the leading causes of death in the US.
> Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand? In a perfect world, yes. But we live in an imperfect world where sub-optimal choices are made due to time constraints, lack of knowledge/experience, etc.
I don't understand. Are you saying you frequently have non-technical customers of your software business asking for specific languages, design patterns and frameworks which end up being the optimal choices? In my personal experience this has never been the case. Also somehow I feel like it would be even worse if they heard about them from TV instead of from a generic blog post somewhere.
I don't understand. Are you saying you frequently have non-technical customers of your software business asking for specific languages, design patterns and frameworks which end up being the optimal choices? In my personal experience this has never been the case. Also somehow I feel like it would be even worse if they heard about them from TV instead of from a generic blog post somewhere.
Do the vendors of these languages, design patterns and frameworks have billions of dollars riding on your choice? If so, you'd better believe your non-technical customers would be seeing ads pushing them to advocate for one over another. The more non-technical the better, because technical deficiencies become less of a barrier. You already see this today with products pitched at the bosses rather than the underlings that are getting the work done.
I wasn't arguing that those things aren't pushed, but rather that they're rarely pushed with technical merit. See: "...which end up being the optimal choices?"
Agreed. I think the point is that this is bad, and that if “patients asking their doctors to prescribe particular drugs” is an analogous situation, then it too is bad.
This happens all the time with "buzzword trends" more so than specific languages/frameworks. Does your product have "big data / AI / ML / IoT / blockchain" etc ...
Partially its about getting you to just talk to your doctor about your health issues.
A lot of people have arthritis, but don't go to the doctor. They'll pop some pain killers and deal with it like humans have forever. But a Humira commercial is designed to get them to ask their doctor about it.
Partially its get your doctor thinking about maybe updating your treatment. A lot of people just coast on whatever they've been taking for a long time. I've heard occasionally Doctors find patients who are medicines that are quite outdated.
Now all that might be worse than no advertising, but there are reasons behind it.
A lot of people have arthritis, but don't go to the doctor. They'll pop some pain killers and deal with it like humans have forever. But a Humira commercial is designed to get them to ask their doctor about it.
Partially its get your doctor thinking about maybe updating your treatment. A lot of people just coast on whatever they've been taking for a long time. I've heard occasionally Doctors find patients who are medicines that are quite outdated.
Now all that might be worse than no advertising, but there are reasons behind it.
> Shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have?
Of course. But how does the doctor know about my problem if I don't ask about it?
There are a lot of people with treatable conditions who have no idea that it's (1) a medical condition and/or (2) now treatable.
These ads will cause some of these people to go get treatment. That's undeniably good. How big that effect is, or if it's outweighed by bad effects, I can't say, of course.
Of course. But how does the doctor know about my problem if I don't ask about it?
There are a lot of people with treatable conditions who have no idea that it's (1) a medical condition and/or (2) now treatable.
These ads will cause some of these people to go get treatment. That's undeniably good. How big that effect is, or if it's outweighed by bad effects, I can't say, of course.
You have to convince the doctor to prescribe it for you, but doctors take little convincing. The companies paying for the ads on TV are also taking the doctors out to expensive restaurants and giving them free samples of the advertised medicine. And of course doctors watch TV too.
All the incentives happily align.
All the incentives happily align.
Twenty-odd years ago, I saw a tv ad for the drug Paxil. It was about social anxiety disorder. Didn’t know that was a thing, so I never looked into fixing it.
Talked to my doctor about it. Got a prescription, took the medication for several years. It changed my life for the better.
Talked to my doctor about it. Got a prescription, took the medication for several years. It changed my life for the better.
That may be a culture difference, and it might not even be entirely healthy (with the god doctor syndrome), but from where I stand your relationship with your doctor and/or his skill was not where it should be if he doesn't regularly ask you the usually basic/boring questions that detect there is an issue to fix, and you don't naturally tell them you feel bad about X or you have this or that issue.
I get a $100 bill minimum any time I step foot in the doctors office. It's not somewhere I'm going to go for casual health questions. There's a fairly high bar that needs to be crossed before I even entertain the idea.
You’re assuming I went to the doctor regularly, not just when I had an issue to present.
Pretty much every studies show that the best working medical system are those with the best screening and prevention in place, among with are regular (usually free in Europe) checkup, accented for at risk population (child, aged people,...). Depending on your age in France there are lots of yearly /every 3 years checks entirely free that the national health agency push you to do.
So I may have assumed that yes but then if not it goes back to my original parent point of it being a sign of a broken system.
So I may have assumed that yes but then if not it goes back to my original parent point of it being a sign of a broken system.
It is less than ideal in USA in many ways.
That my insurance, and by extension, my ability to maintain a relationship with any one doctor is tied to my job, means that when I change jobs, there is a high likelihood that I now may no longer have a plan available to me in a network with said doctor, or, if I do, it may not be available at the same price. And of course, a gap in employment or employment by a company that does not offer much or any coverage means an even more precarious situation.
Even if you're making the effort to get regular screenings here, there's a good chance youll be seeing a doctor who is both caught in a slog of appointments with a maximum length of fifteen minutes as dictated by the insurance company and who you have never seen before
The value of an ongoing relationship is something that is dismissed as valueless by large corporations who would prefer that all goods and services be seen as completely fungible - with the existence of any particular person on either the buy or sell side simply an irksome artifact of the system that they have not yet been able to squeeze out via automation or otherwise.
That my insurance, and by extension, my ability to maintain a relationship with any one doctor is tied to my job, means that when I change jobs, there is a high likelihood that I now may no longer have a plan available to me in a network with said doctor, or, if I do, it may not be available at the same price. And of course, a gap in employment or employment by a company that does not offer much or any coverage means an even more precarious situation.
Even if you're making the effort to get regular screenings here, there's a good chance youll be seeing a doctor who is both caught in a slog of appointments with a maximum length of fifteen minutes as dictated by the insurance company and who you have never seen before
The value of an ongoing relationship is something that is dismissed as valueless by large corporations who would prefer that all goods and services be seen as completely fungible - with the existence of any particular person on either the buy or sell side simply an irksome artifact of the system that they have not yet been able to squeeze out via automation or otherwise.
Direct to consumer TV ads for pharmaceuticals were illegal in 1981. This did not change until 1997. As I remember it, in the few years after 1997 there were still relatively few drug ads on TV. It was nothing like today. It seems like the number of ads has dramatically increased in more recent times I would guess because many large pharmaceutical companies lack the pipelines they had in the 1990's and are under more pressure to increase sales on existing drugs.
> It seems like the number of ads has dramatically increased in more recent times
Don't neglect to account that it may be that as you grow older, you are more likely to encounter these types of ads because the drug companies target older consumers as they are more likely to need the product.
Don't neglect to account that it may be that as you grow older, you are more likely to encounter these types of ads because the drug companies target older consumers as they are more likely to need the product.
I only meant TV ads. As for trying to guess about me, I watch almost no TV in recent times, though I did watch it back in the 80's and 90's. I am basing this opinion on only small periodic encounters with recent TV, random samples. I do not see internet advertising because I use a text-only browser except when doing commercial transactions. In any event, I use local DNS, no third-party "upstream" DNS provider. I never see ads. Away from home, I generally do not access the internet from mobile phones. It is a reasonable guess, though. No doubt Americans are being targeted by advertising like never before.
I was actually thinking specifically about TV ads. For example, drug companies advertise heavily during the evening news. Cereal companies advertise heavily during cartoons. It's always been this way.
It used to be forbidden to advertise prescription medication in the US but they changed the rule sometime in the 80s.
The usual format is lots of images of happy people walking in parks and spending time with family while a narrator says the drug name a dozen times and what it treats, then reads off a long list of side effects and warnings “blah-blah should not be taken by pregnant women, women planning to become pregnant”, “blah-blah should not be taken by smokers or those with reduced immune function”, “blah-blah may cause liver and kidney failure”, “deaths have occurred while taking blah-blah”.
Personally that makes me want to go suck on a soup bone and hope for the best, but for the larger population the ads are apparently very effective and scores of people who see them will go pressure their doctors to prescribe them or shop around for a doctor that will prescribe them. (Drug store clinics will pretty much prescribe anything if you can articulate having symptoms it treats - conflict of interest is obvious)
The usual format is lots of images of happy people walking in parks and spending time with family while a narrator says the drug name a dozen times and what it treats, then reads off a long list of side effects and warnings “blah-blah should not be taken by pregnant women, women planning to become pregnant”, “blah-blah should not be taken by smokers or those with reduced immune function”, “blah-blah may cause liver and kidney failure”, “deaths have occurred while taking blah-blah”.
Personally that makes me want to go suck on a soup bone and hope for the best, but for the larger population the ads are apparently very effective and scores of people who see them will go pressure their doctors to prescribe them or shop around for a doctor that will prescribe them. (Drug store clinics will pretty much prescribe anything if you can articulate having symptoms it treats - conflict of interest is obvious)
I'll take a stab at the simpler questions here:
> do you actually, you as the patient, choose which medication you receive for disease like that?
No, but I imagine patients liable to the advertising might mention a specific medication in a conversation with their doctor. Whether that has any effect depends on the advertisement/patient/doctor.
> Does your opinion override that of the doctor?
For prescription drugs, no.
> do you actually, you as the patient, choose which medication you receive for disease like that?
No, but I imagine patients liable to the advertising might mention a specific medication in a conversation with their doctor. Whether that has any effect depends on the advertisement/patient/doctor.
> Does your opinion override that of the doctor?
For prescription drugs, no.
As an American, what shocked me in the UK was the amount of ads for sports gambling. Literally every commercial during games was for a betting site. It felt pretty gross.
You're right, it's shocking, although I think it's mainly during sports (which sports nerds already pay a fortune for to subscribe to sky sports / bt sport).
The vast majority of TV viewing in the UK is on BBC, amazon prime, netflix or disney plus, and thus doesn't contain commercials, just adverts for other shows from the same provider. The rest of the stuff is mainly aimed at old people sat at home - visited my nan today, who had some terrible channel on (channel 65 or something). Adverts were almost entirely for stairlifts and to leave money to charities in wills.
The vast majority of TV viewing in the UK is on BBC, amazon prime, netflix or disney plus, and thus doesn't contain commercials, just adverts for other shows from the same provider. The rest of the stuff is mainly aimed at old people sat at home - visited my nan today, who had some terrible channel on (channel 65 or something). Adverts were almost entirely for stairlifts and to leave money to charities in wills.
That doesn't sound so dissimilar to the US :)
Ads during the day are either for old people or stay at home moms.
Ads during the day are either for old people or stay at home moms.
The only reason sports gambling isn't as big (or bigger) in the US is due to a historical aversion to gambling (thinly veiled piety in government), and because Major league sports orgs are still figuring out how to get the most money out of it.
Sports gambling is now quite large in states that have allowed it since the SCOTUS case a year or so ago. Still not a lot of TV ads though, more web advertising.
UK sports (or sports TV at least) is very tightly linked to gambling. Many football teams are sponsored by gambling companies.
About 15 years ago there was a huge debate about whether we should allow “American-style” supercasinos but we just did it through sport instead.
About 15 years ago there was a huge debate about whether we should allow “American-style” supercasinos but we just did it through sport instead.
> I have a hard time reconciling what (little) I know about in the US medical system between insurance behavior, doctor choice, and ads aimed at patient choice.
As a patient, you don't get to choose what drugs a doctor prescribes to you. But you do get to choose (to an extent) your doctor. So if you ask a doctor about a particular prescription, and it's within the sphere of treatment options they would evaluate for you, then they'll usually give you that option. If for no other reason than to pacify you and prevent you from doctor shopping until one does give it to you.
To that end, medical marketing tends to work twofold: a salesforce focused on "educating" doctors on a particular medication, and patient advertising to get patients requesting it more. Doctors tend to have a go-to grab bag of treatment options they're familiar with and tend to prescribe, so both of these work to accelerate how quickly a particular new blockbuster gets its way onto that shortlist for any particular doctor.
Insurance companies, traditionally, operate as a backstop to prevent this from going overboard. Since they act as payor for both the physician and prescription, if they deny claims it can impede uptake. So they can put in place things like documentation requirements, prior authorization[1], and prescription formularies. That said, components of the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) capped the profitability of insurance companies as a percentage of total revenue. Which doesn't really reconcile with trying to reign in costs, as runaway medical spending just means runaway premiums they can justify charging, and the absolute value of their percentage-based cap goes up.
[1] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4...
As a patient, you don't get to choose what drugs a doctor prescribes to you. But you do get to choose (to an extent) your doctor. So if you ask a doctor about a particular prescription, and it's within the sphere of treatment options they would evaluate for you, then they'll usually give you that option. If for no other reason than to pacify you and prevent you from doctor shopping until one does give it to you.
To that end, medical marketing tends to work twofold: a salesforce focused on "educating" doctors on a particular medication, and patient advertising to get patients requesting it more. Doctors tend to have a go-to grab bag of treatment options they're familiar with and tend to prescribe, so both of these work to accelerate how quickly a particular new blockbuster gets its way onto that shortlist for any particular doctor.
Insurance companies, traditionally, operate as a backstop to prevent this from going overboard. Since they act as payor for both the physician and prescription, if they deny claims it can impede uptake. So they can put in place things like documentation requirements, prior authorization[1], and prescription formularies. That said, components of the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) capped the profitability of insurance companies as a percentage of total revenue. Which doesn't really reconcile with trying to reign in costs, as runaway medical spending just means runaway premiums they can justify charging, and the absolute value of their percentage-based cap goes up.
[1] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4...
The first goal of drug advertising is to define a category and convince people they have a disorder that no one had ever heard of before. Viagra invented "erectile disfunction" and went on to make billions of dollars, and an industry was born.
So in this context you are saying that HIV is a disorder that was invented by advertisers in order to sell anti-virals? Do you have any evidence to substantiate that(or your claim that ED is not a clinical condition?)
I read that in a way "invented" is usually used (esp due to use of "define a category"): someone was the first to do it. Not as in "it's an imaginary thing".
Are you suggesting that impotence is an invented ("medicalized") condition? I should start a physicians of hacker news blog... Prozac and premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a better example.
One reason that healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive compared with every other country is these adverts.
US TV costs something like $78b a year (based on 36% of $220b [0]), or $600 per household, on top of cable costs.
If 25% of adverts are for prescription drugs, then $150 a year of health spending is what you pay for the 6 minutes an hour of tedious healthcare adverts. (There's another $450 extra you pay when buying mattresses or whatever else is advertised on TV)
[0] https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Total-US-Ad-Spending-See-L...
US TV costs something like $78b a year (based on 36% of $220b [0]), or $600 per household, on top of cable costs.
If 25% of adverts are for prescription drugs, then $150 a year of health spending is what you pay for the 6 minutes an hour of tedious healthcare adverts. (There's another $450 extra you pay when buying mattresses or whatever else is advertised on TV)
[0] https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Total-US-Ad-Spending-See-L...
I think the end game for pharmaceutical companies is something like this. They show this ad to 1 million people. Of those 1 million people, 3000 are HIV positive. Of the 3000, 1% ask their doctor about the new drug. Now 30 physicians research the drug and find that it might be more effective in patients that present with x or have y comorbidities. They start prescribing it in those cases. Rarely do physicians care about what it is going to cost the patient.
> ads for HIV treatment
To entirely ignore the broader point of your post: The HIV drug ads I see are about prevention, not treatment. Along the lines of "If you're at increased risk for HIV (you're a man who has sex with men), then you should take our new variety of PrEP, and reduce your risk of infection."
To entirely ignore the broader point of your post: The HIV drug ads I see are about prevention, not treatment. Along the lines of "If you're at increased risk for HIV (you're a man who has sex with men), then you should take our new variety of PrEP, and reduce your risk of infection."
Thanks, that does give it some sense. It would still feel wrong if I saw that here, but at least I can get where its coming from.
For reference the only medicine ads you would see on tv here would be for every day things (paracetamol, eye drops, ...) or for BS like homeopathy.
For reference the only medicine ads you would see on tv here would be for every day things (paracetamol, eye drops, ...) or for BS like homeopathy.
Maybe Google's algorithms have determined that the floor wax company doesn't look at / understand its analytics reports.
I wish it was that intelligent. Ad buyers are morons and companies like Criteo are snake oil salesmen.
Advertising, as a whole, is one of the most inefficient use of man-power capitalism has ever created. Intelligent people who have been failed for the US education system(chasing the goal of 'be whatever you want to be... but there is no sustainable way) usually end up there in some fashion.
This glut of capable but ineffectual intellectuals is either helping the ponzi fiat money scheme or if this virus is a 12 month affair with limited buying leads to mass civil unrest.
The demographics of the ad companies skew left... which is ok as long as we don't get into South American Currency Territory which i think the petro dollar should keep away for the time being.
Advertising, as a whole, is one of the most inefficient use of man-power capitalism has ever created. Intelligent people who have been failed for the US education system(chasing the goal of 'be whatever you want to be... but there is no sustainable way) usually end up there in some fashion.
This glut of capable but ineffectual intellectuals is either helping the ponzi fiat money scheme or if this virus is a 12 month affair with limited buying leads to mass civil unrest.
The demographics of the ad companies skew left... which is ok as long as we don't get into South American Currency Territory which i think the petro dollar should keep away for the time being.
The greatest minds of our generation optimizing for the marginal click instead of studying science, what could go wrong?
Haha, I think you’ve nailed it
I wouldn't be surprised if you're actually quite a good pick for the floor wax commercial demographic. Now you, specifically, may not have waxable floors or an interest in floor maintenance, but the more interesting questions is, how many people who look similar to you to an algorithm do?
Let's assume renters don't generally wax their floors, and cheap shitty floors don't need waxing. So we're looking for people likely to own a home nice enough too have wooden floors worth maintaining. You could probably do worse than to show that commercial to "highly-educated people with children, working in fields adjacent to software engineering."
Let's assume renters don't generally wax their floors, and cheap shitty floors don't need waxing. So we're looking for people likely to own a home nice enough too have wooden floors worth maintaining. You could probably do worse than to show that commercial to "highly-educated people with children, working in fields adjacent to software engineering."
You can pay the $10~ per month for premium and get rid of the ads. Many people here on hn complain about the ads but are unwilling to pay to support non ad version at the same time.
I just use a Pi-hole server now.
I don't have a problem paying for subs, I use Apple Music and used Spotify, I like Netflix or Prime. But Google/Youtube is unethical with their ads. Yesterday I saw an ad showing "the police kidnapping people in california" from a Russian account. No way to report it anymore, now way to prove it was true, a blatant example of trying to influence people negatively.
I'll support the content creators I like directly now via other methods. If youtube can't at least remove blatantly false "ads" then they don't deserve my support.
I don't have a problem paying for subs, I use Apple Music and used Spotify, I like Netflix or Prime. But Google/Youtube is unethical with their ads. Yesterday I saw an ad showing "the police kidnapping people in california" from a Russian account. No way to report it anymore, now way to prove it was true, a blatant example of trying to influence people negatively.
I'll support the content creators I like directly now via other methods. If youtube can't at least remove blatantly false "ads" then they don't deserve my support.
Does pi-hole work for youtube, hulu, etc.?
It doesn't work for YouTube, at least on the mobile app. It's a bit hit or miss, for example it doesn't get rid of ads in Duolinguo, but it does stop the 30 second ones. On desktop you're better off using a plugin (I run both, but then you get leftover whitespace).
Isn't Pi-hole unethical?
Is antivirus unethical
Advertisements have all the downsides, are used in tremendously unethical ways including abhorrent views and as a malware propagation network. It is my duty to put heavy adblockers on as a layer of protection.
And it's none of their concern what I download to my computer. If they want to do more serverside logic to make sure I download their crap,it's going right in to /dev/null
Advertisements have all the downsides, are used in tremendously unethical ways including abhorrent views and as a malware propagation network. It is my duty to put heavy adblockers on as a layer of protection.
And it's none of their concern what I download to my computer. If they want to do more serverside logic to make sure I download their crap,it's going right in to /dev/null
They're starting to creep into premium now too. I have Google play music which includes YouTube premium, just checked YouTube on my phone and it immediately showed an advert, even though I'm signed in.
Are you sure your subscription includes YT Premium? This isn't a given.
I'm a Premium user but between permanently enabled uBlock, Pi-Hole, and (almost) always-on VPN to use all that I never payed attention to the ads aspect. The most obvious benefits for me were that I can download the music and listen offline, including with the screen off which means I can connect now my Sonos system to Youtube.
I pay for the premium version and there are still some ads.
I was going to sign up for premium, I don't think I'll bother if it does work.
Well, serving high-definition video isn't free. If you watch a lot of YouTube, have an adblocker, and don't pay for Premium, that would make you a freeloader.
> Well, serving high-definition video isn't free. If you watch a lot of YouTube, have an adblocker, and don't pay for Premium, that would make you a freeloader.
The serving part is likely almost free since YouTube doesn't pay much for bandwidth. [0]
[0] https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/19/yout...
The serving part is likely almost free since YouTube doesn't pay much for bandwidth. [0]
[0] https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/19/yout...
FWIW, uBlock Origin is very effective against Youtube. I never see ads on Youtube.
Same for me, when i use youtube on my mobile i am flabbergasted by the amount of ads and 20 minute promo programs. Why and how can you watch that without a add blocker?
If you're on Android, there's NewPipe, a fantastic YouTube client that brings all the benefits of YouTube Premium: no ads, downloads, listen with screen off, and picture in picture.
NewPipe also supports other services such as SoundCloud, MediaCCC and PeerTube right out of the box. The killer feature for me is that you can make up playlists containing media from different sources (which I use for playlists containing music from both YouTube and SoundCloud).
(I'm not involved in NewPipe, except being a very happy user).
NewPipe also supports other services such as SoundCloud, MediaCCC and PeerTube right out of the box. The killer feature for me is that you can make up playlists containing media from different sources (which I use for playlists containing music from both YouTube and SoundCloud).
(I'm not involved in NewPipe, except being a very happy user).
Just FYI, uBO blocks YouTube ads if you are using Firebox on mobile.
Do you mean display ads or pre-rolls? I don't get any display ads but I get pre-rolls constantly with uBO.
I get neither with uBO. Seems that different people have different experiences, either due to outdated uBO filters or differences in YT behavior.
I don't get any ads whatsoever on YouTube with uBO. What I do get is about a 20% chance of something screwing up in the ad blocking process for prerolls and getting the grey "there was an error" screen instead of a video. I just hit reload and the video starts playing.
Slightly annoying, but I don't utilize auto play, so I don't have to worry about it stopping my playlist or passive watching.
Slightly annoying, but I don't utilize auto play, so I don't have to worry about it stopping my playlist or passive watching.
I'm using AdGuard and I don't get any ads ever on youtube.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adguard-adblocker/...
Probably because it still earns them money over not showing you anything!
I have come to believe that over a period of time producers and consumers both will realise that the middleman cares more about it’s own cut over either of them.
Less cynical thoughts;
1. I don’t know if and what kind of controls/flexibility YouTube allows on demand side, but it could be a “foot meet gun” story. ie advertiser is new to platform and messed up targeting and/or is over-bidding.
2. Advertiser might think 1 cent CPM is worth it, no one else bothers to bid on your data (based on your description) - still kinda ties into cynical view.
I have come to believe that over a period of time producers and consumers both will realise that the middleman cares more about it’s own cut over either of them.
Less cynical thoughts;
1. I don’t know if and what kind of controls/flexibility YouTube allows on demand side, but it could be a “foot meet gun” story. ie advertiser is new to platform and messed up targeting and/or is over-bidding.
2. Advertiser might think 1 cent CPM is worth it, no one else bothers to bid on your data (based on your description) - still kinda ties into cynical view.
> the middleman cares more about it’s own cut over either of them.
Rational self interest, as they say.
Rational self interest, as they say.
Advertising isn't sales. Advertising is presence. If you're cognizant of an ad at all, then it worked, whether you buy the product or not.
> How do you explain that in the era of machine learning and no holds barred privacy invasion?
Google provides a platform for advertisers to use. The sophistication of that usage, however, is up to the marketers actually using it. At a small scale, it's relatively easy to bootstrap the type of integrated infrastructure and execution required for sophisticated campaigns. But at scale, marketing programs require so much people-coordination (between various internal departments and external agencies) that relatively few firms end up in an operationally mature state to attempt to integrate sophisticated technical and data operations as well.
Anecdotally speaking, the morass of font licensing[1] is likely to have an order of magnitude more attention in a typical campaign than something as seemingly critical as the actual ad targeting or frequency caps.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22370372
Google provides a platform for advertisers to use. The sophistication of that usage, however, is up to the marketers actually using it. At a small scale, it's relatively easy to bootstrap the type of integrated infrastructure and execution required for sophisticated campaigns. But at scale, marketing programs require so much people-coordination (between various internal departments and external agencies) that relatively few firms end up in an operationally mature state to attempt to integrate sophisticated technical and data operations as well.
Anecdotally speaking, the morass of font licensing[1] is likely to have an order of magnitude more attention in a typical campaign than something as seemingly critical as the actual ad targeting or frequency caps.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22370372
They get paid for displaying the ads to you, so that's what they do :-) It's really that simple. And they will continue to do that while advertisers get a return on their ads (it isn't clear if they do, sometimes it can take a while for the market to realize that a certain fad strategy simply does not work). But I'm guessing it does work.
In a similar way I am a deadbeat for advertisers, they have never convinced me to by any product ever. Even worse, an irritating advertising made me expressly avoid advertised products because as a consumer I dont want to pay for the advertising through the added price to the product itself.
I stopped watching TV a long time ago and feel way more peaceful. While browsing online I am using adblockers anyway and wonder how long until I cannot access content this way. If it stops working I will stop using and theres no turning back to advertising to me, it doesnt work and irritates me.
I would like to see a micropayments system for online content but with the option to plus/minus up the microdonnation based on whether i found the content useful, whether it was clickbait, etc. It would be great to be able to pay more for a movie that i liked and less on a movie i couldnt stand and didn’t finish watching.
I stopped watching TV a long time ago and feel way more peaceful. While browsing online I am using adblockers anyway and wonder how long until I cannot access content this way. If it stops working I will stop using and theres no turning back to advertising to me, it doesnt work and irritates me.
I would like to see a micropayments system for online content but with the option to plus/minus up the microdonnation based on whether i found the content useful, whether it was clickbait, etc. It would be great to be able to pay more for a movie that i liked and less on a movie i couldnt stand and didn’t finish watching.
I would be very worried if I started to see relevant advertisement (online or I also have the cheapest Hulu with commercials) : that would mean that somebody collects correct information about me and can sensibly interpret it. Luckily all the advertisement I see is barely relevant - at most I get banners for the sites I've recently visited.
Anything smart enough to pass a Turing test is smart enough to fail it.
There's a story from a few years ago about how Target knew customers knew themselves, but they were smart enough to mix the diaper discounts in with some lawnmower specials so it would not arouse suspicions.
I would not be surprised if the algorithms know more than they seem.
There's a story from a few years ago about how Target knew customers knew themselves, but they were smart enough to mix the diaper discounts in with some lawnmower specials so it would not arouse suspicions.
I would not be surprised if the algorithms know more than they seem.
Are you talking about "Target knew a girl was pregnant before she knew herself!" story? It does not seem very credible tbqh and even if the particular event described in the NYT article actually had happened, a random advertisement reaching somebody from the intended audience is bound to happen from time to time.
If there were such a thing as a "this person isn't worth showing ads to" profile, people would game the system to try to earn those tags. Even if you never made ad-influenced decisions, it's probably still worth showing you ads to normalize them for people who do.
Have you enabled some kind of privacy feature? There are some checkboxes in the Google account settings that make ads appreciably dumber.
You are on hacker news so it's likely you are a successful young adult male, what do you mean hn readers aren't in a desirable demographic? (apologies if that doesn't exactly describe you)
Google might know you are a lost cause but they don't actually care, they still sold the impression.
Anyway you might have Google targeting turned off, which is why you're seeing ads for floor wax instead of whatever saas is advertising on YouTube that day you happened to read a blog post about.
Google might know you are a lost cause but they don't actually care, they still sold the impression.
Anyway you might have Google targeting turned off, which is why you're seeing ads for floor wax instead of whatever saas is advertising on YouTube that day you happened to read a blog post about.
Ads can't seem to decide if I'm a rich homemaking woman with a side business, a rich man high up in a company, or someone who speaks Spanish and loves fast food. I don't know how to tell them I'm none of those.
They should be showing you ads for YouTube Red if their algorithm was really sophisticated lol
I don't pirate because I don't want to pay for content - I pirate because it is the only way I can get a lot of content.
I wish there was a global way to subscribe to and pay for content in a market/app-independant way.
If you are not in the USA, Canada or UK, your options to pay for the most popular, newest content are very, very limited. And if you are in a very small and/or somewhat impoverished country, forget about it. "Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Please go fuck yourself".
Luckily, Netflix has improved this a lot (which is why I happily pay for it), but for a lot of content, it is still impossible to consume in a legal way.
I wish there was a global way to subscribe to and pay for content in a market/app-independant way.
If you are not in the USA, Canada or UK, your options to pay for the most popular, newest content are very, very limited. And if you are in a very small and/or somewhat impoverished country, forget about it. "Sorry, this content is not available in your region. Please go fuck yourself".
Luckily, Netflix has improved this a lot (which is why I happily pay for it), but for a lot of content, it is still impossible to consume in a legal way.
If was to pirate I'd be doing it because I don't want to be tracked. I don't want Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Google, whoever knowing what I'm watching, when I'm watching, how many times I watched, what parts I reviewed, etc... I don't like the idea that some computer is adding me to categories I have no control over and making judgements I neither want nor can correct nor delete nor prevent and then sharing an selling that data.
I've argued about this numerous times: ISP's need to provide customers with an opt-in p2p license that adds a small fee to their monthly bill. This monthly fee is transferred to a central authority, the ISP does not make any profit from this fee. The license would allow users to torrent whatever content they want. Torrent trackers would be fully legal, their only legal obligation would be keeping track of torrent popularity and reporting this to the central authority every month or so.
The central authority that receives the money from the ISP's then forwards the money to the creators of the content being distributed, divided based on the popularity reported by the trackers. A minimum baseline amount is provided to each creator to subsidize indie and struggling creators. And obviously geoblocking should be illegal but as the media companies would be making more money if they didn't geoblock, it gives them incentive to not do that.
In Spain we get the worst version of this. Media organizations (the equivalents to MPAA or RIAA) get a percentage of the price of all storage devices (hard drives, flash memory, anything) that are sold, implying that they might be used for piracy. But it's still illegal to pirate! So we're paying for something we MIGHT do, but we still can't do it.
The same is true in Belgium. But i heard there is a strange benefit: You are allowed to copy anything if the source is legally yours at the time of copying.
So person A lends some music to person B, person B copies it and returns the original to A. This scenario is legal. The nice thing is person A can be a library.
Now if person A makes a copy and gives it to person B, this is illegal, even if the end result is identical. Bits have color.
So person A lends some music to person B, person B copies it and returns the original to A. This scenario is legal. The nice thing is person A can be a library.
Now if person A makes a copy and gives it to person B, this is illegal, even if the end result is identical. Bits have color.
Same in Germany.
There would be no levies on storage medie. And it would be opt-in. It would only be illegal when you torrent and have not opted in to the p2p fee.
M-m-m... "small fee" for "unlimited access to millions of music/movie/software/game/books entities that can cost billions of dollars".
How exactly it should work, again?
You realise that's exactly the model of libraries, right?
A small fee (taxation) in return for open access to literature, and in most cases music and film too.
A small fee (taxation) in return for open access to literature, and in most cases music and film too.
I think he/she means per title that you watch. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense yeah.
It worries me because P2P is a powerful censorship prevention mechanism. Requiring a license to use P2P technologies would mean disallowing much more than just torrents by default. Not only that but lots of illegal content distribution takes place on standard HTTP servers which would presumably not be considered P2P. With that said, disallowing any protocol which is currently allowed today seems like it would open the door for large corporate and governmental interests to disassemble what we know as the open internet. Furthermore it sounds like it would be complicated to deal with ownership of derivative work and resolution of disputes.
> I've argued about this numerous times: ISP's need to provide customers with an opt-in p2p license that adds a small fee to their monthly bill.
brb downloading Windows Server 2019 Enterprise Datacenter iso torrents to put into production
brb downloading Windows Server 2019 Enterprise Datacenter iso torrents to put into production
Are you purposely modeling this on how ASCAP works?
Coming from a very small and somewhat impoverished country, I agree fully with your comment. I enjoy Netflix now, and am warming up a lot to the NBA and NFL's League Pass subscriptions. These three have nailed it for me price-wise and content-wise, so much so that I'm considering switching from European/UEFA football viewing to the NBA and NFL. Outside of this, my only option is piracy - there isn't any other way.
Even in some first world countries sometimes you don't necessarily get much of the content, or so I've heard, and can't pirate either, because illegal.
Anecdotal, but atleast here in my poor country I'm less inconvenienced than when I was in Germany. I do sometimes feel guilty not being able to support the creators that make this content and often wish there was a way to donate, much more than I wish that the distributors covered my country - because they're shit.
The piracy world that torrents/hosts for free, in my experience, seem to do a far better job.
Anecdotal, but atleast here in my poor country I'm less inconvenienced than when I was in Germany. I do sometimes feel guilty not being able to support the creators that make this content and often wish there was a way to donate, much more than I wish that the distributors covered my country - because they're shit.
The piracy world that torrents/hosts for free, in my experience, seem to do a far better job.
> I wish there was a global way to subscribe to and pay for content in a market/app-independant way.
The socialist party (biggest left wing party at the time, and in power 2012-2016)here in France talked at lengtht about this idea during Sarkozy's implementation of the repressive Hadopi system.
Pay a yearly fee, don't get punished for pirating, money gets redistributed. Similar but also vastly different to how we already have a specific contribution for French state medias, and then one to finance French production (movies, music,...).
It didn't get past the heavy talk part because no matter how you turn it, the abuse / unfair redistribution / increasing need unrealistic compared to usage is unavoidable.
The socialist party (biggest left wing party at the time, and in power 2012-2016)here in France talked at lengtht about this idea during Sarkozy's implementation of the repressive Hadopi system.
Pay a yearly fee, don't get punished for pirating, money gets redistributed. Similar but also vastly different to how we already have a specific contribution for French state medias, and then one to finance French production (movies, music,...).
It didn't get past the heavy talk part because no matter how you turn it, the abuse / unfair redistribution / increasing need unrealistic compared to usage is unavoidable.
I will bet a lot that Netflix is headed this way too. Once Netflix stops growing, it will need to find additional growth, and advertisement will be the way to additional profit.
There is already plenty of product placement on Netflix.
The smoking is notorious, for example. They cram in cigarettes wherever they can, often to the detriment of the scene.
I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.
The smoking is notorious, for example. They cram in cigarettes wherever they can, often to the detriment of the scene.
I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.
Not sure if its region dependent, but my Netflix shows a warning about product placement at the beginning of the show.
I have to say that it was a bit of an eye-opener- a lot of these ads are not obviously product-placement at all. The one that shocked me the most was an episode of "Friends from College" where the main characters went up the Napa valley for some wine tasting and then stopped into McDonalds on the way back- it was such a sharp, natural and realistic storyline that I would have never assumed that it was product placement. It dealt with "McDonalds-shame" in very sophisticated way that you wouldn't think McDonalds was capable of, and actually made me feel (as somebody who has been wine tasting in Napa and tries to avoid Mickey Ds) that a fast food burger is "allowed".
I have to say that it was a bit of an eye-opener- a lot of these ads are not obviously product-placement at all. The one that shocked me the most was an episode of "Friends from College" where the main characters went up the Napa valley for some wine tasting and then stopped into McDonalds on the way back- it was such a sharp, natural and realistic storyline that I would have never assumed that it was product placement. It dealt with "McDonalds-shame" in very sophisticated way that you wouldn't think McDonalds was capable of, and actually made me feel (as somebody who has been wine tasting in Napa and tries to avoid Mickey Ds) that a fast food burger is "allowed".
If you liked the effect of eye-opening I strongly advise to try "The greatest movie ever sold" documentary. It has such a nice setup and product placement will never be the same after you see this one.
To be fair, I would do that McDonald’s thing without having ever seen that ad.
They may simply know their market well enough to know that people who tend to do McDonald’s take it as a “different kind of food”.
They may simply know their market well enough to know that people who tend to do McDonald’s take it as a “different kind of food”.
Which makes me wonder, internationally, if there aren't countries that would make them do that for their territory? I think in the Netherlands pretty much all kinds of tobacco advertising is banned, even the very creative ones (like opening a chain of bars named similar to one tobacco brand). And I just found a (Dutch language) site weakly referencing European rules around disclosure of product placement (though, in the context of television, that may be Netflix's loophole).
In Europe some Netflix programs start with a warning that it contains placed advertisements. But it's rare.
Plus all the Apple branded things too. It's especially interesting because only "good characters" can use Apple's devices on screens [1].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434315
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434315
This is not true, as pointed out by the top comment.
> I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.
I'd want that too.
I'd love to get my hands on even one list of all product placements in a given show; it would be trivial to make a userscript that overlays such data over a Netflix stream, as an artistic project. I suspect there's a strong point to be driven there.
I'd want that too.
I'd love to get my hands on even one list of all product placements in a given show; it would be trivial to make a userscript that overlays such data over a Netflix stream, as an artistic project. I suspect there's a strong point to be driven there.
So you want even better visibility for advertisers? Whenever a cigarette is lit, the overlay should also clarify that it’s a Marlboro?
>I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.
I don't think an in-vision in-scene notice should be required, as that is very intrusive to the viewer. However, I would support a requirement of full transparency, and I do believe they already notify people of product placement per episode (or am I thinking YouTube? I know I've seen recent notifications somewhere).
Alternately, I would support in-vision in-scene overlays if a subscriber could disable them. I can understand why it would be desirable to be enabled by default, but as an adult viewer who is quite capable of making my own purchasing decisions, I should have the right to consume media without that type of quasi-condescending warning invading my enjoyment of a given piece of media.
I don't think an in-vision in-scene notice should be required, as that is very intrusive to the viewer. However, I would support a requirement of full transparency, and I do believe they already notify people of product placement per episode (or am I thinking YouTube? I know I've seen recent notifications somewhere).
Alternately, I would support in-vision in-scene overlays if a subscriber could disable them. I can understand why it would be desirable to be enabled by default, but as an adult viewer who is quite capable of making my own purchasing decisions, I should have the right to consume media without that type of quasi-condescending warning invading my enjoyment of a given piece of media.
> as an adult viewer who is quite capable of making my own purchasing decisions
Is there anyone who isn’t susceptible to the psychological trickery in advertising?
I woulda once said something similar, but looking back as the years pass, I can see that was a delusion.
Is there anyone who isn’t susceptible to the psychological trickery in advertising?
I woulda once said something similar, but looking back as the years pass, I can see that was a delusion.
My dad is 65 years old and still thinks he is immune to advertising, but he literally reads email ads and deal sites, and users those to inform his decisions. I am pretty sure he thinks an ad has never convinced him to buy a product he didn't already want, therfore he is immune to it.
If you define influence to be whatever you want, of course you can say you are not influenced by ads.
If you define influence to be whatever you want, of course you can say you are not influenced by ads.
You actually want movies you're watching to have a distracting overlay taking you out of the moment? Before the start of the movie or something would be a lot better.
That's exactly the reason why I want it during the scene.
Both to create awareness that you are being manipulated by this scene, and to discourage product placement in general.
Both to create awareness that you are being manipulated by this scene, and to discourage product placement in general.
I feel like most people don't care enough to want movies hampered like this.
Product placement is done since the beginnings of cinema and television.
Even bigger issue (measured in future loss of life years and ethics[1]): cars, there's so much driving. For environmental reasons we should heavily discourage that.
[1] smoking mostly is self inflicted harm, GW kills others
[1] smoking mostly is self inflicted harm, GW kills others
Smoking commonly harms other people too, of course.
Yep, hence "mostly". And car heavy culture of course has other death effects besides GW, like local pollution caused deaths, rainforest destruction from biofuels production, accidents, sedentary lifestyle, car suburbia environments, disposessed status of the carless (weighted toward women and children), etc.
Cough White Collar.
In US TV series the people in cars tend to be white collar / upper middle class people. This is depicting supposedly relatable people who have choice and who never make a number out of it. So it's propagating a deletorious attitude.
Around my parts the white collar people tend to drive more than working class employees, because they get big houses away from the city where they work, and go to their cabins or whatnot every weekend, and are more likely to buy fuel-wasteful cars like SUVs. While non-white collar people more often go without a car at all or at least use it sparingly. Generally it's not like you couldn't choose a low carbon lifestyle if you worked in arts, blue collar industry, public sector jobs etc.
Around my parts the white collar people tend to drive more than working class employees, because they get big houses away from the city where they work, and go to their cabins or whatnot every weekend, and are more likely to buy fuel-wasteful cars like SUVs. While non-white collar people more often go without a car at all or at least use it sparingly. Generally it's not like you couldn't choose a low carbon lifestyle if you worked in arts, blue collar industry, public sector jobs etc.
Erm I was referring to the White Collar TV series which featured endless awkward product placements for a car.
About smoking, I never suspected that can actually be true, but I remember a Jet Li movie .. where he as the main character had to smoke a cigarette in one scene, which looked so artificial and unvoluntarily, where you could see he clearly did not wanted it, but was forced to. (and shame on him, as he does not seem to need to to this anymore)
And about product placement in general: it seems to be a bigger buisness, than I suspected:
https://blog.hollywoodbranded.com/how-much-does-product-plac...
And about product placement in general: it seems to be a bigger buisness, than I suspected:
https://blog.hollywoodbranded.com/how-much-does-product-plac...
"Growth" is now one of my most hated overused business lingo, after "innovation".
Is it too naive to hope that this pandemic will make us collectively question the value of creeds like growth for growth's sake?
Is it too naive to hope that this pandemic will make us collectively question the value of creeds like growth for growth's sake?
>"Growth" is now one of my most hated overused business lingo, after "innovation".
Is it too naive to hope that this pandemic will make us collectively question the value of creeds like growth for growth's sake?
The "growth for growth's sake" is a thought-stopping meme. Let's unpack why that's an inaccurate reason for why companies do what they do and also why people who don't even work at those companies also care about growth.
The commenter you responded mentioned Netflix and "growth". Remember that Netflix went public in 2002 with an IPO.
When any company sells shares of ownership to investors, they're making a deal with society that if you buy their stock, your money will "grow". For investors' shares to become more valuable, Netflix has to grow new revenue, grow new profits, grow new markets, grow new products, etc. Why do so many public investors (and the so-called "investors" includes your grandparents' pensions, teachers/firemen retirements, etc) care about their money "growing"?!? Because they want to protect their future purchasing power. (My previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15728480)
On other hand, if a family restaurant wants to just open one location with 20 tables and a payroll of 10 workers and just be a stable business that never grows, they wouldn't be able to sell public stock because nobody would buy it. There's nothing wrong with being a company that never grows -- but that's not the deal Netflix made with society.
So to rewrite your question a different way which gets at the root of where the motivation of "growth" comes from... Are we questioning the value of companies "going public"? Or are we questioning the ideology of fiat-money "inflation"? How do we make your grandparents pensions not care about "growth"?!? That's very difficult to solve!
There are also non-public entities that also want "growth". Countries like growth because it raises the standard-of-living for their citizens. Some small private businesses like some limited-scale growth because the owners like the challenges of running bigger business (e.g. expand to 5 restaurant locations instead of just 1.)
Even though the pandemic has shown the benefits of less smog in Los Angeles because of less economic activity, it still has not removed the root of human reasons for desiring "growth".
The "growth for growth's sake" is a thought-stopping meme. Let's unpack why that's an inaccurate reason for why companies do what they do and also why people who don't even work at those companies also care about growth.
The commenter you responded mentioned Netflix and "growth". Remember that Netflix went public in 2002 with an IPO.
When any company sells shares of ownership to investors, they're making a deal with society that if you buy their stock, your money will "grow". For investors' shares to become more valuable, Netflix has to grow new revenue, grow new profits, grow new markets, grow new products, etc. Why do so many public investors (and the so-called "investors" includes your grandparents' pensions, teachers/firemen retirements, etc) care about their money "growing"?!? Because they want to protect their future purchasing power. (My previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15728480)
On other hand, if a family restaurant wants to just open one location with 20 tables and a payroll of 10 workers and just be a stable business that never grows, they wouldn't be able to sell public stock because nobody would buy it. There's nothing wrong with being a company that never grows -- but that's not the deal Netflix made with society.
So to rewrite your question a different way which gets at the root of where the motivation of "growth" comes from... Are we questioning the value of companies "going public"? Or are we questioning the ideology of fiat-money "inflation"? How do we make your grandparents pensions not care about "growth"?!? That's very difficult to solve!
There are also non-public entities that also want "growth". Countries like growth because it raises the standard-of-living for their citizens. Some small private businesses like some limited-scale growth because the owners like the challenges of running bigger business (e.g. expand to 5 restaurant locations instead of just 1.)
Even though the pandemic has shown the benefits of less smog in Los Angeles because of less economic activity, it still has not removed the root of human reasons for desiring "growth".
Shouldn't dividends make up for any slowdown in growth? If I buy a share in Netflix and instead of the share price rising I get instead a dividend payment, I'd be fine with that, right?
>Shouldn't dividends make up for any slowdown in growth? If I buy a share in Netflix and instead of the share price rising I get instead a dividend payment, I'd be fine with that, right?
Not really. To riff on the old saying, "money doesn't grow on trees", we can also say "dividends don't grow on trees."
Where do dividends come from? From profits. But where do profits come from? In accounting lingo, we say profits come from "revenue minus costs" but to restate that in human action terms, we notice that profits come from Company X's purposeful activities that are desired by customers that choose to spend money with Company X instead of Company Y. Therefore, dividends are not guaranteed and in the hyper-competitive business sector Netflix operates, it requires growth to pay them.
If we mentally substitute "Blockbuster Inc" for "Netflix" in your dividend suggestion: "Can't shareholders just be happy with Blockbuster paying dividends instead of worrying about growth?"
... we'll see the "dividends instead of growth" won't work. In 2002, Blockbuster started losing money to upstart Netflix. If you look at Blockbusters historical stock prices[1], you'll see they started falling towards $0 because of repeated annual losses. Netflix was growing and Blockbuster was not. With accounting losses, Blockbuster has no profits and thus, no dividends to pay. Blockbuster eventually went bankrupt. Blockbuster did try to "grow" but it wasn't enough. No only do you have to grow as part of business strategy, you have to grow correctly with smart bets.
With Blockbuster as a case study, we can see that suggesting "Why can't Netflix shareholders be happy with dividends instead of growing?" -- will not work. Netflix's dividends/profits will evaporate if they don't grow to respond to Amazon Prime Video, HBO streaming, Disney streaming, Apple TV, etc. Yes, an "old-economy" business like railroads with little competition can pay dividends but Netflix is not that type of company. All the video streaming businesses are still furiously competing for consumers' discretionary entertainment budget. To not grow is to die because your customers leave for other more attractive video offerings.
E.g. in 2002, Netflix went public and had $272 million in revenue[2]. If Netflix adopted the "we don't believe in growth" and just simply collected the same $272 million every year until today, they would not have been able to offer $100 million to buy House of Cards in 2011. This means HBO or Amazon would have outbid them making Netflix less attractive for new memberships or existing members to renew. In 2011, Netflix could afford paying $100 million because 2010 revenue already exceeded $2 billion. Because they grew.
Ok, so let's say we hypothetically rule out expensive bidding wars to license content. You still need growth instead of a flatline revenue of $272 million for the next 18 years. Your employees want their salaries to grow with merit increases, bonuses, etc -- because their apartment rents, food costs, car insurance, etc go up. The existing content partners will want increased payments to license their shows when contract renewal comes up. The rent of office space leases, electricity, health insurance, etc all go up. Increasing salaries, license costs, fixed overhead costs, etc will subtract more and more from that "no-growth-just-the-same-$272 million-revenue-every-year". There will eventually be no profits left over to pay dividends.
In other words... the problem with a "no growth ideology" is that the world out there may not want to cooperate with you! They have their own agendas.
[1] https://external-preview.redd.it/Hfg1XQCVUlO2Og1_d9iSi0Ovekj...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#Membership_fee,_Blockb...
Not really. To riff on the old saying, "money doesn't grow on trees", we can also say "dividends don't grow on trees."
Where do dividends come from? From profits. But where do profits come from? In accounting lingo, we say profits come from "revenue minus costs" but to restate that in human action terms, we notice that profits come from Company X's purposeful activities that are desired by customers that choose to spend money with Company X instead of Company Y. Therefore, dividends are not guaranteed and in the hyper-competitive business sector Netflix operates, it requires growth to pay them.
If we mentally substitute "Blockbuster Inc" for "Netflix" in your dividend suggestion: "Can't shareholders just be happy with Blockbuster paying dividends instead of worrying about growth?"
... we'll see the "dividends instead of growth" won't work. In 2002, Blockbuster started losing money to upstart Netflix. If you look at Blockbusters historical stock prices[1], you'll see they started falling towards $0 because of repeated annual losses. Netflix was growing and Blockbuster was not. With accounting losses, Blockbuster has no profits and thus, no dividends to pay. Blockbuster eventually went bankrupt. Blockbuster did try to "grow" but it wasn't enough. No only do you have to grow as part of business strategy, you have to grow correctly with smart bets.
With Blockbuster as a case study, we can see that suggesting "Why can't Netflix shareholders be happy with dividends instead of growing?" -- will not work. Netflix's dividends/profits will evaporate if they don't grow to respond to Amazon Prime Video, HBO streaming, Disney streaming, Apple TV, etc. Yes, an "old-economy" business like railroads with little competition can pay dividends but Netflix is not that type of company. All the video streaming businesses are still furiously competing for consumers' discretionary entertainment budget. To not grow is to die because your customers leave for other more attractive video offerings.
E.g. in 2002, Netflix went public and had $272 million in revenue[2]. If Netflix adopted the "we don't believe in growth" and just simply collected the same $272 million every year until today, they would not have been able to offer $100 million to buy House of Cards in 2011. This means HBO or Amazon would have outbid them making Netflix less attractive for new memberships or existing members to renew. In 2011, Netflix could afford paying $100 million because 2010 revenue already exceeded $2 billion. Because they grew.
Ok, so let's say we hypothetically rule out expensive bidding wars to license content. You still need growth instead of a flatline revenue of $272 million for the next 18 years. Your employees want their salaries to grow with merit increases, bonuses, etc -- because their apartment rents, food costs, car insurance, etc go up. The existing content partners will want increased payments to license their shows when contract renewal comes up. The rent of office space leases, electricity, health insurance, etc all go up. Increasing salaries, license costs, fixed overhead costs, etc will subtract more and more from that "no-growth-just-the-same-$272 million-revenue-every-year". There will eventually be no profits left over to pay dividends.
In other words... the problem with a "no growth ideology" is that the world out there may not want to cooperate with you! They have their own agendas.
[1] https://external-preview.redd.it/Hfg1XQCVUlO2Og1_d9iSi0Ovekj...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#Membership_fee,_Blockb...
> we notice that profits come from Company X's purposeful activities that are desired by customers that choose to spend money with Company X instead of Company Y.
Many companies make money from activities that are not desired by customers.
Many companies make money from activities that are not desired by customers.
>Many companies make money from activities that are not desired by customers.
I wasn't making some absolutist 100% statement about every company that ever existed. Sure, hated companies like cable company Comcast or Ticketmaster have profits. Netflix doesn't have that sort of monopoly power. Also, my comment about "desire" is relative desire between choices of spending money on different companies -- X vs Y.
Why did Netflix lose subscribers?[1] Because the video streaming customers desired something else.
Likewise, Blockbuster's old customers hated the late return fees. Blockbusters customers also desired the convenience of video streaming instead of driving to rent a physical DVD disc. Blockbuster lost so many customers that they went bankrupt.
Neither Blockbuster nor Netflix can irritate customers in the name of profits the same way Comcast can. A video DVD rental or video streaming's platform has way less customer lock-in or loyalty than a cable company's monopoly of physical coax lines into residential homes.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
I wasn't making some absolutist 100% statement about every company that ever existed. Sure, hated companies like cable company Comcast or Ticketmaster have profits. Netflix doesn't have that sort of monopoly power. Also, my comment about "desire" is relative desire between choices of spending money on different companies -- X vs Y.
Why did Netflix lose subscribers?[1] Because the video streaming customers desired something else.
Likewise, Blockbuster's old customers hated the late return fees. Blockbusters customers also desired the convenience of video streaming instead of driving to rent a physical DVD disc. Blockbuster lost so many customers that they went bankrupt.
Neither Blockbuster nor Netflix can irritate customers in the name of profits the same way Comcast can. A video DVD rental or video streaming's platform has way less customer lock-in or loyalty than a cable company's monopoly of physical coax lines into residential homes.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
While netflix doesn't have a monopoly on tv shows, they do have a monopoly on a given show. If you want to watch Tiger King, you have to have Netflix.
However even that monopoly falls down once legalities are ignored. In the 90s the only way to watch US shows in the UK was via the internet, so that's what I did. If netflix introduces adverts, then people will use piratebay or whatever to watch it without adverts.
However even that monopoly falls down once legalities are ignored. In the 90s the only way to watch US shows in the UK was via the internet, so that's what I did. If netflix introduces adverts, then people will use piratebay or whatever to watch it without adverts.
Netflix can grow by getting more users by offering attractive services and features instead of advertisements.
Even if they stop getting new users, and just maintain their current user base, what is so bad about that? Nobody is going to go broke from that.
Even if they stop getting new users, and just maintain their current user base, what is so bad about that? Nobody is going to go broke from that.
>Netflix can grow by getting more users by offering attractive services and features instead of advertisements.
I wasn't suggesting that it was desirable for Netflix to show ads. I was replying specifically to the "growth for growth's sake" because it's misleading.
As for "Netflix can grow by getting more users by offering attractive services and features", that's circular reasoning. They need growth to help pay for new attractive services and features.
>Even if they stop getting new users, and just maintain their current user base,
The problem is that their none of their existing user base signed a 30-year irrevocable contract to always pay $11.99 for the next 360 months. Consumers have free will and their preferences change which is why Blockbuster couldn't count on their old customers to keep walking into their stores to rent DVDs.
In other words, the "just maintain their user base" doesn't mean anything because customers have their own agenda of how they make changes in spending discretionary entertainment dollars. E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
I wasn't suggesting that it was desirable for Netflix to show ads. I was replying specifically to the "growth for growth's sake" because it's misleading.
As for "Netflix can grow by getting more users by offering attractive services and features", that's circular reasoning. They need growth to help pay for new attractive services and features.
>Even if they stop getting new users, and just maintain their current user base,
The problem is that their none of their existing user base signed a 30-year irrevocable contract to always pay $11.99 for the next 360 months. Consumers have free will and their preferences change which is why Blockbuster couldn't count on their old customers to keep walking into their stores to rent DVDs.
In other words, the "just maintain their user base" doesn't mean anything because customers have their own agenda of how they make changes in spending discretionary entertainment dollars. E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
> As for "Netflix can grow by getting more users by offering attractive services and features", that's circular reasoning. They need growth to help pay for new attractive services and features.
Growing is exactly what investors money is for, besides their monthly revenue that allows them to grow a bit every period of time X.
> The problem is that their none of their existing user base signed a 30-year irrevocable contract to always pay $11.99 for the next 360 months. Consumers have free will and their preferences change which is why Blockbuster couldn't count on their old customers to keep walking into their stores to rent DVDs.
That's a problem for when netflix loses users at a rate that will damage profit rates unacceptably, not before.
> E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
They lost market share because Disney+ has exclusive content Netflix doesn't and some users preferred to only maintain one service, there's nothing Netflix can do about it besides trying to make their product _more_ attractive, not less.
You could argue that maybe they could regain market share by making the product cheaper, but I doubt they will ever achieve a cheaper enough price where people would be willing to pay for both Netflix and Disney+/Other streaming website with more attractive content for them or switch back to netflix because it's become trash without an interesting catalogue and full of ads for being so cheap.
Growing is exactly what investors money is for, besides their monthly revenue that allows them to grow a bit every period of time X.
> The problem is that their none of their existing user base signed a 30-year irrevocable contract to always pay $11.99 for the next 360 months. Consumers have free will and their preferences change which is why Blockbuster couldn't count on their old customers to keep walking into their stores to rent DVDs.
That's a problem for when netflix loses users at a rate that will damage profit rates unacceptably, not before.
> E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
They lost market share because Disney+ has exclusive content Netflix doesn't and some users preferred to only maintain one service, there's nothing Netflix can do about it besides trying to make their product _more_ attractive, not less.
You could argue that maybe they could regain market share by making the product cheaper, but I doubt they will ever achieve a cheaper enough price where people would be willing to pay for both Netflix and Disney+/Other streaming website with more attractive content for them or switch back to netflix because it's become trash without an interesting catalogue and full of ads for being so cheap.
To make it precise: growth is the next generation having a greater abundance than the current.
If you care about global poverty, disease, famine etc. then you care about growth.
Since we do not have levels of abundance which reach everyone even in rich societies, growth is everywhere a concern.
To "question its value" is to say: since I have sufficient wealth, that'll do for the planet.
If you care about global poverty, disease, famine etc. then you care about growth.
Since we do not have levels of abundance which reach everyone even in rich societies, growth is everywhere a concern.
To "question its value" is to say: since I have sufficient wealth, that'll do for the planet.
Well, let’s optimize for those things then. Right now growth mostly means making the rich richer. Trickle down economics have been discredited for a while.
I wish governments would set quality of life targets instead of gdp targets. If you need to grow gdp to get to a better quality of life, fine, but please, let’s all stop spreading the lie that gdp growth inevitably leads to increased quality of life, because often it causes the reverse.
I wish governments would set quality of life targets instead of gdp targets. If you need to grow gdp to get to a better quality of life, fine, but please, let’s all stop spreading the lie that gdp growth inevitably leads to increased quality of life, because often it causes the reverse.
mjburgess(2)
> If you care about global poverty, disease, famine etc. then you care about growth.
I care about diseases being allowed to spread more than they should in the name of growth. This pandemic happened precisely because of greed and the “growth” fetish.
Poverty is skyrocketing now precisely because we didn't bother to stop to set up safeguards in our neverending lust for growth.
I care about our privacy being forcibly penetrated to sell data on our every eye saccade in the name of growth.
I care about every physical and virtual space being bombarded with advertisements during every waking moment in the name of growth.
I care about having every single aspect of human existence from water to companionship, being monetized and curated in the name of growth.
I care about IP franchises being milked to death and their corpses defiled and then their graves exhumed in the name of growth.
I care about the vast biomes being burned down and entire species going extinct in the name of growth.
I care about ethics and morals getting thrown under a steamroller in the name of growth.
I care about diseases being allowed to spread more than they should in the name of growth. This pandemic happened precisely because of greed and the “growth” fetish.
Poverty is skyrocketing now precisely because we didn't bother to stop to set up safeguards in our neverending lust for growth.
I care about our privacy being forcibly penetrated to sell data on our every eye saccade in the name of growth.
I care about every physical and virtual space being bombarded with advertisements during every waking moment in the name of growth.
I care about having every single aspect of human existence from water to companionship, being monetized and curated in the name of growth.
I care about IP franchises being milked to death and their corpses defiled and then their graves exhumed in the name of growth.
I care about the vast biomes being burned down and entire species going extinct in the name of growth.
I care about ethics and morals getting thrown under a steamroller in the name of growth.
A word cloud of nonesense ideological boogeymen connected by free-association.
In two years time when the death rate on C19 is reported at as-flu levels and the world is in a global depression with massive excess poverty, death, and abuse you'll be ranting then too -- just connecting these to "neoliberal conspiracies" as now.
Rather, this will be caused by precise the lack of concern for the economy.
In two years time when the death rate on C19 is reported at as-flu levels and the world is in a global depression with massive excess poverty, death, and abuse you'll be ranting then too -- just connecting these to "neoliberal conspiracies" as now.
Rather, this will be caused by precise the lack of concern for the economy.
> A word cloud of nonesense
The same could be easily said about your comments here, comparing "redistribution of wealth" to genocide.
The same could be easily said about your comments here, comparing "redistribution of wealth" to genocide.
Not a comparison, an observation. Those societies which tried to create prosperity by redistribution, found there is in fact too little to redistribute. And indeed, therefore, engaged in mass murder to deal with that scarcity.
The same holds today. The GDP of the planet, distributed to all its population is a one-off 20k USD. Not enough wealth for almost anything.
Wealth is about producing over time, and increasing global wealth, ie. decreasing global poverty, is about producing more.
I think the failure to associate such policies with the genocides which underpin them is one of the great educational and moral failures of the 20th C. It hasn't been explained to people that our society is the most moral (by being the richest) in history because people engage in productive activities which provide for their own wealth.
The same holds today. The GDP of the planet, distributed to all its population is a one-off 20k USD. Not enough wealth for almost anything.
Wealth is about producing over time, and increasing global wealth, ie. decreasing global poverty, is about producing more.
I think the failure to associate such policies with the genocides which underpin them is one of the great educational and moral failures of the 20th C. It hasn't been explained to people that our society is the most moral (by being the richest) in history because people engage in productive activities which provide for their own wealth.
> Not enough wealth for almost anything.
That is absolute bullshit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993157
"2M chickens to be killed in US processing plants due to lack of employees."
That is absolute bullshit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993157
"2M chickens to be killed in US processing plants due to lack of employees."
Did you read my comment?
The net GDP of the world, divided by the number of people in it is a one-off 20k -- that amount solves almost no global problems.
As for 2m chickens dying, that's a one-off meal for c. 5 million people.
So one day of hunger for only 5m people was lost. Again: almost nothing.
World problems are solved through growth, not by saving a few lost dinners.
The net GDP of the world, divided by the number of people in it is a one-off 20k -- that amount solves almost no global problems.
As for 2m chickens dying, that's a one-off meal for c. 5 million people.
So one day of hunger for only 5m people was lost. Again: almost nothing.
World problems are solved through growth, not by saving a few lost dinners.
How can your hatred for any corporate lingo term outrank that reserved for the bulwarks ‘leverage’ and ‘synergy’?
‘Granularity’ is a big up-and-comer too.
‘Granularity’ is a big up-and-comer too.
“Engagement” is another one.
Or they just raise prices like they have done multiple times now.
Eventually this kind of approach would torpedo their company's growth. Every price hike alienates part of their base who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept the new higher price and they will jump to another provider who is the same or cheaper in price even if the product they receive is worse.
At some point the price difference between the quality product and the cheap product becomes so vast that the quality product company must shrink either by reducing the quality of the product, or by reducing the manpower necessary to produce the quality product.
It's better to first introduce ads into the current subscription plan, and then introduce ad-free subscription levels at a higher price.
At some point the price difference between the quality product and the cheap product becomes so vast that the quality product company must shrink either by reducing the quality of the product, or by reducing the manpower necessary to produce the quality product.
It's better to first introduce ads into the current subscription plan, and then introduce ad-free subscription levels at a higher price.
> It's better to first introduce ads into the current subscription plan, and then introduce ad-free subscription levels at a higher price.
The moment you introduce ads to your service you invite a disease that will rot your service to the core.
The next step after ad-free subscription levels at a higher price is... ad-full subscription, because why leave money on the table, when you can get people to subscribe and then show them ads anyway (maybe different ads, maybe less of them, but still).
The moment you introduce ads to your service you invite a disease that will rot your service to the core.
The next step after ad-free subscription levels at a higher price is... ad-full subscription, because why leave money on the table, when you can get people to subscribe and then show them ads anyway (maybe different ads, maybe less of them, but still).
Do ad-free subscriptions a higher price work, we don't see many of those offers.
I suspect the problem is although everybody sees the ads the value comes from the wealthiest section of subscribers. These are the people most likely to pay to block the adverts. Lose those and you will lose your advertisers.
I suspect the problem is although everybody sees the ads the value comes from the wealthiest section of subscribers. These are the people most likely to pay to block the adverts. Lose those and you will lose your advertisers.
Netflix per dollar is about the cheapest entertainment you can get. Frankly it should be MORE expensive for the amount of high quality content they release constantly.
The three subscriptions available here in Denmark are:
SD: $11.46, HD: $14.37, UHD: $18.72 (UHD is a bit of a joke with that birate, but that is another matter).
For low income households that can be quite a lot. Combine that with Netflix having significantly less content in Denmark than the rest of the world, and it might not be such a good deal the begin with after all.
So I guess it depends on where you live and your financial situation.
For low income households that can be quite a lot. Combine that with Netflix having significantly less content in Denmark than the rest of the world, and it might not be such a good deal the begin with after all.
So I guess it depends on where you live and your financial situation.
I suspect most low income households in Denmark are going to be able to afford that, just because it can displace other much more expensive forms of entertainment.
>Frankly it should be MORE expensive for the amount of high quality content they release constantly.
I canceled it because it was obvious their content is stretched out for no reason other than to waste my time. Also it’s full of product placement which takes me out of the story.
I canceled it because it was obvious their content is stretched out for no reason other than to waste my time. Also it’s full of product placement which takes me out of the story.
While it is indeed cheap, that doesn’t mean everyone can afford it.
I won’t be surprised if they have more price tiers for different quality, or if the price tiers that already exist get wider. Kinda like the way the UK TV licence comes in normal and black & white.
I won’t be surprised if they have more price tiers for different quality, or if the price tiers that already exist get wider. Kinda like the way the UK TV licence comes in normal and black & white.
It is certainly more expensive than Disney+ and the content why high in quantity on Netflix isn't necessarily high in quality across the board. Note, I am using 4k on all my streaming services.
Possibly. But with original content it may just be through syndication as well.
They might introduce a cheaper tier with ads, like Hulu does.
I've been waiting for the day for shows on Netflix to start replacing in-show things like posters on the wall with recent ads.
Shows and networks have already been doing this for a very long time.
https://www.hypable.com/how-i-met-your-mother-is-inserting-n...
https://www.hypable.com/how-i-met-your-mother-is-inserting-n...
Is anyone still doing this? That company (SeamBI) is long dead. (Domain for sale, twitter nonactive since 2012, etc.)
I doubt it. Netflix doesn't have a monopoly on infrastructure like the cable companies did.
That may be true but as the popularity of Netflix exclusive content grows so does Netflix's ability to display ads without shedding as much of its user base.
The moment they start showing ads is the moment I drop netflix
If advertising ever intrudes on streaming the way it did on cable, I'll just transition out of watching TV altogether.
I don't care near as much about keeping up with the zeitgeist as I used to. Maybe I'm just getting old.
I don't care near as much about keeping up with the zeitgeist as I used to. Maybe I'm just getting old.
The TV zeitgeist is gone.
People used to all watch the same shows at the same time.That made it the thing everyone had in common.
Now TV is more like reading books. Everyone does it n their own time. It's still a big things, but it doesn't create a nationwide community.
On top of this, you're also getting old :)
People used to all watch the same shows at the same time.That made it the thing everyone had in common.
Now TV is more like reading books. Everyone does it n their own time. It's still a big things, but it doesn't create a nationwide community.
On top of this, you're also getting old :)
If you heard about Game of Thrones or Westworld or Stranger Things, or most recently, Tiger King, you'd realize this is very much still a thing for a large population.
Weekly shows of certain types have massive speculation and plot discussion crowds with podcasts and analysis channels. Then there's a second viewership wave created by all the memes.
Netflix's just drop the whole season model has cost them a lot in public discussion and hence hype, some of their shows are now released in a weekly format to better capture the hype cycle.
Weekly shows of certain types have massive speculation and plot discussion crowds with podcasts and analysis channels. Then there's a second viewership wave created by all the memes.
Netflix's just drop the whole season model has cost them a lot in public discussion and hence hype, some of their shows are now released in a weekly format to better capture the hype cycle.
> If you heard about Game of Thrones or Westworld or Stranger Things, or most recently, Tiger King, you'd realize this is very much still a thing for a large population.
This isn't the same thing.
In the 1990s, everybody watched The Simpsons. Even the people who hated it still watched it so they could complain about it. It was on broadcast TV so everybody had access to it. And Friends, and Cheers, and so on.
Game of Thrones is on HBO. If you have Netflix and not HBO, it's not there. Stranger Things is on Netflix. If you have HBO and not Netflix, it's not there. A lot more people watched Friends than Game of Thrones, because Game of Thrones was less available and had much more competition.
You can find a website full of fandom about Game of Thrones, but you can find a website full of fandom about Battlestar Galactica. Passion and popularity are not the same.
Popularity is what matters to the zeitgeist. It's not a matter of being able to find a place where all the Game of Thrones fans hang out and whinge about the last season, it's about being able to go into a room full of normies and make a reference to last night's episode and expect nearly everybody to get it. Which isn't really a thing anymore.
This isn't the same thing.
In the 1990s, everybody watched The Simpsons. Even the people who hated it still watched it so they could complain about it. It was on broadcast TV so everybody had access to it. And Friends, and Cheers, and so on.
Game of Thrones is on HBO. If you have Netflix and not HBO, it's not there. Stranger Things is on Netflix. If you have HBO and not Netflix, it's not there. A lot more people watched Friends than Game of Thrones, because Game of Thrones was less available and had much more competition.
You can find a website full of fandom about Game of Thrones, but you can find a website full of fandom about Battlestar Galactica. Passion and popularity are not the same.
Popularity is what matters to the zeitgeist. It's not a matter of being able to find a place where all the Game of Thrones fans hang out and whinge about the last season, it's about being able to go into a room full of normies and make a reference to last night's episode and expect nearly everybody to get it. Which isn't really a thing anymore.
People had watch parties the moment episodes dropped for GoT. Bars would even air episodes in later years. Most of the world watched it together, both legally and illegally. It was definitely the same thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/media/game-of-thrones-season-...
> Sunday's episode of "Game of Thrones" notched a series record of 17.8 million viewers, according to HBO. "The Long Night" broke the record set by the season premiere just two weeks ago when 17.4 million viewers tuned in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/2...
> 106 million people watched ‘M.A.S.H.’ finale 35 years ago. No scripted show since has come close.
Note that these are raw numbers, not percentage of population. There are more people now than there were when "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen" aired, but the broadcast TV episode still got more human beings to watch it.
Maybe almost 100 million watched Game of Thrones illegally.
> Sunday's episode of "Game of Thrones" notched a series record of 17.8 million viewers, according to HBO. "The Long Night" broke the record set by the season premiere just two weeks ago when 17.4 million viewers tuned in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/2...
> 106 million people watched ‘M.A.S.H.’ finale 35 years ago. No scripted show since has come close.
Note that these are raw numbers, not percentage of population. There are more people now than there were when "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen" aired, but the broadcast TV episode still got more human beings to watch it.
Maybe almost 100 million watched Game of Thrones illegally.
> Maybe almost 100 million watched Game of Thrones illegally
I think you hit the nail on the head. I live in a country where you can't, to my knowledge, get HBO legally at all, and yet a huge number of people kept up with it, to the point of having a weekly watching party when the series was live. It only takes one tech-savvy person and a USB stick.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I live in a country where you can't, to my knowledge, get HBO legally at all, and yet a huge number of people kept up with it, to the point of having a weekly watching party when the series was live. It only takes one tech-savvy person and a USB stick.
This was probably more true a decade ago than it is now. Pirating shows isn't hard, but it's slightly less easy than watching Netflix, so it only matters if the shows on The Pirate Bay are enough better than the shows on whichever streaming service you have to be worth the inconvenience.
There are a lot of good shows on Netflix. Enough that people don't have time to watch even them -- especially now that the Internet is a thing and a lot of the time people used to spend watching TV is now spent watching YouTube or hanging out on Reddit or whatever.
So if you have Netflix and not HBO then you're several times more likely to have watched Stranger Things than Game of Thrones because it was easier to do it. And for the same reason, people don't subscribe to twelve different streaming services, because they don't even have time to watch all the shows on one of them. Which means there's now a lot more fragmentation in what people have watched.
There are a lot of good shows on Netflix. Enough that people don't have time to watch even them -- especially now that the Internet is a thing and a lot of the time people used to spend watching TV is now spent watching YouTube or hanging out on Reddit or whatever.
So if you have Netflix and not HBO then you're several times more likely to have watched Stranger Things than Game of Thrones because it was easier to do it. And for the same reason, people don't subscribe to twelve different streaming services, because they don't even have time to watch all the shows on one of them. Which means there's now a lot more fragmentation in what people have watched.
Do you think these are counted differently? TV viewers statistics often use average number of people in a household, iirc. I would guess the HBO number is just the actual number of plays, no matter how many people viewed on that screen.
I know tens of people that have watched game of thrones, maybe one or two legally. I think the real number might be higher then 17.8 million.
GoT was in 10-20 million in final season worldwide. Seinfeld finale was 70-80 million in US alone. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-may-16-ca-50143...
The numbers don’t even compare. With Seinfeld that’s literally 1 in 5 people in the US. GoT is what, maybe 1 in 100?
The numbers don’t even compare. With Seinfeld that’s literally 1 in 5 people in the US. GoT is what, maybe 1 in 100?
And Friends, Simpsons, Seinfeld etc were things whole families watched together (depending on the kids’ ages of course). Families are not watching GoT and Westworld together en masse. TV shows filled with violence and boobs just aren’t going to be ‘everyone’s seen it’ shows like tamer ones, even if it feels to 20-year-olds like ‘everyone’ has seen them.
Overall, when accounting for all platforms and delayed viewing throughout the week, the final season of Game of Thrones averaged more than 44 million viewers per episode [1]
Game of Thrones’ season 8 premiere was pirated almost 55 million times in the first 24 hours [2].
And this is when people have 100 times more choices every day.
[1] https://observer.com/2019/05/game-of-thrones-finale-ratings-...
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/17/18412159/game-of-thrones-...
Game of Thrones’ season 8 premiere was pirated almost 55 million times in the first 24 hours [2].
And this is when people have 100 times more choices every day.
[1] https://observer.com/2019/05/game-of-thrones-finale-ratings-...
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/17/18412159/game-of-thrones-...
Are these American figures or worldwide figures?
https://fortune.com/2019/04/17/game-of-thrones-season-8-pira...
> Data from piracy monitoring firm MUSO indicates the show was pirated 54 million times in the first 24 hours. That’s a steep increase from the season seven premiere, which set piracy records of its own, with 90 million illegal viewings in 72 hours.
> Data from piracy monitoring firm MUSO indicates the show was pirated 54 million times in the first 24 hours. That’s a steep increase from the season seven premiere, which set piracy records of its own, with 90 million illegal viewings in 72 hours.
>this is very much still a thing for a large population
No, it's so radically different that while there is still zeitgeist related to TV, it's not wrong to say the "tv zeitgeist" is dead.
Following a TV show used to be even more in the moment than following sports are today. Either someone saw last night's game, or they didn't and you can't have a meaningful conversation with them. They might catch up watching the highlight reel but conversations will be shallower, and talking about one game becomes near-irrelevant by the time the next game airs. These days TV shows have the zeitgeist pattern of a recent video game release. Everyone works through the release at different paces, conversations are bounded by seeing how caught-up everyone is before getting into details, and the material has long enough shelf life that conversations can happen with months - or years - between different conversation participants seeing it.
No, it's so radically different that while there is still zeitgeist related to TV, it's not wrong to say the "tv zeitgeist" is dead.
Following a TV show used to be even more in the moment than following sports are today. Either someone saw last night's game, or they didn't and you can't have a meaningful conversation with them. They might catch up watching the highlight reel but conversations will be shallower, and talking about one game becomes near-irrelevant by the time the next game airs. These days TV shows have the zeitgeist pattern of a recent video game release. Everyone works through the release at different paces, conversations are bounded by seeing how caught-up everyone is before getting into details, and the material has long enough shelf life that conversations can happen with months - or years - between different conversation participants seeing it.
After a certain point, the more well-off could own a VCR and record off TV; that is, time shifting, which is something Universal made a Federal case out of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting
Incidentally, the practice of time shifting is a reason VHS caught on and other home video formats didn't:
LaserDisc didn't offer time shifting at all, so it wasn't even in the running here; as a result, its pitch wasn't as compelling.
Betamax did, but its tapes only held one hour to begin with, which isn't enough for a sports game or a TV movie. It was only arguably of higher quality on the TVs of the era, and the fact its time shifting capability was half of what VHS could offer in the same time period made it a less attractive option.
(Both Betamax and VHS increased recording times as the format war wore on. However, after a certain point, merely being the entrenched winner has an impact on how the competition goes.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting
Incidentally, the practice of time shifting is a reason VHS caught on and other home video formats didn't:
LaserDisc didn't offer time shifting at all, so it wasn't even in the running here; as a result, its pitch wasn't as compelling.
Betamax did, but its tapes only held one hour to begin with, which isn't enough for a sports game or a TV movie. It was only arguably of higher quality on the TVs of the era, and the fact its time shifting capability was half of what VHS could offer in the same time period made it a less attractive option.
(Both Betamax and VHS increased recording times as the format war wore on. However, after a certain point, merely being the entrenched winner has an impact on how the competition goes.)
[deleted]
Arguably Game of Thrones could be the last series to ever capture the attention of the entire world at the same time. Everyone I know watched it, all ages, and all different genre fans. Bars used to play the episodes to a packed crowd. It was truly epic.
I don’t think these other series you listed are anywhere close to the level GoT captured. They win awards and have big budgets and fans spread the word, but still nowhere near.
I don’t think these other series you listed are anywhere close to the level GoT captured. They win awards and have big budgets and fans spread the word, but still nowhere near.
> all ages
A lot of parents I know would not be at all comfortable allowing children under the age of 14 to watch this show (and for older kids only on a case-by-case basis) due to its incredibly violent & sexual content, horrific rapes depicted in detail, and extremely graphic sadism across the board.
Many adults wouldn't begin to consider watching it for these reasons. Sometimes I wish I hadn't.
A lot of parents I know would not be at all comfortable allowing children under the age of 14 to watch this show (and for older kids only on a case-by-case basis) due to its incredibly violent & sexual content, horrific rapes depicted in detail, and extremely graphic sadism across the board.
Many adults wouldn't begin to consider watching it for these reasons. Sometimes I wish I hadn't.
If anything, I think GoT turned people away from getting invested into TV shows especially over long seasons due to its nonsensical ending.
I that because of the hype cycle, or is that because they have distribution and creative partnerships with other distributors?
Yeah, but I no longer care. Twenty years ago, or ten years ago even, I would be adamant about keeping up with the latest series.
Now, though? I don't care about "tha memes." I don't care if I'm current in my analogies. I want to take care of the people I care about, and experience things that enrich my life.
Other people can care about memes and such, and I don't think any less of them for it. Not that they need my validation. But my own world revolves around different suns now.
Now, though? I don't care about "tha memes." I don't care if I'm current in my analogies. I want to take care of the people I care about, and experience things that enrich my life.
Other people can care about memes and such, and I don't think any less of them for it. Not that they need my validation. But my own world revolves around different suns now.
You don't care, but "the TV zeitgeist is gone" wouldn't really be a true statement, in a general sense. The hype of popular TV shows in our culture is very much active today, and it's actively influencing the ways TV shows are distributed and released.
TV is still important, and the shows you mention are big.
But it's very far from how things were, say 20 years ago.
An interesting question is what the zeitgeist is now? I have two potential answers:
1. Nothing. The worlds has diversified on the net, and most people focus on their own smaller interests.
2. In terms of what everyone is talking and thinking about, my best answer is, unfortunately, Donald J Trump.
But it's very far from how things were, say 20 years ago.
An interesting question is what the zeitgeist is now? I have two potential answers:
1. Nothing. The worlds has diversified on the net, and most people focus on their own smaller interests.
2. In terms of what everyone is talking and thinking about, my best answer is, unfortunately, Donald J Trump.
Yep, exactly. I refuse. I’m not sitting through any ads.
More importantly, I’m not paying to sit through ads.
Old? I feel like a dinosaur because I still watch shock DVDs. Still no ads. No DRM. No funky software needed, though, TBH, the bits are encrypted. Not sure how long optical media lasts, but I am hoping these things last a few more decades.
I believe CDs and DVDs used organic compounds for their data layer, which begins physically rotting and destroying the data later
Later disks like M-disc type DVDs and Blu-ray don't use living components and don't really age
Later disks like M-disc type DVDs and Blu-ray don't use living components and don't really age
Printed CDs and DVDs have nothing but plastic and aluminum. If you are referring to CD-R(W) and DVD-R(W), these use phase change materials, the exact composition of which I am not sure. https://volga.eng.yale.edu/teaching-resources/cds-and-dvds/m...
Also remember organic != living. Organic is basically hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen and carbon chains in molecules. They vary greatly in their durability and may or may not be useful to carbon-based life.
Also remember organic != living. Organic is basically hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen and carbon chains in molecules. They vary greatly in their durability and may or may not be useful to carbon-based life.
Your DVDs don't have unskippable anti-piracy ads and ads for movies that released decades ago?
In the worst cases of cable/broadcast advertising, at least the content creators could dictate when the ads should be played. Sites like YouTube, just decided by algorithms when to place an ad based on time so you get ads in the middle of sentences. The streaming apps for cable channels also include ads just like watching it live. In these formats, they make it where you cannot skip ahead past the ad breaks, so it's even worse on streaming
I think it was less dictating, and more of being aware beforehand. The shows of TV era all have a pretty distinctive way they're cut, to have breaking points for ads. It gets especially noticeable today, when you're most likely to be re-watching them on an ad-break-free streaming service.
On the other hand, apparently there is a way for the YouTube creators to dictate where ad breaks will happen. I've seen at least two videos in which the person speaking said "and then YouTube will show you an ad right about... NOW"; lo and behold, an ad shows perfectly timed to when the speaker announces it.
On the other hand, apparently there is a way for the YouTube creators to dictate where ad breaks will happen. I've seen at least two videos in which the person speaking said "and then YouTube will show you an ad right about... NOW"; lo and behold, an ad shows perfectly timed to when the speaker announces it.
Yeah that "ad in the middle of a sentence" thing annoys me, particularly because surely Google of all places has the ML chops to figure out how to place an ad at a natural break point based on the sound track!
Classic ad, run in theaters, against Pay TV:
https://archive.org/details/Drive-inSaveFreeTv
https://archive.org/details/Drive-inSaveFreeTv
It's amazing how much commercials have crept in. If you watch an "hour long" show from the early 80s, it's roughly 48 minutes. If you watch a similar show from 10-15 years ago, it's closer to 44-45 and in the last few years, it's more like 42 minutes.
I assume it's only going to get worse as TV ad revenue drops faster with more alternatives.
I assume it's only going to get worse as TV ad revenue drops faster with more alternatives.
Watch broadcast TV and you'll notice that hour long TV shows are in 1:15 timeslots because they need to pack in an extra 15 minutes of ads. Or the show will have bits cut out like half of the opening, the start and end of some scenes, etc...
Do you have a citation for this? It's been 42-44 minutes of content for at least the last 20 years in my experience.
Big Bang Theory - 18-20 mins
https://trakt.tv/shows/the-big-bang-theory/seasons/10
Brooklyn Nine-Nine - 21 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/brooklyn-nine-nine/seasons/7
The Office - 22 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/the-office/seasons/9
M.A.S.H - 24 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/m-a-s-h/seasons/10
Golden Girls - 24 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/the-golden-girls/seasons/1
Cheers - 24 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/cheers/seasons/10
Brooklyn Nine-Nine - 21 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/brooklyn-nine-nine/seasons/7
The Office - 22 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/the-office/seasons/9
M.A.S.H - 24 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/m-a-s-h/seasons/10
Golden Girls - 24 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/the-golden-girls/seasons/1
Cheers - 24 mins https://trakt.tv/shows/cheers/seasons/10
Checked some episodes from some shows I had available, first seasons, DVD or Bluray source:
Miami Vice (1984): 48m
Homicide Life On The Streets (1993): 47m
TekWar (1994): 45m
Nowhere Man (1995): 45m
Battlestar Galactica (2003): 44m
Dark Matter (2015): 43m
12 Monkeys (2015): 43m
Lucifer (2015): 43m
There are exceptions though. Legion (2017) episodes are around 50m, and several of the newer "made for streaming" shows have 50-60m episodes.
Miami Vice (1984): 48m
Homicide Life On The Streets (1993): 47m
TekWar (1994): 45m
Nowhere Man (1995): 45m
Battlestar Galactica (2003): 44m
Dark Matter (2015): 43m
12 Monkeys (2015): 43m
Lucifer (2015): 43m
There are exceptions though. Legion (2017) episodes are around 50m, and several of the newer "made for streaming" shows have 50-60m episodes.
Thanks. The pattern isn't perfect but the trend is clear. These are Season 1, excluding pilots.
A-Team (1983): 49m
MacGyver (1985, original): 48m
Quantum Leap (1989): 47-48m
X-Files (1993): 43-44m
Monk (2002): 44m
Eureka (2006): 44m
MacGyver (2016, remake): 42-43m
A-Team (1983): 49m
MacGyver (1985, original): 48m
Quantum Leap (1989): 47-48m
X-Files (1993): 43-44m
Monk (2002): 44m
Eureka (2006): 44m
MacGyver (2016, remake): 42-43m
I don't find it amazing. 1980 was 40 years ago. For context, the first commercial TV broadcast in the US was in 1941, and it didn't really get going until the late 40s. For the format not to have found it's most profitable show length for an hour long slot 35 years after it started, and for it to still be evolving 40 years from that point with a huge amount of innovation in the tech isn't really surprising.
I would suppose OPs argument is that this is like how much sawdust can you add to food before people notice and choose alternative media consumption. There's presumably a lot of deadweight loss and collusion that play to these results.
Ad revenue has also dropped with DVR use. It's amusing to think about adding 20% of ads to compensate for 20% of viewers skipping over the ads, since it's a race to 100% ads that nobody watches.
That reminds me, that I would love for Netflix to have a common episode length filter. Or at least a category for around 20 minute shows.
And the real question is: will history repeat itself with Netflix, et al?
HBO demonstrates that it’s still an open question.
HBO demonstrates that it’s still an open question.
As long as I am given the option to purchase content without advertisements I will do so. If I can't watch a piece of content without ads, I'll either wait until I can or pirate it. Usually the former.
Frankly I think content is just overvalued and the actual creation of content is extremely inefficient, from a financial point of view. My personal experience has been that Hollywood film/television studios are poorly run businesses with massive losses at each point in the process, but is laden down by individuals who do things because it's the way it's always been done, are hostile to innovation (both technology and in business), and are anti-consumer, anti-viewer, and frankly anti-making-money.
It's honestly a terrible industry and needs to be disrupted. Market distortion is the only reason films cost what they do, from production to distribution and consumption. And literally everyone in the pipeline has an incentive to keep the market distorted, except people who watch content. Thank god for piracy.
Frankly I think content is just overvalued and the actual creation of content is extremely inefficient, from a financial point of view. My personal experience has been that Hollywood film/television studios are poorly run businesses with massive losses at each point in the process, but is laden down by individuals who do things because it's the way it's always been done, are hostile to innovation (both technology and in business), and are anti-consumer, anti-viewer, and frankly anti-making-money.
It's honestly a terrible industry and needs to be disrupted. Market distortion is the only reason films cost what they do, from production to distribution and consumption. And literally everyone in the pipeline has an incentive to keep the market distorted, except people who watch content. Thank god for piracy.
> My personal experience has been that Hollywood film/television studios are poorly run businesses with massive losses at each point in the process, but is laden down by individuals who do things because it's the way it's always been done, are hostile to innovation (both technology and in business), and are anti-consumer, anti-viewer, and frankly anti-making-money.
Is it that, or is the industry mind-controlled by parasites to achieve a different goal than delivering quality entertainment cost-effectively? "Hollywood accounting" is a known term, and it doesn't describe being bad at making money - it describes being very good at making money for yourself by purposefully cheating those who actually brought in that money.
(My general heuristic is that, if they're inefficiencies persisting despite competitive pressure, it's because it's these inefficiencies that are the real reason the business is done, and someone is making a good money off them.)
Is it that, or is the industry mind-controlled by parasites to achieve a different goal than delivering quality entertainment cost-effectively? "Hollywood accounting" is a known term, and it doesn't describe being bad at making money - it describes being very good at making money for yourself by purposefully cheating those who actually brought in that money.
(My general heuristic is that, if they're inefficiencies persisting despite competitive pressure, it's because it's these inefficiencies that are the real reason the business is done, and someone is making a good money off them.)
"Hollywood accounting" isn't designed to cheat anyone. It has been used to do so in the past, mostly decades ago. Slight difference.
It refers to the fact that a film as an enterprise is designed as an independent business with equity held by a few investors, and the enterprise gets dissolved when the film finishes post production. It's the only financial model that actually makes sense when you consider how a film is made and by whom. A small group of money people front a large amount of capital to pay hundreds to thousands of subcontractors up front to create an asset with intangible value, and they split the rights to that asset when they're done. Some of the subcontractors gets something that looks like equity, most don't.
It is a source of problems and inefficiencies. But to me the big issues lie before pre and after post, a lot of the work and structure of businesses during the creation of a film is pretty well honed and workers do have different kinds of power than most employees in traditional environments.
Also films are totally different than television and other media, at least financially. Studios work differently than networks.
It refers to the fact that a film as an enterprise is designed as an independent business with equity held by a few investors, and the enterprise gets dissolved when the film finishes post production. It's the only financial model that actually makes sense when you consider how a film is made and by whom. A small group of money people front a large amount of capital to pay hundreds to thousands of subcontractors up front to create an asset with intangible value, and they split the rights to that asset when they're done. Some of the subcontractors gets something that looks like equity, most don't.
It is a source of problems and inefficiencies. But to me the big issues lie before pre and after post, a lot of the work and structure of businesses during the creation of a film is pretty well honed and workers do have different kinds of power than most employees in traditional environments.
Also films are totally different than television and other media, at least financially. Studios work differently than networks.
I’d be interested in hearing more about what you mean by market distortion here.
A lot of the silliness in things like how much stars are paid seems applicable to software development — tiny incremental value adds become very substantial with a large enough audience.
A lot of the silliness in things like how much stars are paid seems applicable to software development — tiny incremental value adds become very substantial with a large enough audience.
I don't know what it is off the top of my head but I think actor pay isn't that big a slice of the cost.
What I mean by market distortion is really the lack of insight into value creation. How much value is created by whom in the pipeline, essentially. Data driven, direct to consumer enterprises are changing this a bit and that's great. But my experience is that data doesn't change minds of the top stakeholders, and there are incentives to make decisions that are bad for consumers even if the data says that both sides can win.
What I mean by market distortion is really the lack of insight into value creation. How much value is created by whom in the pipeline, essentially. Data driven, direct to consumer enterprises are changing this a bit and that's great. But my experience is that data doesn't change minds of the top stakeholders, and there are incentives to make decisions that are bad for consumers even if the data says that both sides can win.
I’ve recently noticed some Hulu shows that let you know you’ll see ads even if you subscribe to ad-free Hulu.
IIRC, the licensing arrangement between Hulu and the network prohibits not showing ads on those shows, or some such nonsense.
The networks have always entirely owned Hulu. It's that way because they want it to be.
Netflix has no such network licensing problems.
Netflix has no such network licensing problems.
Netflix doesn't have the problem because they never had ads. Hulu likely signed a deal with ABC (or the production company who make the shows) for those three shows that still have ads before they had the idea to go commercial free. Changing a deal that had a provision about ads is expensive.
Hulu was a joint venture between several networks. There are three old shows that still have commercials due to old contracts that were made before they switched to the new business model.
Given TV deals are complicated (for example, the networks likely have revenue deals with production companies), its not worth a huge renegotiation.
Hulu was a joint venture between several networks. There are three old shows that still have commercials due to old contracts that were made before they switched to the new business model.
Given TV deals are complicated (for example, the networks likely have revenue deals with production companies), its not worth a huge renegotiation.
How quickly does Netflix get those shows? I believe Hulu gets them the day after broadcast. Maybe the network licensing term are different depending on the delay between broadcast and streaming?
As far as I know, Netflix negotiates those rights independently so it varies per network. They're doing a new-ish model now, though, where Netflix actually pays to co-produce content with networks in exchange for getting faster and/or exclusive streaming access.
The most high-profile example off the top of my head is the new Michael Jordan doc; they split the cost with ESPN, and Netflix gets next-day international rights and accelerated domestic streaming rights (3 months after broadcast, I think).
The most high-profile example off the top of my head is the new Michael Jordan doc; they split the cost with ESPN, and Netflix gets next-day international rights and accelerated domestic streaming rights (3 months after broadcast, I think).
That's tremendous. That type of brazen not-give-a-shit is impressive to me, as abhorrent as it is.
There are three shows with ads on Hulu without ads.
https://help.hulu.com/s/article/hulu-no-ads?language=en_US#s...
The additional shows you can get on demand without Hulu Live TV have ads. But that’s more akin to traditional cable.
https://help.hulu.com/s/article/hulu-no-ads?language=en_US#s...
The additional shows you can get on demand without Hulu Live TV have ads. But that’s more akin to traditional cable.
How interesting! The list must update with some frequency because I don’t watch any of the shows currently listed in that link yet I’ve encountered the message a handful of times. The three current shows listed are:
- Grey’s Anatomy
- Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD
- How to Get Away with Murder
- Grey’s Anatomy
- Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD
- How to Get Away with Murder
I think there’s a chance it will be different: at least now there is the potential to offer customers an ad-free package for an extra cost. Some services like Hulu already do this (offering cheaper plan with ads and a slightly pricier plan with no ads). I think with cable this would have been difficult or impossible to achieve.
One nice thing about this is it makes plain how much the networks make from showing ads to your household. I happily pay a little extra to “outbid” the ad networks.
One nice thing about this is it makes plain how much the networks make from showing ads to your household. I happily pay a little extra to “outbid” the ad networks.
Not true. HULU still shows ads, even with "No Ads" version. From their website:
Hulu (No Ads)
Get First Month Free
then $11.99/month
A few excluded shows play with ads.
[from here https://signup.hulu.com/plans]
That last line kills me.
It's like H2G2, you can't have Tea and No Tea unless you remove your common sense particle.
Hulu (No Ads)
Get First Month Free
then $11.99/month
A few excluded shows play with ads.
[from here https://signup.hulu.com/plans]
That last line kills me.
It's like H2G2, you can't have Tea and No Tea unless you remove your common sense particle.
I mean, you're not wrong, but it's only for three shows, and there are no ads during the shows, only before and after. It was 7 when it first launched, so it doesn't seem like any other shows or new content will ever have ads. But hey, if you watch Agents of Shield, Grey's Anatomy, or How to Get Away with Murder, that surely does suck.
Huh. Thanks for figuring out what shows have ads!
Yeah, I guess that isn't as bad as it seems if there are just a few. I didn't bother to look up what "excluded" meant.
Yeah, I guess that isn't as bad as it seems if there are just a few. I didn't bother to look up what "excluded" meant.
I mean, it said that in the "Learn More..." Link, so I was just going by that :)
How is this not a false advertising lawsuit in the making? I mean, maybe the effect will be to make it "Hulu Silver", but that's better than blatantly claiming "No Ads" on an ad-containing product.
edit: Incredibly, there seem to be multiple reasons why you can see ads when on the "No Ads" plan; and they have an entire page dedicated to these reasons: https://help.hulu.com/s/article/ads-no-commercials?language=...
edit: Incredibly, there seem to be multiple reasons why you can see ads when on the "No Ads" plan; and they have an entire page dedicated to these reasons: https://help.hulu.com/s/article/ads-no-commercials?language=...
There is Hulu with no ads where there are three shows with ads.
Then there is Hulu Live TV which is like traditional cable. That gives you shows live and on demand that would usually come with a cable package. This is in addition to the regular Hulu offering.
Then there is Hulu Live TV which is like traditional cable. That gives you shows live and on demand that would usually come with a cable package. This is in addition to the regular Hulu offering.
>How is this not a false advertising lawsuit in the making?
Because it says "A few excluded shows play with ads." And its three shows out many hundreds.
Because it says "A few excluded shows play with ads." And its three shows out many hundreds.
This is why Hulu is a nonstarter for me. If I'm paying, no ads, period.
You won’t use Hulu because three shows have ads - Greys Anatomy, How to Get Away with Murder and Agents of Shield?
No, actually: because they started out as ad-only, then added paid subscriptions while still forcing their subscribers to watch ads, and that is when I decided it was not for me. Maybe they've been evolving in a more positive direction if there are only a few shows left with ads?
They've had an ad free* version for years. Six dollars extra and you don't get ads.
*Three shows still have ads since they signed a deal before they released an ad free tier, and the only alternative would removing those three shows from the ad free tier, which is lose-lose.
*Three shows still have ads since they signed a deal before they released an ad free tier, and the only alternative would removing those three shows from the ad free tier, which is lose-lose.
Pretty sure those are the shows they were legally obliged to show with ads when they launched the no-ads feature.
we actually split Hulu with a friend. we pay the difference between basic and no-ads. it's an auto payment from bank account to bank account every month. life on autopilot.
I think they are bound to. You don’t think as soon as Disney can they aren’t going to start showing ads for everything Disney related?
The worst step back to me from TV -> streaming -> streaming becoming more TV like is content release schedules. The Mandalorian on Disney Plus was a great example, you have all the episodes ready and there isn’t a good reason to keep them sitting behind a time gate. I would be much more likely to subscribe for a month to watch a show in a week than I would be to subscribe for a few months to few one show. Instead you get none of my money
The worst step back to me from TV -> streaming -> streaming becoming more TV like is content release schedules. The Mandalorian on Disney Plus was a great example, you have all the episodes ready and there isn’t a good reason to keep them sitting behind a time gate. I would be much more likely to subscribe for a month to watch a show in a week than I would be to subscribe for a few months to few one show. Instead you get none of my money
Catering to the customers least interested in keeping the service isn't a great business strategy. Those who do only want to pay for one month to watch the whole show still have the option of subscribing during the last month of airing. Or any time after that.
For sure. It’s one of those things that my use case is probably a very, very small percent of users but it would be nice to be a bit more viewer friendly from that point of view. Right now since they have limited new content it feels like they are stretching them to keep subscribers as long as possible.
That's 100% what they're doing. I imagine most their money is in people who aren't re-evaluating the subscription month to month, and just need some drip of new content to keep justifying inertia.
I think the difference is that the infrastructure is decoupled from the content now. Cable systems and satellite fleets were both traditionally very high barriers for new competitors to overcome. Granted, consolidated media oligopolies may get us to the same place a different way.
For every shitty experience, there is a market opportunity.
(I hope. There hasn't been much of a market for privacy)
(I hope. There hasn't been much of a market for privacy)
HBO also demands a higher fee than something like HGTV or A&E. The one that kills me is ESPN. It is the most expensive channel for a cable operator to carry, and it is also known as a must carry.
HBO is completely different than ESPN. You can choose to pay for HBO. You can’t choose to exclude ESPN.
ESPN (and consequently sports teams and their players) are about to find out how less valuable they are I think. There are so many options for entertainment that I doubt they will be able to command the wide audience they used to.
Selling ads globally seems like it's more expensive, unless you automate it like Google etc do, so they'd rather stick to just having subscriptions and be considered premium content.
> HBO demonstrates that it’s still an open question.
What do you mean? Is HBO or HBO Go adding commercials?
What do you mean? Is HBO or HBO Go adding commercials?
They're not selling ads, but they do run a 15-30 second spot before each episode advertising one of their own shows. That doesn't really bother me for now, but it seems like a slippery slope towards showing two spots, or three, or selling those spots to other advertisers.
Side note, with all of the streaming subscriptions I have, I'm probably not saving any money compared to when I had traditional cable, but there are fewer commercials and the content is so much better.
Side note, with all of the streaming subscriptions I have, I'm probably not saving any money compared to when I had traditional cable, but there are fewer commercials and the content is so much better.
I assume he means that because HBO does not show ads, it is an open question of whether Netflix would try.
Personally, I will not subscribe to services that show commercials. Commercials are for free services, not for paid services. As soon as you allow them to cross that boundary....
Personally, I will not subscribe to services that show commercials. Commercials are for free services, not for paid services. As soon as you allow them to cross that boundary....
I feel the same way, but not everyone does.
With that in mind I was wondering which Hulu plan was most popular. All I could find was the same widely syndicated Reuters article [1] from January 2019 calling the plan with ads "Hulu's most popular plan". I guess there is a market for streaming with ads.
1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hulu-prices/hulu-cuts-pri...
With that in mind I was wondering which Hulu plan was most popular. All I could find was the same widely syndicated Reuters article [1] from January 2019 calling the plan with ads "Hulu's most popular plan". I guess there is a market for streaming with ads.
1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hulu-prices/hulu-cuts-pri...
The market is big enough for ad-free options.
HBO built a business providing ad-free TV entertainment. The Economist built a business selling ad-free news periodicals. YouTube provides a paid ad-free option.
You could look at the Web and say “it’s littered with ads” or you could look at the Web and say “it’s the largest collection of free information on the planet.”
HBO built a business providing ad-free TV entertainment. The Economist built a business selling ad-free news periodicals. YouTube provides a paid ad-free option.
You could look at the Web and say “it’s littered with ads” or you could look at the Web and say “it’s the largest collection of free information on the planet.”
> YouTube provides a paid ad-free option.
It's an "ad-free", with a large disclaimer under asterisk.
> you could look at the Web and say “it’s the largest collection of free information on the planet.”*
Or you could look at the way advertising influences curation of information, and how the viability of ad-based business models mean there's incentive to create sites with things that promise, but not deliver, information. You could look at that and say that the Internet is the largest collection of free disinformation on the planet. Most places that give reliable information do not show or involve themselves with advertising.
It's an "ad-free", with a large disclaimer under asterisk.
> you could look at the Web and say “it’s the largest collection of free information on the planet.”*
Or you could look at the way advertising influences curation of information, and how the viability of ad-based business models mean there's incentive to create sites with things that promise, but not deliver, information. You could look at that and say that the Internet is the largest collection of free disinformation on the planet. Most places that give reliable information do not show or involve themselves with advertising.
I have a different perspective and experience.
Ads have enabled me to access information at little to no cost to me. Ads enable us to search the Internet.
I learned to exercise, eat healthy, and much more from watching YouTube. I’ve learned a lot from newspapers and blogs. I’ve learned a lot from people on Twitter. Do I enjoy advertising? No, usually not. But from my perspective it’s a win-win. Companies promote their products and I get to read things for free.
Look on the bright side.
Ads have enabled me to access information at little to no cost to me. Ads enable us to search the Internet.
I learned to exercise, eat healthy, and much more from watching YouTube. I’ve learned a lot from newspapers and blogs. I’ve learned a lot from people on Twitter. Do I enjoy advertising? No, usually not. But from my perspective it’s a win-win. Companies promote their products and I get to read things for free.
Look on the bright side.
They crossed the line for me. Someone wiser than me said they'll put as many ads as we will tolerate.
Imagine that when "Star Trek" was originally airing, the episodes could be 50 minutes long to allow for commercials in a 60 minute slot.
By the time Star Trek was in reruns in the 80's they were cutting a few minutes here and there to allow for the longer commercial time.
By the time the cable Sci-Fi (or was it Sy-Fy yet?) aired them "un cut" they had to put them into a 90 minute slot.
Sometime before the latter example, I ended up cutting the cord: stopped paying for television. You have to decide where the line is for you and act.
Imagine that when "Star Trek" was originally airing, the episodes could be 50 minutes long to allow for commercials in a 60 minute slot.
By the time Star Trek was in reruns in the 80's they were cutting a few minutes here and there to allow for the longer commercial time.
By the time the cable Sci-Fi (or was it Sy-Fy yet?) aired them "un cut" they had to put them into a 90 minute slot.
Sometime before the latter example, I ended up cutting the cord: stopped paying for television. You have to decide where the line is for you and act.
It's like a creeping cancer that cannot be stopped.
Back around 1981, advertisers would take a certain percentage of ad pages in each newspaper or magazine and consider it a reasonable deal. These days, they absolutely will not accept this unless they get a lot more space, obnoxious animations, force-play videos, and overlays that you have to click through, and often various registration walls, cross-site tracking, etc.
They have only themselves to blame for ad blocking. With ML, eventually this will become pervasive, even into the physical world. (My VR goggles will gray out billboards, etc.)
Back around 1981, advertisers would take a certain percentage of ad pages in each newspaper or magazine and consider it a reasonable deal. These days, they absolutely will not accept this unless they get a lot more space, obnoxious animations, force-play videos, and overlays that you have to click through, and often various registration walls, cross-site tracking, etc.
They have only themselves to blame for ad blocking. With ML, eventually this will become pervasive, even into the physical world. (My VR goggles will gray out billboards, etc.)
The only reason you can block ads on the web is because there was a small window where the idealistic academics that built the internet and the web were able to keep commercial interests out so they were able to use open universal protocols. The same will not be true for VR.
It’s already not true on mobile generally. No view source, no extensions, no user injected scripts. You get the page the server wants you to see.
Android: firefox for android, or the plethora of adblock browsers out there
iOS: adblockers are natively supported through "content blockers", plus there's a plethora of adblock browsers
iOS: adblockers are natively supported through "content blockers", plus there's a plethora of adblock browsers
But not possible in native apps which have largely supplanted the use of web pages.
Users can still choose not to install native apps. For as long as the web remains free, I’ll happily support newspapers, magazines, YT Premium and Patreon with my dollars, while absolutely not using the apps with ads in them, in favour of using 3 different content blocking extensions in Safari, and Strict privacy mode in Edge with uBlock Origin on desktop.
That said, because ads are inserted by third parties, you can often block ads with DNS and/or VPN. It’s a shame that iOS has never allowed changing the DNS while on mobile networks, though.
Really though, I miss when we were building open standards for content though, like RSS and podcasts.
Feels like a different era of the Internet, as we never saw an open standard take off for ChromeCast/AirPlay2 or the mentioned-on-stage open standards for FaceTime. Even the RIAA is trying to lock down music again by promoting MQA (Tidal) over FLAC (HDtracks, Amazon).
Closest thing to “open” that I can think of recently for content would be HLS streaming, which optionally supports encryption, but is otherwise open to use or implement.
Given recent history, I think it could go either way, but I doubt users will ever fully accept a closed web, so as long as the web provides open alternatives on every platform, we’ll still be in the clear... for now. :)
That said, because ads are inserted by third parties, you can often block ads with DNS and/or VPN. It’s a shame that iOS has never allowed changing the DNS while on mobile networks, though.
Really though, I miss when we were building open standards for content though, like RSS and podcasts.
Feels like a different era of the Internet, as we never saw an open standard take off for ChromeCast/AirPlay2 or the mentioned-on-stage open standards for FaceTime. Even the RIAA is trying to lock down music again by promoting MQA (Tidal) over FLAC (HDtracks, Amazon).
Closest thing to “open” that I can think of recently for content would be HLS streaming, which optionally supports encryption, but is otherwise open to use or implement.
Given recent history, I think it could go either way, but I doubt users will ever fully accept a closed web, so as long as the web provides open alternatives on every platform, we’ll still be in the clear... for now. :)
As long as websites continue letting you access them on mobile without the app…
A lot of them try really hard not to. A reason for the "show desktop-version" setting's popularity. It's really sad that this has to be a thing, and doesen't really remedy the situation, more like a bandaid.
I wish Request Desktop Site would also fake a larger viewport width, maybe 1024px or so.
Without that, it’s becoming increasingly less useful IMO.
Without that, it’s becoming increasingly less useful IMO.
When I need fake desktop width I tend to use iCab. I suppose you could accomplish something similar with a Shortcut injecting/changing HTML using JS.
On Android there are options such as the open source Blokada [1] that abuse the VPN features to block ads in all apps.
[1] https://blokada.org/
[1] https://blokada.org/
DNS level adblocking is possible untill DNS over HTTPS becomes the standard.
> or the plethora of adblock browsers out there
I use Brave, is there another someone likes more?
I use Brave, is there another someone likes more?
I use Kiwi browser, which supports all chrome extensions.
Firefox on Android at least gives you add-ons (hello, uBlock Origin).
Or DNS66 to do it for mostly everywhere in Android.
The only reason that's possible is because of open web standards though so the point still stands.
The only reason that's possible is because of open web standards though so the point still stands.
This largely only really true on Android. iOS at least lets you install content blockers that work with Safari as well as any embedded web browsers within apps. The only place I typically see ads on iOS is in free to play games, and in those cases that's usually a pretty good incentive to play something else.
Somehow people will find a way. If we can't have a universal browser, maybe the answer is to make a browser for every web service. We can make custom apps that pretend to be the official ones while interfacing with the company's servers.
Whatever it takes to maintain control.
Whatever it takes to maintain control.
Does anyone really have the time and motivation? It seems like so far there aren't any alternative clients (basic web wrappers don't count) for services that need it the most - think WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, etc?
> Does anyone really have the time and motivation?
I don't know if anyone has tried. It's definitely possible, though.
I used to play some of those predatory mobile games. At some point I got sick of their addictive "daily tasks" game design and decided to automate all of it. I intercepted the game's network traffic: it was just JSON. Didn't take long to write software to talk to the server and do the tasks for me.
Any code that's running on the client can be tampered with or replaced. It's probably not going to be easy but it's certainly possible.
> WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram
WhatsApp is already among the best messaging services. It doesn't really do anything that would motivate people to replace it with something better. Having custom software which lacks the remote message deletion feature would be interesting but it would be too much work for too little gain.
I don't use Facebook and Instagram enough to have an opinion.
I don't know if anyone has tried. It's definitely possible, though.
I used to play some of those predatory mobile games. At some point I got sick of their addictive "daily tasks" game design and decided to automate all of it. I intercepted the game's network traffic: it was just JSON. Didn't take long to write software to talk to the server and do the tasks for me.
Any code that's running on the client can be tampered with or replaced. It's probably not going to be easy but it's certainly possible.
> WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram
WhatsApp is already among the best messaging services. It doesn't really do anything that would motivate people to replace it with something better. Having custom software which lacks the remote message deletion feature would be interesting but it would be too much work for too little gain.
I don't use Facebook and Instagram enough to have an opinion.
On the upside, some content of independent authors is largely supported via avenues like Patreon and tips, not ads.
Most of the websites I produce do not have ads on them. I don't make much money, but I do make some and it's better than it used to be. I'm hopeful that there will be more of a trend towards small content producers making enough to survive and we can begin to crowd out the "cancer" that is some of the worst commercialized stuff.
It doesn't have to go away completely. We can just refuse to let it choke everything.
Most of the websites I produce do not have ads on them. I don't make much money, but I do make some and it's better than it used to be. I'm hopeful that there will be more of a trend towards small content producers making enough to survive and we can begin to crowd out the "cancer" that is some of the worst commercialized stuff.
It doesn't have to go away completely. We can just refuse to let it choke everything.
You can view source with Firefox on Android. You can also use add-ons to block ads. I haven't tried anything like GreaseMonley for userscripts though.
Safari has robust ad-blocking support built in and good ad blockers even have inspectors to let you block custom elements.
A glimpse of the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
Are you sure? I will have VR (AR?) googles with a camera that sees what my head points at, processes the video graying out ads, and shows it to me on my screens. Not sure commercial interests can prevent this product.
Plugin to overlay ad areas with They Live / Barbara Kruger style positive messages. “smile” “breathe” “relax”
Go full They Live and just replace every ad with "Consume"
And replace people with aliens.
Totally agree. Bromite is a patched chrome with privacy enhancements and ad blocking. It used to provide a system webview engine that allowed all that for apps's integrated webviews... So its technically possible but Google doesnt like that feature
https://github.com/bromite/bromite/wiki/Installing-SystemWeb...
https://github.com/bromite/bromite/wiki/Installing-SystemWeb...
It's only a matter of time until sites are rendering ads and content via websockets and wasm.
If it runs client side there’s an ability somewhere to control it.
WebAssembly is also trying to close that small window in the web.
no hope for open source?
> (My VR goggles will gray out billboards, etc.)
I think it'll be the exact opposite. I think the Black Mirror episodes are closer to what will be in our (not too distant) future. The content will track your gaze, and if you are not looking at the ad, then measures will be taken to get your attention back to where "it should be".
I think it'll be the exact opposite. I think the Black Mirror episodes are closer to what will be in our (not too distant) future. The content will track your gaze, and if you are not looking at the ad, then measures will be taken to get your attention back to where "it should be".
>then measures will be taken to get your attention back to where "it should be".
Please drink verification can.
Please drink verification can.
The measures depicted in Black Mirror are straight up torture. Loud noise to punish people who refuse to look at advertisements? That level of abuse should be cause for violent resistance.
Doubtful the sheeple would resist. That would take too much effort. It's just easier to watch the commercial.
Wasn't there one that just paused the video, and would not continue until you watched the ad? The advertisers have to crawl before they can run. But if they had their way, loud noises would not be beyond their acceptable measures. I mean, they did spend all of that money producing the ad, so the least you can do is watch it.
Wasn't there one that just paused the video, and would not continue until you watched the ad? The advertisers have to crawl before they can run. But if they had their way, loud noises would not be beyond their acceptable measures. I mean, they did spend all of that money producing the ad, so the least you can do is watch it.
> Doubtful the sheeple would resist. That would take too much effort. It's just easier to watch the commercial.
No, neo-Luddites will. If they aren't successful later generations will eventually forget how it was to not have coercive ads, so they won't have the same visceral response to the indignities they cause. Sort of like what happened with the market system.
No, neo-Luddites will. If they aren't successful later generations will eventually forget how it was to not have coercive ads, so they won't have the same visceral response to the indignities they cause. Sort of like what happened with the market system.
> My VR goggles will gray out billboards
Only if the billboard doesn't qualify for "acceptable billboard ads" (or you could jailbreak and run a different billboard blocker like a rebel)
Only if the billboard doesn't qualify for "acceptable billboard ads" (or you could jailbreak and run a different billboard blocker like a rebel)
> With ML, eventually this will become pervasive, even into the physical world. (My VR goggles will gray out billboards, etc.)
Will your glasses grey out James Bond's Aston Martin in Goldfinger?
Will your glasses grey out James Bond's Aston Martin in Goldfinger?
Not really necessary unless Bond’s current fling proclaims “This is a truly astonishing automobile, James. From which dealer is it available, and are there any current incentives?”
If only advertising was so opaque.
With style transfer improving a bit they can make it any brand ;P
No, because it will be smart enough to know that I enjoy seeing that.
This is the real dystopia. Ever talk to the adtech experts? The question they ask is how can we display the ads that people will enjoy seeing the most? Hence Instagram is effectively all ads.
I'm willing to try that. So far, I only see ads I hate.
What ever happened to gold like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcWPusAmaWI
What ever happened to gold like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcWPusAmaWI
Those are just the ads you recognize. How many ads do you see in a day that you don't even recognize as ads because they're not obvious or obtrusive, they just subtly bring your attention to a product that you never would have thought or cared about without it. Quiet product placement, ads disguised as news, fluff science sponsored by corporations, then there's those big companies that create lifestyles around their brand and people become so entrenched in that company's products, they don't even think about the fact they've never even considered an alternative.
> It's like a creeping cancer that cannot be stopped
Billboards are heavily regulated and sparse in New Zealand. It can be stopped, but it takes willpower and hard work.
Billboards are heavily regulated and sparse in New Zealand. It can be stopped, but it takes willpower and hard work.
And a culture that has less respect for private property, for better or for worse. 4 states ban billboards fwiw
The use of your private property should not impede someone else's ability to use theirs. I don't think building airhorns is allowed either, because it really affects others. Or how you can't just build a kilometer high mirror setup that burns your neighborhood down
As desperately as much as I'd like there to be a compelling VR experience equivalent to 2d internet we have today there just isn't one. VR seems to be the exclusive domain of games. I can't imagine Facebook's Oculus graying out billboards unless it's to replace someone else's advertisement with their own.
I would guess that VR googles that can gray out billboards, etc will likely first get used by governments to keep people from seeing protests. What would previously have been anti-government protestors will be changed by the googles to show them holding pro- government placards. Police brutality will be censored by the goggles. You will get in huge trouble if you go outside without your goggles.
There is no global schedule of programming any more, so there is room to have tiers with and without ads.
So maybe it’s more like “Netflix with special offers”
So maybe it’s more like “Netflix with special offers”
"30-minute toy-store shows." Which arrived in 1984.
This promise did not age well:
>“We won't break programming at awkward times,'' promises Dick Cox, president of CBS Cable,
>“We won't break programming at awkward times,'' promises Dick Cox, president of CBS Cable,
What a name to have
> ''Propaganda masquerading as information'' is the reaction of Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children's Television, to such proposed programs. Unless there are sufficient safeguards, viewers - especially children - may find it difficult to distinguish between the program and the advertisement, says Mrs. Charren, raising the specter of ''30-minute toy-store shows.''
It's interesting how a generation raised in war (WWII, Vietnam) was very sensitive to propaganda and how it influenced their children. Whereas today, propaganda is spread on TV networks, the internet, and other news sources and yet very few people stop and ask what the intent of the source of information is.
It's interesting how a generation raised in war (WWII, Vietnam) was very sensitive to propaganda and how it influenced their children. Whereas today, propaganda is spread on TV networks, the internet, and other news sources and yet very few people stop and ask what the intent of the source of information is.
Funny how far things have gone. "Basic cable" had ads, but it was "free," as in included with your base-level subscription. But then basic-cable channels like MTV decided to try to charge for their viewership, AND have commercials. So now you're supposed to PAY to watch commercials.
But let's face it: The stupidity of the public seems to have no bottom. Look what Apple gets away with.
But let's face it: The stupidity of the public seems to have no bottom. Look what Apple gets away with.
I worked in b2b publishing for a while. Magazines are just ad delivery systems so they need to sell ads. But ad buyers need to sell their product too and and their job is to buy ads. They can’t go back at the end of the year and tell their boss “look at all the money I saved by not advertising“.
I don’t understand why people pay upwards of $200 a month for a television service that plays ads every three minutes
[deleted]
You can forgive broadcast TV - someone had money to spend and wanted to hawk floor wax to the ethos excessively. But lets look at YouTube for example - their algorithms are supposed to be so sophisticated but I’m outside every desirable demographic except maybe not dead, I don’t impulse buy, I don’t have any wax able floors, if I did I would switch apartments before waxing them, and I downvote, skip, or just kill the youtube app every time I see a commercial. I should be number one in the lost cause file, but instead they keep showing me the same stuff that I’ve already downloaded, skipped, stopped transferring countless times. How do you explain that in the era of machine learning and no holds barred privacy invasion?