Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikb | Hacker News Reader

of course tv ads become more profitable with more of the proactive, thinking populace moving to more modern ways to consume like Netflix or Amazon. What's left is more and more the passive people that are more easily influenced by suggestions coming from ads.

This however is not a long term growth strategy. It's more like the last bump up before everything falls down. If I had a way to bet 6-7 digit amounts of money against tv I would do so right now.

View on HN

It's a bold claim that Netflix & Amazon customers are more proactive & 'thinking' than others. Or that TV viewers are more passive & more easily influenced.

The claim of 'influence' is probably worth exploring: How does advertising work? What does it mean to influence someone?

Do you remember the news that insurers found Hotmail users are more likely to get into auto accidents and raised their rates? Hotmail users are people who haven't bothered to a superior service for over 10 years. I would not be surprised if those same people still exclusively watch TV instead of streaming

All that the Hotmail story really highlighted was the reliance on inductive reasoning by actuaries. It also didn't make clear whether they had identified drivers who caused accidents or had been the victims of accidents. Insurers will penalise people who make claims regardless of fault.

It's not a particularly useful comparison for this situation.

Also when 'people who watch broadcast TV' represent an overwhelming majority, the suggestion that they're essentially a bit stupid is well... rather arrogant, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com