Which is interesting because that is the environment where paid ads have the least structural advantage.
My take is that no matter what people say they prefer to subsidize their content by viewing ads over actually paying the equitable price for it.
My take is that no matter what people say they prefer to subsidize their content by viewing ads over actually paying the equitable price for it.
I don't have a problem with tv ads for shampoo that I won't ever buy. I do have a problem with a web page that surrounds a legit news article with bizarre ads with cockimamy health claims, and links that don't go where they claim to go.
If a website says, "Pay up or look at these 'spider veins' ads" that's entitlement, arrogance and open contempt. That's not treating me like a desired customer.
The problems are:
- Your definition of 'equitable price' when we live in a time where no single human can digest across their lifetime even a single year's worth of the glut created.
- The quality is universally garbage and as an information consumer you'd still have to spend your resources in thinking critically whether to accept and update your assessment of the information. If you're consuming 'content' as escapism well then you still might consider a more cost-effective route such as heroin or even direct neural stimulation.
- Consumers rightfully work out the long game plan of content creators. They'd like to not view ads but know that once you've climbed above the threshold of starving artist you'll get greedy and the ads will come right back. Always. No exception.
The market shows that advertisers are outbidding consumers who don’t want ads. That sets the equitable price, not the desire of the consumer.