The answer may not be pleasing, but it's true: because "paid subscribers" represent a valuable advertising demographic/segment. They are nearly certain you are human traffic, and you have enough disposable income that you pay for news.
Why is it acceptable on the web?
Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT.
Physical paper printed Ads!
So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.
You can skip the ads. Just scrub ahead.
Good thing you get to rate at the end of the trip, which would (hopefully) put a stop to that.
I know for a fact, this is all coming and has already started, and is going to get even more invasive.
It's not Orwell's imagination anymore, it's reality. Only privacy law can stop it, maybe.
Disappointing is that this is the more likely outcome, rather than easing the sensory overload, stress, and discomfort.
It’s an interesting balance but it always reminds me that flying through the sky in a tin can is not entirely natural.
Of course, some of the security measures are for your comfort and safety as well. It’s just where the line is between for your good and for theirs that is tough to identify.
Spirit actually sells ads on everything it seems, even on the exterior of the plane: https://skift.com/2014/03/11/spirit-airlines-brings-advertis...
They do, however, upsell you in person by making some hate-my-job contracted flight attendants go through the cabin no less than three times trying to sell various things to you.
There are some in the on board magazines I suppose, I don't read them though, why would I?
I assume this is an advert. There aren't any in business or first.
...and that's what I usually do when I fly --- sleep. I've found it to be the best way to make the time pass quickly.
Welcome to the world. Half the users of this site are actively perpetuating the corporate dystopia we inhabit.
Block their ads on the web ? you still have them on billboards if they’re local. They’ll mass DM whole regions if it makes economical sense. Your Netflix drama series will start mentionning them in passing. They’ll make ‘news’ pieces with a product CEO saving a baby chimpanzee that was not endangered in the first place.
You know they’ll find a way to your eyeballs by whatever mean, as long as it makes any sense to them.
I guess what you are responding to with outrage, I am responding to with a shrug.
It also matters if there is any actual competition that does tings better. Cable TV is having a bad time, in large part it is because of ads, but it is only happening because of the streaming services.
Airlines are a competitive service, but newspapers are not.
What's more annoying is adverts are a mere 7% of income, yet make it unwatchable.
So lucky in the UK.
I mean, advertising is about information sharing in a way. Can it be more efficient without clobbering art and media?
If I think about "information sharing", I'd imagine that the information is the thing of value to be shared and the goal is to enable the recipient to perform their own decisions with and increased base of background information.
However, ads work the other way around: You start with certainly outcomes that you would potential customers arrive at in their decisions and then think which information you can deliver to them to reach that outcome.
I know I'm way off in the weeds here, just brainstorming.
So maybe something like independently ran price comparison sites would work?
That's it. The ad just informed consumers about existence of a particular company and product, made it clear what the product is for, and listed its important qualities (especially differentiating from other similar products).
That's what you do when you actually care to inform, and not manipulate, customers. Since pretty much no ads are like this, I call bullshit when someone says advertising is important because it informs people.
Also I think Enzo Ferrari would argue that the F1 cars and team are the real Ferrari porduct. The road cars are just ads and merchandise for the race team. =P
TBF, the Ferrari IS the ad - for Ferrari and whatever aggregate-lifestyle-image you are promoting.
"Hey everyone, look at how I have succeeded to the point where I can drive car [X]"
Not that there is anything wrong with that, though.
For example - I like to wear the same hiker-couture gear everyday to feel comfortable, functional and good about myself appearance. I am an advertisement for my thinking and decision making capability.
It's acceptable because it's the only thing they offer.
One explanation I heard is that companies give them for free, so most people are happy to take them and don't bother with removing the ad.
After this point, customers don't have much reason to remove the plate or frame unless they really hate the ad, happen to be self-installing a rearview camera or are selling the car.
For free products online that have an ad model, it's the VC complex perpetuating that model heavily - where the money is available initially and to scale quickly (because it's an easy calculation). The mantra isn't just "Move fast and break things" but also seems to be "if I don't do it - someone else will get there first" as part of the desire to be first-to-market (by any means) as a means to reach/capture a few of the main defense mechanisms of economies of scale and network effects; you don't need defense mechanisms if you have a good product however, and have a reasonable cost structure - it sure will be more profitable in the short-term though, not sustainable however. Facebook, Cambridge Analytica et al, perhaps needed to happen to wake people up to understand the importance of accountability and of community, moderation, and such.
Why are you so certain that Ferrari doesn't remarket their buyers?
Not a Ferrari, but my mother got a discount on her Toyota Yaris by letting the car dealer put a decal ad on it for 1 or 2 years. (Back in 2002 or so.)
Eventually, you'll get sick, and die.