But that method, while ensuring I see at least a couple seconds of the ads and making things virtually un-skippable, doesn't make Google as much money as targeted ads which somehow always end up being the one with the guy dressed in yellow talking to an emu. I would only be able to skip them by physically reaching over to my computer and skipping them, just like in the TV/TiVo days. If Google wanted to, they can embed ads directly into videos. ![]() Then came along people who created tools to keep my computer from downloading things I don't want. In the old days, these redirects would go to an ad server that had such limited bandwidth that the ad would freeze and I would just have to sit there for minutes for the ad to finish stuttering. Google wants to make money by forcing my computer to download something I didn't ask for and explicitly don't want. They were making more money than God before the change, and now slightly more after the change.Īnd it's not for me to dictate how a company makes money. It wasn't hurting prior to this change in ad blocking policy and it isn't hurting now. All creators I've followed have been demonitized at one time or another. Google regularly cons their own creators by leading them to make video creation into a job, then demonitizing them (essentially firing them) at the drop of a hat. As the internet grew up, it got taken over by investors and other money-people so now, in addition to the creators, you have grifters and con-artists trying to make money via ad servers. Creative people look for ways of displaying their creations, be it writing or video or photo, programming. I've seen the internet grow up through the late 90s-early 00s. An ad agency within Youtube could help set up creators with sponsors to show embedded in their videos. Youtube could understand that it's about people who want to show off their video projects and sell their servers space directly to the creators. ![]() See the sponsored ads embedded in many videos on youtube (in addition to the youtube ad server-served ads). There are other ways of making money as well. Anyone remember shareware? Most news sites work this way now. Most of the internet was like this prior to embedding ad servers into everything. There is the old freeware or "freemium" method, for one. In a world where everyone had ad blockers and the only exchange on the internet was cash money, what other changes would you envision?įor this, you can look at history. You pretend one part of the world changes while other parts of the world are forced to stay static. This is a common fallacy I see in this thread. Ironic considering the subject we're talking about. Conditioning people to be "willing" to accept manipulation on levels they don't even understand in return for free or lower cost products, again IMO, has to have costs. Along the lines of privatize gains, socialize losses. I don't believe the two models can co-exist.Īdditionally, the cost of watching ads is an unknown, but IMO there's a cost being subsidized by the public for this. ![]() Then if you don't pay for it, they turn it around and say there's no interest in premium subscriptions. If you pay for it, then they're incentivized to increase the price because it shows you were willing to pay X amount so whats X amount + a little more, and they're incentivized to do so because they'll reason that if you weren't paying, you would be watching ads which is higher margin, so you're costing them money. It could be, or maybe it's not, there's no way to know. ![]() This also has the effect of making it so you can't just "pretend their free/ad-supported services don't exist" and just subscribe to their premium version, because it shows the pricing for their premium version isn't necessarily fairly priced. Iger told analysts on a conference call.Īnd all the other streaming services have been doing the same thing. “We’re obviously trying with our pricing strategy to migrate more subs to the advertiser-supported tier,” Mr. The ad-supported options for both Disney+ and Hulu will remain the same, at $8. Recently it's just been one quarterly report after another talking about how great the margins are for the ad-supported users, and how they're increasing prices for premium subscriptions to encourage more ad-supported subscriptions.įor example there was this one a few months back In a way it does for me (I'm also not the person you replied to), because as we've seen with streaming services, they're constantly comparing their premium subscription services to revenue from ad-supported subscriptions. Then the question becomes, does it bother you that people who don't pay for YouTube can still access it for free by watching ads?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |