Couple of assertions made that I have trouble with:
> There are only two methods to compensate content producers:
> pay directly or get free content in exchange for ads.
Other than the assumption all content producers need financial compensation, there are evidently alternative methods out there.
The BBC and ABC (of the AU, not the US variety) are two examples. They are paid / subsidised by the respective populations. Users typically aren't subject to advertisements - low quality or otherwise, and which probably contributes to why the services are perceived as high value.
and:
> Advertising is a great model, but what is fundamentally
> wrong today is the implementation.
While the implementation is doubtless wrong, I'm unsure how we could demonstrate that 'advertising is a great model'.
So in terms of compensation I would argue that your example is just direct payment. Instead of attention-via-ads proxy, you're paying the publisher directly but in this case it's state owned. Even if it wasn't and was just funded by donations or taxes or whatever, it's still a direct transfer of currency from you as an end user to the content owner/producer.
The internet is a perfect demonstration of how advertising is a great model. It funds a lot of content and services (of tremendous value like Google, Facebook, etc) without costing the end user anything. Many people can only build the companies they do because advertising is viable, whether they're a media company or some other business.
It's also fast, anonymous, and egalitarian. Your wealth doesn't determine your access and there's no loss/refund issue if you consume content that you feel isn't valuable. I can't think of any other that model that comes close to that much freedom and flexibility.
It's not egalitarian. People who are tech savvy enough to use ad blockers are subsidised by the less technology literate. Those people are also the ones most likely to fall for the malware adverts which make up a huge proportion of online ads. Just about every software download site is full of ads with fake download buttons. Google searches for software often return ads leading to malware as the top result. That's all very lucrative for the scammers and ad networks and sites, but it's not egalitarian. It's a tax on ignorance and inexperience.
A lot of the people enjoying 'free content' on the internet are doing so only because that content was indirectly paid for by a 70 year old with a computer full of malware.
These are valid concerns but it's conflating the issues between advertising structure and the reality of the implementation as discussed.
The advertising model is egalitarian. Everyone, regardless of who they are, can see the same content as it's indirectly subsidized by advertising.
However as you've described, there are certain real-life issues. Users who block ads are at fault for, well, blocking ads and not taking part in the value exchange, skewing the business economics. Ad networks that run bad scammy ads are at fault for a lack of standards. Advertisers who spread malware are at fault for being criminals who want to infect users. These are all issues we face and are similar to any other industry where the ideal mechanics are affected by bad actors.
I absolutely agree that this is mainly brought about by the lack of standards, regulation and enforcement that has led to such a consumer backlash. However I dont believe that this is the end of advertising but rather a very good opportunity to finally force the change that's been sorely overdue.
Rather indirectly paid for by a preteen or teen with a lot of malware. There's a lot more of them than elderly people with computers. I host lanparties for my sons and their classmates. The things I've seen... Parents will assume the slow computer needs an upgrade (I.e. A new computer). Resulting in an unnecessary expense that could probably be quantified.
> And yes, nothing is completely "free" - I'm just arguing about monetary access. Ads means you're paying with attention which has it's own costs and externalities.
Just wrote that in another comment. For the mainstream audience of 3 billion people online, the monetary cost outweighs the rest.
Hmm, it sounds like a very indirect payment method to me -- I pay taxes here in AU, and abc.net.au exists. It's even more indirect for my usage of (for example) the bbc's web services, given that I pay neither UK taxes or TV licence.
Those services are funded in the same way that broadcast TV is funded.
It's also perhaps a smidge disingenuous to suggest there is no cost to the user for having advertising inflicted upon them. Hence the interest in ad blockers. Which I think is where we came in. : )
If you pay taxes - isn't that a direct debit of funds from you and eventually going straight to the publisher of that content? Broadcast TV is usually a combination of both taxes, donations and ads.
For the BBC, can you explain what you're referring to specifically? I know their site does run ads and their iplayer content is region locked to the UK so assuming non-circumvention processes, I'm not sure what you mean. Of course there is completely free access to content sometimes but this is usually because the publisher has the luxury of income from somewhere else, so that can explain the BBC situation for you and how I can read abc.net.au from the USA.
And yes, nothing is completely "free" - I'm just arguing about monetary access. Ads means you're paying with attention which has it's own costs and externalities.
That truth still doesn't mean nothing can be free. There are free things in the world, and there's a vested interest by some parties to convince people otherwise. If you sell things, you want to convince people that no free options exist.
The BBC and ABC (of the AU, not the US variety) are two examples. They are paid / subsidised by the respective populations. Users typically aren't subject to advertisements - low quality or otherwise, and which probably contributes to why the services are perceived as high value.
and:
While the implementation is doubtless wrong, I'm unsure how we could demonstrate that 'advertising is a great model'.