So what does that mean? That we need to be shoved ads in our faces at every step of our life even if we pay for products? Just because someone wants to make even more money? What's your takeaway here?
The takeaway is that advertisers don't care what you think and do in fact believe that they should shove ads in your face every step of your life, even if you pay for a product.
Welcome to the world. Half the users of this site are actively perpetuating the corporate dystopia we inhabit.
I'm sure they'd start caring if everyone started blocking their ads instead of accepting them. Maybe one day we'll have augmented reality glasses with built in ad blockers; I wonder how they'd react to that.
Talking about advertisers, I think the main qualities we can credit them is grit and smarts.
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.
Assuming we have sufficient control over our augmented reality glasses. If someone like google, MS, facebook, etc corner the market then I'd expect them to insert ads into reality.
I don't have a "takeaway", but the Bezos quote, "Your margin is my opportunity," comes to mind. We live in capitalism, and in this system, "good user experience" only matters insofar as it is profitable for whoever is providing that user experience. If ads for subscribers are so annoying that people stop subscribing, then companies might stop advertising to them. But if they are not annoying enough to affect those numbers, then it isn't that surprising that they try to earn more revenue from their attention. One other way to look at this: perhaps by advertising to subscribers, these publishers can afford to offer a lower subscription cost to their customers. Let's also remember that most publishing companies don't have massive digital revenue scale or growth, compared especially to the big tech companies. And let's also remember that big tech companies like Amazon and Google monetize customers "on the side" six ways from Sunday.
I guess what you are responding to with outrage, I am responding to with a shrug.
It's true - most news and magazine publishing companies are in a place of desperation. The internet has impacted the legacy publishing revenue model so severely that there hasn't been any clear model to pivot to despite two decades of attempts. Many major publishers have folded, many more will fold, and those that survive will eek by on meager subscriber revenue (which isn't as robust or easy to come by as some may think) and increasingly obtrusive programmatic advertising.
> If ads for subscribers are so annoying that people stop subscribing, then companies might stop advertising to them.
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.
