No more breaks from ad breaks.
  • brax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    7·
    2 days ago

    I will never understand how advertisements pay for things… Like who’s out there thinking “hell yeah, I really want to support this shit that’s interrupting everything I try to do every few minutes!” The stuff that people do buy that are advertised to them I always assumed were things they’d buy anyway like junk food and snacks.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      13 hours ago

      It’s a statistically measurable psychological win.

      1. You see it more, more aware

      2. If you only saw ads for GM trucks, you may go to a dealer that has all types but you know more and feel more comfortable with GM so you are more likely to get that instead

      3. There’s no such thing as bad press.

      • brax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        11 hours ago

        I see more and I become more aware, which leads me to do research on competing brands if it’s something I want.

        If I only saw ads for GM I’d wonder why they suck so much that they need to push so many ads for people to buy their vehicles. My comfort with a brand/product relies in the experience I’ve had with them along with word of mouth from friends and reviews for it.

        The world would be a much better place if everyone was autistic, probably lol

        • yeehaw@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          6 hours ago

          You say that, and I’m not disagreeing with you, but when I see the same tool for 1/8the the price direct from China I am skeptical of it’s as good.

          In my experience buying from China is hit and miss, I get some stuff that’s vastly better in quality for 1/4 the price. Other times I’ve been burned.

          Basically I guess what I’m trying to say, is this whole spending money in life is a song and a dance and trying to figure out what’s best for you and prices can’t be trusted.

    • ruby@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      because sadly, manipulation works. these companies spend millions on research on how to most effectively force this brain poison onto as many people as possible, they’d not be doing this if they didn’t see returns.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      13 hours ago

      I remember the first time I went to someone’s house where they watch YouTube to play music on their TV. Every few minutes I almost walked out with the ads. Omg. I don’t even do radio. Play the music and only the music.

      • SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zoneEnglish
        1·
        5 hours ago

        Despite setting up SmartTube for them, my parents still sometimes watch Free2Air TV. If you think YouTube is bad…jfc…try Aussie F2A TV.

        As for radio…I either listen to music on my USB stick or I play AM only stations (or occasionally, on a long drive, AntennaPod - gotta get that sweet Coast to Coast Art Bell on at 2am).

  • greyscale@lemmy.grey.oooEnglish
    372·
    3 days ago

    People aren’t stealing the content because why? Are people just stupid now? Its easier than it was in the 00s…

    • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      15·
      3 days ago

      ISPs have started getting more threatening about tormenting, though. Instead of sending threatening letters/emails that no one reads, some are now temporarily blocking service until you access a captive portal that makes you acknowledge the notice. Probably mostly because the media companies bought up most of the ISPs, in the US at least.

  • twinnie@feddit.ukEnglish
    251·
    3 days ago

    I’m paying for Disney+ ad free and they still show ads, they just have a skip button.

    • skankhunt42@lemmy.caEnglish
      2·
      3 days ago

      Wait, so you’re telling me not everyone has an active account on Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max. Hulu, amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, paramount+, Peacock, etc, etc etc

  • ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nlEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    I paid $23 for a year of YouTube premium from one of those key sites and 4 months in it’s still working. I’m not sure how that works, in my country YouTube premium is $28 per month. Was glad not to give google any money, wish it was free for everyone, and understand somewhere in there they’re getting paid. I just can’t stand when my kid or Grandma and Grandpa would come over and watch YouTube on TV. It was the only time ads would play in my house and I hated it.

    I’m able to get the standard TV shows and movies off Usenet and torrents, but some of the smaller YouTube channels I like were difficult to find.

    • remon@ani.socialEnglish
      71·
      3 days ago

      Why do you need premium though? Adblock works just fine on youtube.

    • danisth [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      $23/year sounds worth it to get rid of ads in the house, but if you ever get pushed out of that plan, it’s not too hard to set up a pi hole on your network to block ads on your tv.

      Personally I just screen mirror from my laptop with ad blocker if I want to show something on the tv, but my kids are young and I don’t let them pick what they watch at this point so it makes it easy.

  • cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8·
    3 days ago

    So what does this actually mean? What are advertisements? Like functionally what the singing frog are they doing? Why do the wealthy and their corporations want to do it so desperately?

    • Mordikan@kbin.earth
      5·
      3 days ago

      So, a lot of people will quote reports that ads don’t increase sales or anything, but that is technically wrong. It is wrong because they quote reports involving non-targeted advertisement which hasn’t been widely used for 10-15+ years (since the rise of programmatic). Everything is targeted. Heavily.

      These kind of ads are proven to increase sales and market share. So, that is why advertisers run them. The problem isn’t the advertisers/demand platforms though (they are actually on your side). The problem is publisher/supply groups and the inherent nature of greed in people.

      Example: Say I run a website. I make $X from running a banner ad at the top. Well, I have bills to pay, so I now run 2 ads. Well, why run 2 ads when I can run 5. Well, why run just 5 ads when I can put a video ad (higher CPM) floating to the side. Well, I have 6 ads on the site, why not make them refresh themselves every 5 seconds so they act as 12 ads. If I can keep them on the page long enough, I could make that 24 ads so let’s spread out the content (like recipe sites). Why contact 1 demand platform when I can contact 10.

      This is why websites suck and this is why they run like complete shit. It is to such a breaking point that advertisers implemented ads.txt files and schain verification systems. Advertisers don’t want to show you 3 ads for Tide back to back to back. They have limited budgets and are trying to reach as many people as possible for their new soap or whatever. If you have a budget of $200, do you want to show 1 ad to 200 people or 20 ads to 10 people? Advertisers are now even starting to run frequency checks to determine if a user has already been served to prevent that shit from happening. But publishers will send bid requests to 10 other demand platforms to get around that.

      TL;DR - Advertisers aren’t the bad guy, Publishers are.

      • TheFogan@programming.devEnglish
        4·
        3 days ago

        I mean in fairness, the models are the failures. Say you run a journalism site. You pay a good salary for the journalist, Then obviously they need researchers, maybe a legal expert to look over and make sure none of that opens you up to lawsuits etc… Then you’ve also got at least a bit of bandwidth etc…

        So now you’ve got to weigh your options of which evil you need to actually make all those payments. Untargetted ads aren’t even going to come close to breaking even. Everyone’s going to riot and boycott if you dare to paywall it. tracking and targetted ads are also evil of course.

        Now obviously there are some evils that decide "OK lets skip the research, lets let an AI write the articles, lets ramp up the tracking… and then talk about if we can feasibly use a paywall without losing everyone.

        But, even the most ethical company on earth has to make some choices, and there’s a pretty set amount of evils necessary just to break even, and the worse part is, bringing costs down is also a pretty big evil as, most of those costs are what make it worth reading at all.

        • delmain@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          I want to see something that works similar to (the way they claim) YouTube premium works.

          Get a bunch of these journalism sites together and use a single sign on that catches what I actually view and pays out my single $5-10/month rate to the sites that I visit based on proportionality.

          I realize that a privacy-focused community like this isn’t going to love the idea of some company tracking all the news/journalism sites they visit, but it really does seem (to me) like the best way to balance the fact that these journalists deserve to get paid and also the fact that I’m not going to give even $2/month to 20+ different sites, just because I refuse to keep track of all of those.

          I mean I guess there’s always things like Patreon if those sites want to offer a like, $1-2 tier for full access, but they don’t because they think their stuff is worth more.

        • Mordikan@kbin.earth
          3·
          3 days ago

          This raises a good question: If a website’s business model does not work and they do not even break even, should that company even exist? What purpose/content/utility is it providing that justifies it continuing?

          And that’s all websites. Even now the operating costs for this Lemmy instance and the Fediseer instance you are on and the Kbin instance I’m on is increasing just by us discussing this. Storage creep is a constant headache for the maintainers. It’s an ever increasing bill even with caching or offloading to S3 buckets or whatever.

          So, I totally get the needed evil idea and it’s not wrong.