They ruined any trust between advertisers and consumers through deceptive, bad faith tactics, and reduced the entire equation to pure game theory. If an advertiser can figure out how to get their ad copy past my sophisticated filtering attempts and get into my mind in a memorable way, then more power to them. Otherwise they don't have any "right" to exist and make money off stealing my time and resources, both mental and compute.
I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
101–110 of 192 posts
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cable television being another completely obvious one, you literally pay to be advertised to, and for the ability to fast forward through ads.
Public media and TV in Europe, including the one with the largest budget on the entire planet - German, play and display ads even though are sponsored from compulsory per-household fees.
Wow, higher than bbc.
What's more annoying is adverts are a mere 7% of income, yet make it unwatchable.
So lucky in the UK.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until screens get cheap enough... you'll have 4k ads rolling on each screen that are tailored from your name in your ticket.
This already happens on Air Canada (although at least the ads are not personalized). Before each movie or show you play on your IFE screen in economy class, they make you watch two 30 seconds ads. I was very annoyed, especially since AC tickets are already overpriced (little/no competition on domestic flights in Canada).
Air Canada IFE pro tip:
You can skip the ads. Just scrub ahead.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#104I want to know, how much does it truly cost for the same content without ads. What would the actual pricetag be, if we built in the overhead added by advertising and marketing into the fee for the product or service itself?
Peanuts. I don't subscribe to sky tv in the uk for £30 a month because they also get £5 a month extra from 30% of the time showing ads.
The same subscription with out adverts would be £35 a month, basically the same price.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#105[deleted]
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#106I want to know, how much does it truly cost for the same content without ads. What would the actual pricetag be, if we built in the overhead added by advertising and marketing into the fee for the product or service itself?
The content itself doesn't cont much but that isn't what people are after. Most of the budget goes towards branding to build trust in the content. That is what you are really paying for - the feeling that your sources are credible.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#107I pay for Ars Technica, definitely wouldn’t if paying didn’t disable the ads.
The articles are ads.
Eg. https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/1051475468199833600
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passengers in airline seats seem to make advertisers drool as you can't get much more of a captive audience and for that long in nearly any other situation. I know for a fact, this is all coming and has already started, and is going to get even more invasive.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the security theatre before boarding and advertisement brainwash after getting to the seats would start to provoke fury sprees among some at least passengers.
Don't worry, they'll be monitoring your sentiment during boarding and passengers that appear agitated will be calmly denied access to board. And you'll be monitored in your seat as well during the flight.
It's not Orwell's imagination anymore, it's reality. Only privacy law can stop it, maybe.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cable television being another completely obvious one, you literally pay to be advertised to, and for the ability to fast forward through ads.
Public media and TV in Europe, including the one with the largest budget on the entire planet - German, play and display ads even though are sponsored from compulsory per-household fees.
Is this actually a market inefficiency? Maybe this is an opportunity to discover how humanity can still make information known about products and services without having to make our entire cultures about consumption.
I mean, advertising is about information sharing in a way. Can it be more efficient without clobbering art and media?
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if Ferraris sold here have this, but many cars sold in Poland have licence plate frame with dealer's name and contact even though you have no agreement with them to advertise their company when you're buying new car. For some (Mitsubishi iirc) they put some kind of semi translucent sticker on your trunk with dealer's name about 2 x 3 inches.
I never understood those. Why almost everyone has an ad on their license plate frames? 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.
Don't you pay for license plates in the US? It was 30 euros last I did that.