I pay for nyt. They still played annoying video ads. So I removed their app; I access it via Firefox.
I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
121–130 of 192 posts
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you ever notice that your in-flight magazine has ads? Yes. And on a recent trip to India, it got even worse. SpiceJet (domestic airlines) has ads on the back of the headrest of EVERY SEAT. Physical paper printed Ads! So you are staring at it for the entirety of your trip. I kid you not.
Ads on the back of he seat in an airplane are very common in European airlines. One of the most obnoxious, intrusive, literally in-your-face ads as it’s 40cm from one’s face with no real option to get away from it.
At least you can still close your eyes...
...and that's what I usually do when I fly --- sleep. I've found it to be the best way to make the time pass quickly.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Ads are less about "information sharing" and more about manipulation though.
If I think about "information sharing", I'd imagine that the information is the thing of value to be shared and the goal is to enable the recipient to perform their own decisions with and increased base of background information.
However, ads work the other way around: You start with certainly outcomes that you would potential customers arrive at in their decisions and then think which information you can deliver to them to reach that outcome.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can pretty much make this argument for everything - Ferraris should be plastered by LCDs with ads then. Business class airplanes filled with blinking video ads. Entrances to highend butiques crowded with people pushing ad leaflets into rich peoples hands.... Why is it acceptable on the web?
Ferraris are plastered with ads https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_SF71H#/media/File%3A...
You can't buy that car. It's not a Ferrari product.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#126Hulu, to me, has the perfect model: limited content for free, full content with ads for a subscription fee, full content with no ads for a (slightly) higher subscription fee.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#127If you're a subscriber, you're the most valuable advertising target. You've shown a willingness to pay for stuff on the internet. Furthermore, advertisers are targeting people who read those publications regularly. Subscribers are those people. If you wanted an ad-free subscription, it would cost substantially more than you currently pay to made up for the lost advertising revenue.
>If you're a subscriber, you're the most valuable advertising target
Back in the 90s my dad used to buy shit from mail order catalogs. The volume and variety of catalogs he got in return was obscene. Seemingly every day he'd get a new catalog for something.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
OP means the license plate frame.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#129This seems to be a re-occuring pattern: have ads on a free/cheap service, introduce a paid service, place ads on the paid service, then hope if you hold out long enough people will forget there was a time when your paid service was ad free. Prime example: Cable tv https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
Newspapers and magazines have always included ads along with the subscription price. Difference is more that online ads are way more trashy and distracting and terrible for privacy so there’s more reason for pushback.
Re: I Pay for News; Why Do I Still See Intrusive Ads? (2017)
#130Earlier 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.
I hope you didn't post this from your home IP.