What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

I'm sure they already know this, but here's something to think about: Advertisers will pay far less for ads that can only be seen by users who couldn't afford the $15 to hide them.

The users who saved their $15 can't afford (or won't pay for) as much stuff.

Re: What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

#5

Post by bryanjclark » Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 5:54 AM UTC

"it’s pretty cool that Amazon is joining companies like Pandora, Spotify, and Zynga who give the power to choose back to their customers."

Zynga? Giving "choice" back to their customers? I'd say that's a stretch.

Re: What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

#6

Post by mopoke » Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 5:55 AM UTC

But a lot (most?) cable/satellite stations show ads. So I'm paying for the content with my wallet AND paying by sitting through ads.

Re: What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

#7

Post by donaldc » Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 6:07 AM UTC

The point the article makes, that you can't get things for free, seems more appropriate to the online website examples it uses than to the Kindle Fire about which the article is ostensibly written. Unless I'm mistaken, Amazon isn't giving away the Kindle Fire for free even in the version that includes ads.

Re: What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

#8

Post by tomjen3 » Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 6:15 AM UTC

All it means is that I won't buy a version of the kindle that comes with ads. If I pay for something, I won't accept ads. I no longer watch broadcast or cable tv for exactly this reason.

I am fine with ads for free services but death to you if want to be paid twice.

Re: What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

#9

Post by bromley » Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 6:22 AM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #4

I'm sure they already know this, but here's something to think about: Advertisers will pay far less for ads that can only be seen by users who couldn't afford the $15 to hide them. The users who saved their $15 can't afford (or won't pay for) as much stuff.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. On the web, it's often the less savvy users that convert best in response to advertising. For example, a lot of money is made online selling payday loans, ringtone-related subscription-billing junk, and 'magic' tooth-whitening and weight-loss formulas. Ignorant, poor people are often the most easily monetized, and I'm guessing they're often the least likely to value their time enough to pay $15 to avoid ads.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as straightforward as you indicated.

Re: What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

#10

Post by nodata » Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 6:41 AM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #4

I'm sure they already know this, but here's something to think about: Advertisers will pay far less for ads that can only be seen by users who couldn't afford the $15 to hide them. The users who saved their $15 can't afford (or won't pay for) as much stuff.

That's lazy reasoning.

I know lots of people that have >$500 dollar phones, who refuse to spend any money on apps. They only install free apps - it doesn't matter if a one buck app will save them time or money, they want free apps and only free apps.