• DomeGuy@lemmy.world
    12·
    6 days ago

    A bit late to the party, but… well…

    If a streaming service has an ad-free tier, the ads shown aren’t really there to sell the things they advertise. Oh, sure, the buyer of the ad wants your money, but they didn’t pay a bunch to show you that ad and the revenue from the ad buy just has be “slightly higher than spam” to be worthwhile.

    "Ad-Supported’ tiers exist to differentiate the higher cost points. Which is why the ads frequently aren’t aligned with natural break points in the video. And why in some cases it’s the same two or three ads shown for every artificial and clumsy break.

    The ads you are seeing exist primarily as an advertisement for the ad-free tier.

    • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      6 days ago

      Sse Spotify for a proof of this concept. 99% of their ads are specifically to tell you about how cool it is to not have ads.

      Or at least they were. My wife’s been paying a long time i dont know what its doing now.

    • Damaskox@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 days ago

      Makes me think about the saying “We buy stuff we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like”

  • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
    7·
    7 days ago

    Nobody cares if you have money or not. It’s about reaching a lot of users and finding one’s that are willing to buy

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 days ago

      I have colleagues who are happy enough to see personalised ads. Sad as it may be, we live in Brave New World and people are happy to take soma.

        • Soggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          7 days ago

          Companies are stupid, which is why they do things like demand return-to-office even though employees are more productive on average working from home with less micromanagement. And they’re incredibly short-sighted.

        • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          7 days ago

          Sometimes even if the person seeing it doesn’t buy the product. Down the line if someone asks about something, that’s a product they’re likely to remember to respond with

        • Jhex@lemmy.world
          1·
          6 days ago

          stop drinking the koolaid… companies make mistakes and run themselves out of business all the time

  • razen@lemmy.world
    4·
    7 days ago

    Ads make people believe that you need the product and not wish to have it. They show it so much that the brain literally thinks that it is a need and has to be bought even if it takess you go in debt.

  • Hossenfeffer@feddit.ukEnglish
    4·
    7 days ago

    What you can, or cannot afford is irrelevant. You’re a pair of eyeballs and they’re paid for eyeballs.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    2·
    6 days ago

    If you aren’t buying premium, maybe you are instead saving money to buy some of the things that are advertised to you. I have plenty of disposable income and could probably buy some of the things I see in ads; I don’t like wasting money on things I don’t need, so I buy neither YT Premium nor most things that I see in ads.

    Also, if some of the things that are advertised to you are things you do occasionally need (like food), then your argument likewise doesn’t work.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    2·
    6 days ago

    What makes you think advertisers are selling to you? They are selling YOU to the next advertisers. As in, they are selling your data!

  • MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world
    3·
    7 days ago

    On the other hand, when the “product” is a F2P mobile game that also sustains itself through ads that are mostly F2P mobile games that sustain themselves through ads…

    like, who is paying for all this?!?

    (Turns out some of the games in ads are actually P2W. I’ve also decided to never play another F2P mobile game and start buying some again instead.)

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      1·
      7 days ago

      There are free to play foss games with no ads. Feel free to contribute monetarily if you wish. Civ clone is a good time waster for long trips.

  • TheFogan@programming.devEnglish
    174·
    8 days ago

    Why do you think some of the most advertised things are… predatory loans and gambling.

    Honestly for me the worse of it is, basically on linkedin and similar, people pretending to be recruiters, opening with a fake job posting and asking for your resume, then to follow it up with "Hey you know I don’t think this resume is going to get by, can I put you in contact with my resume company, they will sharpen up your resume for $300. Umm… so yeah, don’t know if you guessed this, but I have no clue when my next paycheck is coming in, this isn’t the time to ask me to drop a large amount of money on something that may not do anything.

    • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
      27·
      8 days ago

      ugh yeah. the gambling. I mean that one is straight out like. play our game and you will make millions guaranteed. I mean with that voice saying the bank account balance thing. this should be crazy illegal. Im a big victimless crimes person but I have to say I would like advertising for adult things to be limited to adult venues. I don’t think they should allow gambling sites to even be listed in app stores or be indexed by search engines but like if your at a bar or strip club they could have a poster with a QR code.

      • BremboTheFourth@piefed.caEnglish
        9·
        8 days ago

        “Victimless crime” has always been kind of a grey term anyway. There are two sides to the types of things that refers to.

        Doing drugs? Being a prostitute? Gambling your money away? Victimless crimes.

        Manufacturing drugs? Being a pimp? Running a casino? I’m not so sure.

        • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
          3·
          8 days ago

          vicitmless crimes are about the individual. So yeah someone prostituting themselves and someone taking them up on it no prob. Running a brothel or being a pimp is sorta different. All the same Im fine with bussinesses that support the same as long as highly regulated. So at the individual level I want light regulation mainly for safety but going up to business I want a lot of regulation not only for safety on all levels but to prevent abuse and it should be taxed more than regular businesses.

          • Grail@multiverse.soulism.netEnglish
            4·
            7 days ago

            Here in Australia, if two sex workers move in together and practice out of their homes, that’s legally a brothel and they’re criminals. And there are lots of legitimate reasons to do that. Safety in numbers, the fact that a fellow sex worker isn’t going to judge you, three-ways. But it’s illegal. And ridiculous laws like that are why a lot of sex workers in this country want full decrim.

            • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
              1·
              7 days ago

              Yeah seems strange to me it would legally be a brothel. As long as they kept their money seperate it should just be two individuals. I mean if two people where in the trade and lived in different apartments in the same building would it still be considered a brothel?