Hacker News Reader

Comment by benttoothpaste | Hacker News Reader

If you are willing to pay then you are also a lot more valuable as a target for ads. There is no chance of ad reduction. Unfortunately, “post purchase monetization” is a new buzzword.

View on HN

Exactly. There was a netflix series a few years back called Maniac where characters could choose to listen to in-person sales pitches if they're unable to afford bus fare, for example. Such a scheme would not work because if you're too poor to avoid bus fare then you're too poor to be likely to purchase an advertised product. Analogously & conversely, if you're willing to loosen your purse strings for paid content then you're also likely to have disposable income to pay for advertised products. This is why Facebook will never offer a paid ad-free service; it would remove all the actually valuable advertising targets from their pool of users.

Why do you believe Facebook is any different than Youtube?

Google uses your youtube viewing data to target ads at you elsewhere, no?

I am going to use Hulu as an example. They have both and the moment they attempt to introduce ads into their streams in my paid option, I will drop them like a hot cake. I am have no problem paying for service. I do not want ads and I make that clear. Ideally, they wouldn't try to sell my profile either, but baby steps.

Post-purchase is technically still there, but less obtrusive to me.

Prime Video has already dipped their toe in that pool, showing trailers for other series instead of starting your show. Feels like the DVD era all over again, just waiting for the FBI warning screen to appear

In practice, paid websites have much less obtrusive ads.

There are less incentives to ruin the experience for those who are directly giving them money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com