What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

http://www.thedailymuse.com/tech/cash-credit-or-eyeballs-how-we-pay-for-digital-media/

by nlow • 14 years ago

12 12 14 years ago

KMinshew• 14 years ago

Huh! I would pay $15 to get rid of ads in a hot second. I wish HuluPlus came with this option

dromidas• 14 years ago

Be careful what you wish for... They could start microtransactions where you can 'Watch Hulu+ TV Episode with Ads for Free' or 'Watch this episode without adds for an additional $0.50' :P Then again, it may not be such a bad thing.

halayli• 14 years ago

Except for NYT Digital. They want us to pay with our money & eye balls.

fragsworth• 14 years ago

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.

bromley• 14 years ago

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.

nodata• 14 years ago

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.

WalterBright• 14 years ago

Eh, I can afford the no-ad premium. But I prefer the ad one, as sometimes they are interesting, and they are always more interesting than the wretched Amazon screensaver pics.

Also, the ads are not on the media itself, nor do they interrupt it. They are not intrusive, and do not bother me.

bryanjclark• 14 years ago

"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.

mopoke• 14 years ago

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.

donaldc• 14 years ago

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.

tomjen3• 14 years ago

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.

AngryParsley• 14 years ago

It's not getting paid twice. The reason there's no option for "free with ads" is because ads have diminishing returns. Each extra ad you show makes customers less likely to buy a given product. Advertisers won't pay as much if they're part of a giant block of ads.

For the company to get the same amount of money, the trade-off curve looks something like this:

Pay $x, see 0 ads.

Pay $0.75x, see 1 ad.

Pay $0.5x, see 4 ads.

Pay $0.25x, see 20 ads.

Pay $0, see 50 ads.

Some customers prefer to pay with their eyes instead of their wallets. You don't like to do that. I don't like to do that. But it's fine that companies give us the choice.

Also, you pay for broadcast TV?

What Amazon's Decision Means for Digital Media

Related Stories