this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
867 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3199 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Netflix, once a pioneer of ad-free viewing that offered a break from traditional TV norms, is now contemplating launching free ad-supported versions of its service in markets like Europe and Asia, Bloomberg reported.

The plans to offer a free ad-supported tier, albeit in select markets, suggests that pivot towards monetizing user data, in other words — making users and not the extensive library of award-winning shows a product, might be well in the pipeline.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is a bit unnecessarily tough on independent content creators... what exactly do you expect them to do? Make no money from their content? How would they be able to make a living?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sure, Patreon is great, but Patreon alone is not enough for most creators to make a living, considering how hard it is to get people to commit to monthly subscriptions.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But why do they need to make a living creating content.

We should go back to hobbyist sharing videos of their hobby and interest for the love of it instead of a guy trying to make money by jumping into trendy hobbies and creating bland generic content until the algorithm picks them.

It would reduce so much noise online and the stuff we would be left with would be people who have the best content. It would eliminate the drama and toxic crap for views.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 4 months ago

There are certainly hobbyists making good content. Most of the great content is from people making a living off it. They have time and resources to devote to doing deep dives into subjects that hobbyists just generally don't. The bigger problem as far as filling the internet with crap goes is all the react content and people making clips of other people's stuff that adds nothing to it and whatever YouTube shorts are supposed to be.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Patreon alone is not enough for most creators to make a living

I've seen a number of content creators argue otherwise. From the "Hello from the Magic Tavern" sketch comedy group to the "Scenes from the Multiverse" Cartoonist to the various musicians cranking out indie tunes on Bandcamp, the refrain I consistently here is that direct patronage offers significantly better returns than ad-supported payments on bigger media platforms.

Indie creators generally have an easier time of securing monthly subscriptions because they're more boutique and have closer connections to the audience. And you don't need an enormous audience to bring in a reliable income. While YouTubers need to get into the hundreds of thousands of subscribers to see any kind of productive ROI, Patreon artists can justify the expense of their work on an audience in the hundreds. They can go entirely indie with an audience in the thousands.

Most creators can't afford to go fully indie, but the margins are so much better relative to the audience size with direct payments. Even just $2/viewer/episode pays vastly more than what a streaming service offers.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Would you put blame on doctors for contributing to the opioid?

I see it the same. Every one bares responsibility. And even though a big chunk is on the pharma and media companies. There is still the pusher

[–] TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

For me, it depends on what they're promoting. If it's some crappy mobile game or crypto, I'm out. But I'm fine with the usual shit like energy drinks or VPNs. Like, those things usually have a serious business behind them, even if they might be useless for the vast majority of viewers.

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Yep. I don't hate youtubers for doing ads. Everyone needs to make money. Just skip the ads.

Except for Ryan George because he actually makes his funny as fuck.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If Netflix ads were just energy drinks and VPN then you're cool with them adding these tiers?

Honest to god question. How many hours a day are you OK being spent on being sold something. What is your ratio of content to ads.

That's your time by the way. My full belief is anyone trying to sell me anything needs to pay me. Not a content creator. That's my time I barely have any of it to give so when 1 hr out of 3 hrs I got to relax is spent being sold shit I'm pretty pissed.

And it isn't like I can. Just opt to enjoy ad free content creators. They no longer exist because the ones that monetized it. That's the part I hate most.

[–] TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a little different with Netflix, because of what they started out as. With Youtube, I expected to be advertised to from the beginning, you know? I pay for Youtube Premium and use Sponsor Block to support the creators I watch while having a mostly ad free experience. Also, I just trust most of the creators that I watch to have my best interest in mind in terms of what they advertise.

But for Netflix, their whole thing from the beginning was that they were better TV. That's how they sold it to me. Now they're slowly losing their point. So I'd definitely not be alright with it if they started showing me ads on top of my subscription fee. Same with Prime Video, because I know they're experimenting with that.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

That's exactly what I'm saying with it too. All of this started out as a place to share and collaborate and to reject the stuff that made all other industries rotten.

We had something amazing and we let it rot on our watch and that's something we can't ever fix but I don't think we should forget how badly we fucked up. And how we fucked up should be remembered in case we ever get any new frontier.

YouTube never had ads. We all just shared videos. It was a big deal every time they brought it in. Pewdie pi made a fortune and it was all over from there.

Ill never support any of these content creators or buy any subscriptions. None of this should have been monetized. Advertising is out of control and it was already bad before the internet. Some of us are experiencing an ad 24/7 a day now.

[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Would you put blame on doctors for contributing to the opioid?

I'm gonna assume by "contributing to the opioid" you mean over-prescribing pain medication for the commission? If so, that comparison is so far-fetched that it's completely meaningless. You're really going to compare that with independent creators having skippable ad reads that have to be clearly marked as such on content you get for free?

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Mind explains what is far fetched about it?

There was an opioid crisis where drug makers sold pills to the public that the public did not need and they used doctors to sell them.

There is an advertising epidemic where industry is working to push ads into every space we listen, look or experience and they are using content creators to justify it

Both have a large well funded industry. Both require an interface between public and the industry to sell their product. Both push products to people who don't need them by using these interfaces to bullshit, lie and leverage their authority to sell the product. And in one case we blame the interface in the other we say " they aren't responsible they are just making money" so why?