|
|
|
|
|
|
by meric
3710 days ago
|
|
|
>> end up paying for things they don't like. That's what's happening now - you've got low quality viewing clubs scamming from everyone else. And that's a certainty. Remember in information one false bit can introduce a lot of havoc. You've got a lot of maybes - and I'm unconvinced. But I don't work in Amazon. I do know if I got an unlimited membership I will not be happy my dollars are worth less because I take my time to enjoy my material - pausing and contemplating about it deeply. ( think poems ). |
|
|
I'm not referring to that. That's fraud, and it's entirely negative. I'm referring to subsidizing niche content. For example, niche channels[1] and the leeway for more esoteric work to attempt to define a new market. If you believe people always know exactly what they want, then this isn't needed. If you believe people sometimes don't know they like something until they've been exposed to it (and it may not exist without the ability for niche markets to form), then this subsidization of niche content may been a good thing.
Like most things, it's probably somewhere in the middle. Allowing for niche content is how we experiment, but subsidizing too much means that we have a very inefficient market. Put another way, sometimes it may worth it to decrease market efficiency for current options slightly to incentivize the creation of new options in the market.
1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/23/471633490/episo...