[anon98356]

I think you have your cause and effect the wrong way around there. The argument put forward is that Netflix is forced to use a subscription model because Facebook and Google have almost complete control of the advertising market.

In the specific case of Netlfix this probably isn't true as their business model is an online version of a business that already charged a subscription (cable TV).

However in businesses that traditionally relied on advertising e.g. the New York Times as mentioned in the article, the transition to the internet is leading to more upfront charging i.e. Paywalls because they aren't getting the ad revenue required to offer their services for free.

My personal take from the article isn't that all content use to be supported by ads (although I would suggest that a lot more of it was than most people realise). The issue is that the near duopoly Facebook and Google have on web advertising, mean those producing the content can no longer rely on advertising to fund themselves.

As a result we are seeing more and more paywalls being put up to fund these businesses. The potential end result of this is that finding content will continue to be free and probably even get easier. Finding content you can consume for free however, is likely to get a lot tougher.

[fakedang]

Just a question, what's stopping NYT from using their own native ad experience embedded into their web page instead of relying on Google and Facebook? It's not like building an onsite tracking ad is secret stuff, is it? Rather, if ads are going to be better than those on Google and Facebook, they could charge a premium simply for eyeballs right?

[anon98356]

I believe they do use their own ad platform. But I would guess that the pricing of ads on Facebook and Google mean that even if they could charge a premium, it wouldn't be enough to sustain the business.

There is only so much of a premium you can charge before no is willing to pay for your product.

[readflaggedcomm]

Netflix's business is an online version of their old business, which was a mail-in version of Blockbuster.

No ads were involved in take-home videos, that I recall, other than late attempts at unskippable promos by the studios who released the movies themselves (that was after I gave up renting videos).

I don't see any causal relationship at all.

[anon98356]

As I said in my second line, in the case of Netflix, I don't think this applies. Their business model has always been to charge users for content.

However when looking at the rise in the number of papers going behind a paywall like the NY times, there is an argument to be made that this is being driven by the fact it is no longer viable to run an ad supported business because Google and Facebook have control of too much of the market