Another way of looking at it

[the_s_guy]

When people complain about ads - on websites, mainly, but also on TV and at the cinema (oddly, ads in newspapers and magazines seem to slip under the radar these days despite making up around 75% of the 'content'), my response is generally along the lines of

Comments

[dvandom]

Because the ads support all that content you get ad-free. It's a tragedy of the commons...if everyone blocks the ads, then everyone has to pay more for content or do without the content. Newspapers are 75% ads because without ads they'd cost four times as much (or more). Services like TiVo have to send part of your subscription fee along to the networks to make up for the lost ad revenue due to people skipping. And while a clever person can avoid most of the ads in other places, as soon as too many people start avoiding the ads you get paid content walls going up.

[exp_err]

We pay less for TV and online content because advertisers pay, but we pay more for everything else, because manufacturers pay advertisers. If advertising ceased to work, we wouldn't be paying more overall.

[dvandom]

Actually, the cost of running ads is a pretty small part of what we pay, and establishing a national brand lets a company keep prices lower thanks to economies of scale. Without advertising, we'd be limited to local brands because no one would have a reason to buy a non-local brand, and prices might actually be higher.

[exp_err]

We'd buy non-local brands because they'd be cheaper, again because of economies of scale (or in some cases, because they'd be better quality). Even if companies A and B start out making the same product for two neighbouring villages, if B was producing their product cheaper (because village B was bigger and allowed greater quantities or because labour in B was cheaper or because the local soil was better, or whatever), why wouldn't they offer their product for sale in village A, and why wouldn't people there prefer the cheaper product?

[the_s_guy]

Because the ads support all that content you get ad-free.

It seems a strange process, when theoretically ads can be direct-targeted. The ad servers are burning up their own CPU and bandwidth sending me the ad - which then has no effect whatsoever. How is this more efficient than not sending me the ad in the first place, which would achieve the same end but for lower costs all around? If it's simply a matter of keeping count of viewers, then it's an internal administrative issue, and nothing to do with me.

It's a tragedy of the commons...if everyone blocks the ads, then everyone has to pay more for content or do without the content.

I don't have any problems with other people being subjected to ads if they're not prepared to take even minimal steps to avoid it. The processes for doing so are detailed and publicly available. It's their choice what they decide to spend their time on.