Prime video has duplicated in silence the amount of advertising that shows the clients they pay. According to Adweek, the initial advertisement load of two to three and a half minutes of ads per hour is now sitting four or six minutes.
I am not surprised: Amazon told investors last year that the volume of ads would be increasing and introduce new ways to bother you when stopping or sailing. But as one of the subscribers that these ads will see, I am not sure if I will stay and I will pay a service that worsens, and that I hope continues to get worse.
It is worth pointing out the fact that I am in the United Kingdom. I have seen many reports that say “Hey, you know, it’s not as bad as we broadcast television, Amirite!” But I am from a place where television advertising is much more civilized. Of course, US spectators have been exposed to 13 to 16 minutes of ads per hour. But here in the United Kingdom, the regulator says that the main broadcasters, including ITV, STV and UTV commercial stations, can only average seven minutes per hour.
That means that Amazon can still maintain your promise to show less ads than the “linear TV” networks with which it competes in the USA. While increasing the advertisement load to show much more advertising than the broadcasters of the United Kingdom. And those stations do not charge me a monthly subscription to see their ads.
This is not just a Scotsman who complains about the American style advertisement filling, although I am absolutely doing it. It is also the problem of technological companies that try to earn more money by worsening their products.
Here is why the transmission is broken
I have been writing about digital media, file exchange and transmission for a long time, and what made the transmission successful was simple: it was less pain than piracy. Of course, you could play pirate bay or use an application of peers, but why bother when you had Netflix right there? A flat rate, tons of great things to see, without ads: an obvious.
But, of course, we not only have Netflix now. Instead, what we have are endless streamers with shareholders who want growth, growth and more growth in a market that is oversatured at a time when the cost of everything is increasing and the income of people does not.
If you cannot win with new customers, you can squeeze the most difficult. And again and again, that seems to be the option that technological companies prefer: password repressions and prices and advertisements and advertisements and less options and ads and a reduced video quality and advertisements and without atmous without an update and advertisements and advertisements in the ads in the advertisements of the ads.
Here in the United Kingdom we have an airline that people love to hate, Ryanair; The American equivalent is probably spirit. But while low-cost airlines are widely hated, we still use them because there is not really an alternative, so they can throw the seats and make the delicacy of luggage the size of a can of Coca-Cola and perhaps begin to fill the plane with snakes and dumps of honey and medium mustard gas and we will support it because there is no other option.
But that is not true for transmission.
There are many other options for spectators, although not exactly the same programs. But for the programs that cannot be obtained, there is piracy, often in full quality and HDR with atmospos and without advertising breaks.
I am not here to discuss legality (it is illegal in most places) or the moral (is bad) of piracy. But as someone who has been covering the media online since the 1990s, which lived the files for file exchange, I can promise that what made piracy disappear effectively was not Metallica that demands high school students or ISP that prohibits the strange child. It was Spotify, and then it was Netflix.
The best transmission services exceed piracy because binge Breaking Bad In Netflix it was less complicated and a much better experience than assembling episodes through Pirate Bay.
Is it true?
And if so, how much more?
