The smoking is notorious, for example. They cram in cigarettes wherever they can, often to the detriment of the scene.
I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.
I have to say that it was a bit of an eye-opener- a lot of these ads are not obviously product-placement at all. The one that shocked me the most was an episode of "Friends from College" where the main characters went up the Napa valley for some wine tasting and then stopped into McDonalds on the way back- it was such a sharp, natural and realistic storyline that I would have never assumed that it was product placement. It dealt with "McDonalds-shame" in very sophisticated way that you wouldn't think McDonalds was capable of, and actually made me feel (as somebody who has been wine tasting in Napa and tries to avoid Mickey Ds) that a fast food burger is "allowed".
They may simply know their market well enough to know that people who tend to do McDonald’s take it as a “different kind of food”.
I'd want that too.
I'd love to get my hands on even one list of all product placements in a given show; it would be trivial to make a userscript that overlays such data over a Netflix stream, as an artistic project. I suspect there's a strong point to be driven there.
I don't think an in-vision in-scene notice should be required, as that is very intrusive to the viewer. However, I would support a requirement of full transparency, and I do believe they already notify people of product placement per episode (or am I thinking YouTube? I know I've seen recent notifications somewhere).
Alternately, I would support in-vision in-scene overlays if a subscriber could disable them. I can understand why it would be desirable to be enabled by default, but as an adult viewer who is quite capable of making my own purchasing decisions, I should have the right to consume media without that type of quasi-condescending warning invading my enjoyment of a given piece of media.
Is there anyone who isn’t susceptible to the psychological trickery in advertising?
I woulda once said something similar, but looking back as the years pass, I can see that was a delusion.
If you define influence to be whatever you want, of course you can say you are not influenced by ads.
Both to create awareness that you are being manipulated by this scene, and to discourage product placement in general.
[1] smoking mostly is self inflicted harm, GW kills others
Around my parts the white collar people tend to drive more than working class employees, because they get big houses away from the city where they work, and go to their cabins or whatnot every weekend, and are more likely to buy fuel-wasteful cars like SUVs. While non-white collar people more often go without a car at all or at least use it sparingly. Generally it's not like you couldn't choose a low carbon lifestyle if you worked in arts, blue collar industry, public sector jobs etc.
And about product placement in general: it seems to be a bigger buisness, than I suspected:
https://blog.hollywoodbranded.com/how-much-does-product-plac...
Is it too naive to hope that this pandemic will make us collectively question the value of creeds like growth for growth's sake?
The "growth for growth's sake" is a thought-stopping meme. Let's unpack why that's an inaccurate reason for why companies do what they do and also why people who don't even work at those companies also care about growth.
The commenter you responded mentioned Netflix and "growth". Remember that Netflix went public in 2002 with an IPO.
When any company sells shares of ownership to investors, they're making a deal with society that if you buy their stock, your money will "grow". For investors' shares to become more valuable, Netflix has to grow new revenue, grow new profits, grow new markets, grow new products, etc. Why do so many public investors (and the so-called "investors" includes your grandparents' pensions, teachers/firemen retirements, etc) care about their money "growing"?!? Because they want to protect their future purchasing power. (My previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15728480)
On other hand, if a family restaurant wants to just open one location with 20 tables and a payroll of 10 workers and just be a stable business that never grows, they wouldn't be able to sell public stock because nobody would buy it. There's nothing wrong with being a company that never grows -- but that's not the deal Netflix made with society.
So to rewrite your question a different way which gets at the root of where the motivation of "growth" comes from... Are we questioning the value of companies "going public"? Or are we questioning the ideology of fiat-money "inflation"? How do we make your grandparents pensions not care about "growth"?!? That's very difficult to solve!
There are also non-public entities that also want "growth". Countries like growth because it raises the standard-of-living for their citizens. Some small private businesses like some limited-scale growth because the owners like the challenges of running bigger business (e.g. expand to 5 restaurant locations instead of just 1.)
Even though the pandemic has shown the benefits of less smog in Los Angeles because of less economic activity, it still has not removed the root of human reasons for desiring "growth".
Not really. To riff on the old saying, "money doesn't grow on trees", we can also say "dividends don't grow on trees."
Where do dividends come from? From profits. But where do profits come from? In accounting lingo, we say profits come from "revenue minus costs" but to restate that in human action terms, we notice that profits come from Company X's purposeful activities that are desired by customers that choose to spend money with Company X instead of Company Y. Therefore, dividends are not guaranteed and in the hyper-competitive business sector Netflix operates, it requires growth to pay them.
If we mentally substitute "Blockbuster Inc" for "Netflix" in your dividend suggestion: "Can't shareholders just be happy with Blockbuster paying dividends instead of worrying about growth?"
... we'll see the "dividends instead of growth" won't work. In 2002, Blockbuster started losing money to upstart Netflix. If you look at Blockbusters historical stock prices[1], you'll see they started falling towards $0 because of repeated annual losses. Netflix was growing and Blockbuster was not. With accounting losses, Blockbuster has no profits and thus, no dividends to pay. Blockbuster eventually went bankrupt. Blockbuster did try to "grow" but it wasn't enough. No only do you have to grow as part of business strategy, you have to grow correctly with smart bets.
With Blockbuster as a case study, we can see that suggesting "Why can't Netflix shareholders be happy with dividends instead of growing?" -- will not work. Netflix's dividends/profits will evaporate if they don't grow to respond to Amazon Prime Video, HBO streaming, Disney streaming, Apple TV, etc. Yes, an "old-economy" business like railroads with little competition can pay dividends but Netflix is not that type of company. All the video streaming businesses are still furiously competing for consumers' discretionary entertainment budget. To not grow is to die because your customers leave for other more attractive video offerings.
E.g. in 2002, Netflix went public and had $272 million in revenue[2]. If Netflix adopted the "we don't believe in growth" and just simply collected the same $272 million every year until today, they would not have been able to offer $100 million to buy House of Cards in 2011. This means HBO or Amazon would have outbid them making Netflix less attractive for new memberships or existing members to renew. In 2011, Netflix could afford paying $100 million because 2010 revenue already exceeded $2 billion. Because they grew.
Ok, so let's say we hypothetically rule out expensive bidding wars to license content. You still need growth instead of a flatline revenue of $272 million for the next 18 years. Your employees want their salaries to grow with merit increases, bonuses, etc -- because their apartment rents, food costs, car insurance, etc go up. The existing content partners will want increased payments to license their shows when contract renewal comes up. The rent of office space leases, electricity, health insurance, etc all go up. Increasing salaries, license costs, fixed overhead costs, etc will subtract more and more from that "no-growth-just-the-same-$272 million-revenue-every-year". There will eventually be no profits left over to pay dividends.
In other words... the problem with a "no growth ideology" is that the world out there may not want to cooperate with you! They have their own agendas.
[1] https://external-preview.redd.it/Hfg1XQCVUlO2Og1_d9iSi0Ovekj...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#Membership_fee,_Blockb...
Many companies make money from activities that are not desired by customers.
I wasn't making some absolutist 100% statement about every company that ever existed. Sure, hated companies like cable company Comcast or Ticketmaster have profits. Netflix doesn't have that sort of monopoly power. Also, my comment about "desire" is relative desire between choices of spending money on different companies -- X vs Y.
Why did Netflix lose subscribers?[1] Because the video streaming customers desired something else.
Likewise, Blockbuster's old customers hated the late return fees. Blockbusters customers also desired the convenience of video streaming instead of driving to rent a physical DVD disc. Blockbuster lost so many customers that they went bankrupt.
Neither Blockbuster nor Netflix can irritate customers in the name of profits the same way Comcast can. A video DVD rental or video streaming's platform has way less customer lock-in or loyalty than a cable company's monopoly of physical coax lines into residential homes.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
However even that monopoly falls down once legalities are ignored. In the 90s the only way to watch US shows in the UK was via the internet, so that's what I did. If netflix introduces adverts, then people will use piratebay or whatever to watch it without adverts.
Even if they stop getting new users, and just maintain their current user base, what is so bad about that? Nobody is going to go broke from that.
I wasn't suggesting that it was desirable for Netflix to show ads. I was replying specifically to the "growth for growth's sake" because it's misleading.
As for "Netflix can grow by getting more users by offering attractive services and features", that's circular reasoning. They need growth to help pay for new attractive services and features.
>Even if they stop getting new users, and just maintain their current user base,
The problem is that their none of their existing user base signed a 30-year irrevocable contract to always pay $11.99 for the next 360 months. Consumers have free will and their preferences change which is why Blockbuster couldn't count on their old customers to keep walking into their stores to rent DVDs.
In other words, the "just maintain their user base" doesn't mean anything because customers have their own agenda of how they make changes in spending discretionary entertainment dollars. E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
Growing is exactly what investors money is for, besides their monthly revenue that allows them to grow a bit every period of time X.
> The problem is that their none of their existing user base signed a 30-year irrevocable contract to always pay $11.99 for the next 360 months. Consumers have free will and their preferences change which is why Blockbuster couldn't count on their old customers to keep walking into their stores to rent DVDs.
That's a problem for when netflix loses users at a rate that will damage profit rates unacceptably, not before.
> E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+lost+subscribers
They lost market share because Disney+ has exclusive content Netflix doesn't and some users preferred to only maintain one service, there's nothing Netflix can do about it besides trying to make their product _more_ attractive, not less.
You could argue that maybe they could regain market share by making the product cheaper, but I doubt they will ever achieve a cheaper enough price where people would be willing to pay for both Netflix and Disney+/Other streaming website with more attractive content for them or switch back to netflix because it's become trash without an interesting catalogue and full of ads for being so cheap.
If you care about global poverty, disease, famine etc. then you care about growth.
Since we do not have levels of abundance which reach everyone even in rich societies, growth is everywhere a concern.
To "question its value" is to say: since I have sufficient wealth, that'll do for the planet.
I wish governments would set quality of life targets instead of gdp targets. If you need to grow gdp to get to a better quality of life, fine, but please, let’s all stop spreading the lie that gdp growth inevitably leads to increased quality of life, because often it causes the reverse.
The reason I phrased it as a search term, rather than via reference, is to encourage people just to search for it.
I'm sufficiently confident in the empirical evidence that any reputable-looking resource measuring these things over the last 40year will report what I describe.
For how long? Until when?
What is the endgame?
And then what? How will you maintain that?
And how much of other species' habitats would we ruin to achieve that in the first place?
People may never be satisfied with their lives as long as they perceive inequality (real or imagined).
I care about diseases being allowed to spread more than they should in the name of growth. This pandemic happened precisely because of greed and the “growth” fetish.
Poverty is skyrocketing now precisely because we didn't bother to stop to set up safeguards in our neverending lust for growth.
I care about our privacy being forcibly penetrated to sell data on our every eye saccade in the name of growth.
I care about every physical and virtual space being bombarded with advertisements during every waking moment in the name of growth.
I care about having every single aspect of human existence from water to companionship, being monetized and curated in the name of growth.
I care about IP franchises being milked to death and their corpses defiled and then their graves exhumed in the name of growth.
I care about the vast biomes being burned down and entire species going extinct in the name of growth.
I care about ethics and morals getting thrown under a steamroller in the name of growth.
In two years time when the death rate on C19 is reported at as-flu levels and the world is in a global depression with massive excess poverty, death, and abuse you'll be ranting then too -- just connecting these to "neoliberal conspiracies" as now.
Rather, this will be caused by precise the lack of concern for the economy.
The same could be easily said about your comments here, comparing "redistribution of wealth" to genocide.
The same holds today. The GDP of the planet, distributed to all its population is a one-off 20k USD. Not enough wealth for almost anything.
Wealth is about producing over time, and increasing global wealth, ie. decreasing global poverty, is about producing more.
I think the failure to associate such policies with the genocides which underpin them is one of the great educational and moral failures of the 20th C. It hasn't been explained to people that our society is the most moral (by being the richest) in history because people engage in productive activities which provide for their own wealth.
That is absolute bullshit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993157
"2M chickens to be killed in US processing plants due to lack of employees."
The net GDP of the world, divided by the number of people in it is a one-off 20k -- that amount solves almost no global problems.
As for 2m chickens dying, that's a one-off meal for c. 5 million people.
So one day of hunger for only 5m people was lost. Again: almost nothing.
World problems are solved through growth, not by saving a few lost dinners.
‘Granularity’ is a big up-and-comer too.
These coded replies kill me and saying nothing would be more helpful.
At some point the price difference between the quality product and the cheap product becomes so vast that the quality product company must shrink either by reducing the quality of the product, or by reducing the manpower necessary to produce the quality product.
It's better to first introduce ads into the current subscription plan, and then introduce ad-free subscription levels at a higher price.
The moment you introduce ads to your service you invite a disease that will rot your service to the core.
The next step after ad-free subscription levels at a higher price is... ad-full subscription, because why leave money on the table, when you can get people to subscribe and then show them ads anyway (maybe different ads, maybe less of them, but still).
I suspect the problem is although everybody sees the ads the value comes from the wealthiest section of subscribers. These are the people most likely to pay to block the adverts. Lose those and you will lose your advertisers.
For low income households that can be quite a lot. Combine that with Netflix having significantly less content in Denmark than the rest of the world, and it might not be such a good deal the begin with after all.
So I guess it depends on where you live and your financial situation.
I canceled it because it was obvious their content is stretched out for no reason other than to waste my time. Also it’s full of product placement which takes me out of the story.
I won’t be surprised if they have more price tiers for different quality, or if the price tiers that already exist get wider. Kinda like the way the UK TV licence comes in normal and black & white.
https://www.hypable.com/how-i-met-your-mother-is-inserting-n...