Thanks for sharing that NYT article.

> ...critics say that the use of sponsorship could make cable programmers more vulnerable to censorship or control by advertisers, particularly in light of recent efforts by organizations such as the Moral Majority and its offshoot, the Coalition for Better Television.

40+ years later I think it's pretty clear this was an accurate prediction.

> A much-cited - and widely disputed - study by the Benton & Bowles advertising agency found that the public would accept advertising if it meant a reduction or a holding-of-the-line on subscription fees...

This is great until a year later when YoY revenue growth is flat and prices are increased anyway.

> Because it’s more profitable to have something that is paid for AND has ads.

how does it work for HBO then.

They use an embedded marketing strategy that isn't as obvious that you are watching advertising.

That explains the Starbucks cup in Game of Thrones season 8

If it was ever leaked that the Starbucks cup thing was a deliberate marketing stunt, I would be zero percent surprised.

No one said paid only doesn't work, the commenter simply pointed out the obvious that TWO revenue streams is better than one.

yea i was asking why its not better for hbo

No one said this wouldn't be better for HBO. They absolutely could make more revenue showing ads, that's not the model they're on, presently, however.

Greed is cyclical.

The article doesn't once say cable TV never had ads; it only says the public had some perception that would be the case. In fact, it even talks about how cable channels were bringing in millions of dollars in ad revenues despite being very small markets at the time.

In reality, cable TV had ads from day one, decades before this article was published. Originally every cable TV station had ads, because they were just retransmissions of broadcast stations which ran ads. The first nation-wide cable TV station had ads, and many of the early cable-only channels (CNN, USA, others) had ads.