On the Cost of Being Ad-free and the Role of the Advertiser

If you pay $11,99 for Hulu, you are ad-free.

If you pay $8 for Netflix, you are ad-free.

If you pay $10 for YouTube, you are ad-free.

If you pay $15 for HBO, you are ad-free.

If you pay $4,99 for Spotify, you are ad-free.

If you pay $8,99 for Twitch, you are ad-free.

I saw someone posting this on LinkedIn last week.

It immediately brought to live a big discussion that ended in one simple conclusion:

People hate ads.

The reasoning behind that conclusion was simple: people hate ads so much, that they’re willing to pay for an ad-free environment.

It’s a simple conclusion, but it’s also the wrong one.

In the mind of the consumer, there’s a continuous ongoing battle.

To pay or not to pay.  

Is paying for an ad-free environment really worth it?

“This ad doesn’t interest me”.

“This ad is in the way of getting what I really want [a film, series or song song]”.

All great arguments to pay.

The thing, however, is that the consumer doesn’t necessarily want to be ad-free, but rather to be free of boring ads.

Relevance, humor and overall appeal, therefore, are all great arguments against paying.

It’s a trade-off.

So where does this leave the advertiser?

There’s only one route to take: create great advertising that’s appealing.

Appealing enough not to pay.

And if you think advertising like that doesn’t exist, think again:

Ads like this don’t necessarily replace your favorite comedy TV-show, but you definitely don’t want to be paying for them to be removed.

 

Inspiration and Insights

On advertising and marketing

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Inspiration and Insights

On advertising and marketing

21 Shares
Tweet
Share19
Share
+11
Stumble1