Shouldn't we get paid to view ads?

[RIP-Felix]

EDIT: I placed the preface in spoilers. In retrospect it seems excessive, a personality flaw of mine. Feel free to read it if you like opinionated emotional rants.

Spoiler

If you wanted to advertise your product before TV the most common way would be to buy an ad in the newspaper. Later TV came out, which was free over the air, so advertising was a way for the content to be paid for. It increased production budgets and quality TV shows. The amount of channels and content grew. When cable started charging for TV services, you might have been relieved. After all, since everyone's paying for it then they won't need the ad money. Finally commercial free TV! Right?

Sure, certain channels (HBO for example) are provided commercial free, but most still contain commercials. Not just one or two ads here and there mind you (like YouTube), but breaks of many. Good Morning America goes to commercial from 7:20 - 7:30am, that's ten minutes! Ads have long become obnoxious, forcing the mute button. However, GMA tricks you to unmute your TV by ostensibly coming back for a quick update before going right back to commercial. They're not the only show. These tactics are as rampant as they are repulsive. For those of us who have made the switch to adless services, it's unbearable to go back to. Moreover, we let our friends and family hear about it. Why? Because we care about them! It's criminal how much the ad experience detracts from the product. Pile on the shady bundle pricing, multi-year teared contracts, various undisclosed fees (some sound like a government imposed fee, but arn't. That's a blame shifting ploy aimed at persuading you to their political corner, implying it would lower your bill...which of course it wont), and the list goes on. Well, we're sick of it.

Cable companies could have increased the price of our cable package to provide TV commercial free, deciding their production costs and profit goals equally among their many customers. Evidently however, they chose that dealing with advertisers was more lucrative and financially feasible a business model. They can charge their customers as much as they think they'll pay, while supplementing with ad revenue to produce quality content and meet profit goals. However, they were really supplementing the ad revenue with our service charge. The deals made with advertisers are made behind closed doors, so it's easier to obfuscate the amount of money reinvested in "quality" content or diverted to profit. This way the price they charge their customers doesn't act as their primary revenue source. It's a business model that provides relief to many companies, like newspapers.

The internet has revolutionized the ad industry and with that change many companies are struggling to survive. Newspapers have been obliterated by the internet, seeing subscribers of physical copies age and die. A newer generation gets their news from TV and the Internet. The newest generation, just the net. So newspapers were forced to the internet to distribute a large portion of their unique content (journalism, their actual product), but to make up for lost revenue in subscribership, now supplement with ad revenue. It also means they now serve two masters. During the transition lots of newspaper companies went out of business. Most scale back production of physical prints, if they provide them at all. They must no longer feel that their product is valuable enough on it's own merit. They want an ad crutch. So, they litter their site with ads and affiliate links. Things stabilize and they think they finally have it figured out. Then adblock plus scares the shiz out of them.

I'll agree to allow a few ads through my adblocker, if my ad blocker pays me a percentage of every ad loaded on my screen. I want control of the type of ads so I can filter out the crap and optimize the amount of relevant ads that get through, which increases the amount I make in return. Otherwise, I would rather pay the extra amount it would cost to provide the content commertial free. Interestingly, NETFLIX doesn't break the bank. It's commertial free. hulu only costs $4 more commercialess. That made the difference for me when I first got hulu with limited commercials. I upgraded to commercialess and it's worth it, although they screw up often and still have commercials on show I know there shouldn't be. That's frustrating, but it's still better than the limited plan.

What I dislike the most about the system is that someone else gets paid when I'm inconvenienced. I'm paying for internet, TV, or what have you. The product, not for the ads. That's what they sold me. If my TV and internet company get paid for something I did not buy, I feel cheated. I'm the one forced to watch the ad, not them.

This brings me to the point of this thread. It's obvious that customers want only the service they pay for. We don't want the ads! The internet makes it easier for ads to fill our visuals, slow loading of webpage, or expose our computer to viruses, malware, ransomware, worms, and all sorts of filth. It makes sense a company pops up that sells an adblocker, or antivirus, and so on. So we buy it. Then they sneak ads in.

They just can't help themselves can they?

I'll agree to allow a few ads through my adblocker, if my ad blocker pays me a percentage of every ad loaded on my screen. Fat chance that happens!