[jzila]

There are those of us who look forward to exactly that: the ability to own our participation in the content we consume. When you pay for content, you are the customer. When someone else pays for the content, you are the inventory.

Yes, ad blockers work. But they are susceptible to the tragedy of the commons: it's always advantageous to install an ad blocker. Then, as they proliferate, companies must insert more and more intrusive ads. This encourages more people to get ad blockers.

Allowing a tiered economy for content will enable those who wish to pay to do so, and those who don't to see ads. The ads can become less intrusive because the companies are no longer playing a cat-and-mouse game with their inventory. That should decrease the incentive to use an ad blocker, allowing that revenue stream to stabilize.

[pmoriarty]

"When you pay for content, you are the customer. When someone else pays for the content, you are the inventory."

Subscribers to the NYT: are they the customer or the inventory (or product)?

Subscribers to Netflix: are they the customer or the inventory (or product)?

I really don't see why companies wouldn't treat them as both. So many businesses are operating on a subscription model, and still treat their "customers" as databanks ripe for mining and selling to their "real customers": advertisers and other purchasers of user data.

The 21st Century has really become the century of spyware, and I don't see paying for content as a reliable way for consumers to avoid being a target.

[foota]

Based off a quick glance through Netflix's financial reporting, I'm not thinking they sell your data (https://ir.netflix.com/financials.cfm?CategoryID=282) Although of course they use it internally.