Another after thought.

Getting people to be upset over some site being down would likely result in two things:
- "mah computer is broken, can you fix it"
- "reddit is down again, wonder if digg is still up"

Imagine you turn on TV and your soap channel is showing a big warning about some strange big bold letters and talking about some stuff. There's hundreds of other channels, just flip over.

The TV issue is quite a big one and something advertising agencies (Google/Facebook are essentially advertising companies, all money on web is based on advertising as well) had to learn decades ago. When they showed adverts, viewers would flip channels. If other channel had just a tiny appeal, they wouldn't come back.

Solutions to this were varied. From synchronizing advertising blocks, to more subvert forms of advertising, to different pacing, packaged channels, etc... One reason why cable is so reluctant to provide individual shows is because it limits these options. A borderline viewable show can still generate revenue if one can only switch between similar such shows with high enough probability. But show hand-picked episodes of specfic show and viewer's tolerance drops fast. After a few adverts, they'll lose interest and simply abandon viewing altoghether with no spillage to other content.

Torrents are a demonstration of this concept and both pro-/con- argument to piracy. Those who torrent TV shows only care about that particular show, nothing but that show and nothing but this week's episode. They don't tolerate 5 second ad before, between or after, or anything that even remotely detracts from that week's episode. They aren't willing to compromise on anything. On one side, companies don't lose anything this way - these users wouldn't accept advertising so CTR or equivalent would be too low to worry. On another, residual funding generated from advertising pays for more than just that one show. It also subsidizes others, allows experimentation and company growth enabling them to take on more demanding projects. So while claims that piracy does not mean lost sales are valid to a degree, they tend to be too simplistic to be taken at face value.

All web companies are fighting a cutthroat fight for attention. Turns out that general attention span is incredibly short and limited, so getting people excited about something that is not their immediate pet-peeve (single issue voter in politics) is surprisingly hard.

So getting general population angry would indeed be a big achievement and a very unlikely one.

Another after thought.

Getting people to be upset over some site being down would likely result in two things:
- "mah computer is broken, can you fix it"
- "reddit is down again, wonder if digg is still up"

Imagine you turn on TV and your soap channel is showing a big warning about some strange big bold letters and talking about some stuff. There's hundreds of other channels, just flip over.

The TV issue is quite a big one and something advertising agencies (Google/Facebook are essentially advertising companies, all money on web is based on advertising as well) had to learn decades ago. When they showed adverts, viewers would flip channels. If other channel had just a tiny appeal, they wouldn't come back.

Solutions to this were varied. From synchronizing advertising blocks, to more subvert forms of advertising, to different pacing, packaged channels, etc... One reason why cable is so reluctant to provide individual shows is because it limits these options. A borderline viewable show can still generate revenue if one can only switch between similar such shows with high enough probability. But show hand-picked episodes of specfic show and viewer's tolerance drops fast. After a few adverts, they'll lose interest and simply abandon viewing altoghether with no spillage to other content.

Torrents are a demonstration of this concept and both pro-/con- argument to piracy. Those who torrent TV shows only care about that particular show, nothing but that show and nothing but this week's episode. They don't tolerate 5 second ad before, between or after, or anything that even remotely detracts from that week's episode. They aren't willing to compromise on anything. On one side, companies don't lose anything this way - these users wouldn't accept advertising so CTR or equivalent would be too low to worry. On another, residual funding generated from advertising pays for more than just that one show. It also subsidizes others, allows experimentation and company growth enabling them to take on more demanding projects. So while claims that arguments that piracy does not mean lost sales are valid to a degree, they tend to be too simplistic to be taken at face value.

All web companies are fighting a cutthroat fight for attention. Turns out that general attention span is incredibly short and limited, so getting people excited about something that is not their immediate pet-peeve (single issue voter in politics) is surprisingly hard.

So getting general population angry would indeed be a big achievement and a very unlikely one.

Another after thought.

Getting people to be upset over some site being down would likely result in two things:
- "mah computer is broken, can you fix it"
- "reddit is down again, wonder if digg is still up"

Imagine you turn on TV and your soap channel is showing a big warning about some strange big bold letters and talking about some stuff. There's hundreds of other channels, just flip over.

The TV issue is quite a big one and something advertising agencies (Google/Facebook are essentially advertising companies, all money on web is based on advertising as well) had to learn decades ago. When they showed adverts, viewers would flip channels. If other channel had just a tiny appeal, they wouldn't come back.

Solutions to this were varied. From synchronizing advertising blocks, to more subvert forms of advertising, to different pacing, packaged channels, etc... One reason why cable is so reluctant to provide individual shows is because it limits these options. A borderline viewable show can still generate revenue if one can only switch between similar such shows with high enough probability. But show hand-picked episodes of specfic show and viewer's tolerance drops fast. After a few adverts, they'll lose interest and simply abandon viewing altoghether with no spillage to other content.

Torrents are a demonstration of this concept and both pro-/con- argument to piracy. Those who torrent TV shows only care about that particular show, nothing but that show and nothing but this week's episode. They don't tolerate 5 second ad before, between or after, or anything that even remotely detracts from that week's episode. They aren't willing to compromise on anything. On one side, companies don't lose anything this way - these users wouldn't accept advertising so CTR or equivalent would be too low to worry. On another, residual funding generated from advertising pays for more than just that one show. It also subsidizes others, allows experimentation and company growth enabling them to take on more demanding projects. So while claims that arguments that piracy does not mean lost sales are valid to a degree, but also too simplistic to be taken at face value.

All web companies are fighting a cutthroat fight for attention. Turns out that general attention span is incredibly short and limited, so getting people excited about something that is not their immediate pet-peeve (single issue voter in politics) is surprisingly hard.

So getting general population angry would indeed be a big achievement and a very unlikely one.

Another after thought.

Getting people to be upset over some site being down would likely result in two things:
- "mah computer is broken, can you fix it"
- "reddit is down again, wonder if digg is still up"

Imagine you turn on TV and your soap channel is showing a big warning about some strange big bold letters and talking about some stuff. There's hundreds of other channels, just flip over.

The TV issue is quite a big one and something advertising agencies (Google/Facebook are essentially advertising companies, all money on web is based on advertising as well) had to learn decades ago. When they showed adverts, viewers would flip channels. If other channel had just a tiny appeal, they wouldn't come back.

Solutions to this were varied. From synchronizing advertising blocks, to more subvert forms of advertising, to different pacing, packaged channels, etc... One reason why cable is so reluctant to provide individual shows is because it limits these options. A borderline viewable show can still generate revenue if one can only switch between similar such shows with high enough probability. But show hand-picked episodes of specfic show and viewer's tolerance drops fast. After a few adverts, they'll lose interest and simply abandon viewing altoghether with no spillage to other content.

All web companies are fighting a cutthroat fight for attention. Turns out that general attention span is incredibly short and limited, so getting people excited about something that is not their immediate pet-peeve (single issue voter in politics) is surprisingly hard.

So getting general population angry would indeed be a big achievement and a very unlikely one.