Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Advertisments on Phones?

Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:39:01 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
So imagine you're driving and decide to call your mother, only to drive by a pizza hutt and hear pizza's hutt's trademark quote "Gather around the good stuff' advertisement before being connected to your mother on the other line. My question: Should advertisements really extend to the point where they interfere with your phone conversations? Discuss.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:45:25 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 8:39:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
So imagine you're driving and decide to call your mother, only to drive by a pizza hutt and hear pizza's hutt's trademark quote "Gather around the good stuff' advertisement before being connected to your mother on the other line. My question: Should advertisements really extend to the point where they interfere with your phone conversations? Discuss.

If it's going to pay for part or all of your phone bill, then it seems worth it. Like using a site supported mainly by ads cough cough. It's much better having some advertising company pay the bill for you than paying yourself. The problem comes when you have to make an emergency call and don't have the time to listen to an ad.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:45:52 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Will they eventually? They are already doing it. It just hasn't become mainstream as of yet.

Personally though, what I'm wondering is whether or not the advertisements via phone will even be that effective. I mean advertisements already seem somewhat ineffective (at least for me) when it comes to Internet usage. Mainly because they come off as tedious in addition to the fact that many of them manage to screw up my computer.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:54:13 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 8:45:25 AM, beem0r wrote:
At 9/30/2008 8:39:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
So imagine you're driving and decide to call your mother, only to drive by a pizza hutt and hear pizza's hutt's trademark quote "Gather around the good stuff' advertisement before being connected to your mother on the other line. My question: Should advertisements really extend to the point where they interfere with your phone conversations? Discuss.

If it's going to pay for part or all of your phone bill, then it seems worth it. Like using a site supported mainly by ads cough cough. It's much better having some advertising company pay the bill for you than paying yourself. The problem comes when you have to make an emergency call and don't have the time to listen to an ad.

Unless advertisers already pay for part of peoples' cable/satellite bills for television, I doubt they'd be willing to pay for peoples' phone bill. If anything, I only see the phone companies profiting.

On the other hand, if they were willing to pay, I'd assume that you wouldn't have the option to block advertisements, hence, in situations where you were in dire need of the phone (such as an emergency), you'd have to shrug it off. But then the question comes down to as to whether or not having to put up with 10-30 seconds of advertising is worth losing that amount of time during an emergency when the benefits are a little bit of extra financial security.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:57:20 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 8:45:52 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
Will they eventually? They are already doing it. It just hasn't become mainstream as of yet.

Personally though, what I'm wondering is whether or not the advertisements via phone will even be that effective. I mean advertisements already seem somewhat ineffective (at least for me) when it comes to Internet usage. Mainly because they come off as tedious in addition to the fact that many of them manage to screw up my computer.

Well, they do work. This is evidenced by the fact that sites can survive off advertising alone. Advertising companies would not be willing to pay enough for a site to survive off ads if the ads were ineffectual.
Google adwords, for example, has an average click-through rate of %1-2 at the low end, %3-5 for a midrange estimate. That's not too bad.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 9:00:42 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 8:54:13 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 9/30/2008 8:45:25 AM, beem0r wrote:
At 9/30/2008 8:39:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
So imagine you're driving and decide to call your mother, only to drive by a pizza hutt and hear pizza's hutt's trademark quote "Gather around the good stuff' advertisement before being connected to your mother on the other line. My question: Should advertisements really extend to the point where they interfere with your phone conversations? Discuss.

If it's going to pay for part or all of your phone bill, then it seems worth it. Like using a site supported mainly by ads cough cough. It's much better having some advertising company pay the bill for you than paying yourself. The problem comes when you have to make an emergency call and don't have the time to listen to an ad.

Unless advertisers already pay for part of peoples' cable/satellite bills for television, I doubt they'd be willing to pay for peoples' phone bill. If anything, I only see the phone companies profiting.

On the other hand, if they were willing to pay, I'd assume that you wouldn't have the option to block advertisements, hence, in situations where you were in dire need of the phone (such as an emergency), you'd have to shrug it off. But then the question comes down to as to whether or not having to put up with 10-30 seconds of advertising is worth losing that amount of time during an emergency when the benefits are a little bit of extra financial security.

The TV service you pay for is not for supporting individual stations. The stations are supported by the ads, which means you're pretty much just paying for the infrastructure [getting the cable system to your house, for instance].

And yeah, the emergency situation thing might be a dealbreaker for the whole thing.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2008 1:35:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 8:57:20 AM, beem0r wrote:
At 9/30/2008 8:45:52 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
Will they eventually? They are already doing it. It just hasn't become mainstream as of yet.

Personally though, what I'm wondering is whether or not the advertisements via phone will even be that effective. I mean advertisements already seem somewhat ineffective (at least for me) when it comes to Internet usage. Mainly because they come off as tedious in addition to the fact that many of them manage to screw up my computer.

Well, they do work. This is evidenced by the fact that sites can survive off advertising alone. Advertising companies would not be willing to pay enough for a site to survive off ads if the ads were ineffectual.
Google adwords, for example, has an average click-through rate of %1-2 at the low end, %3-5 for a midrange estimate. That's not too bad.

Hmm, well that is something. I guess this proves that I'm just a very atypical person.

Do you have any statical information regarding whether or not "adware" programs benefit advertisers?
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2008 3:32:44 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Fine by me, just to it's made aware to the consumer when they are signing up for the service. Don't like it, don't sign up. If enough people agree with you there will be a market for non ad supported phone plans.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:24:49 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I wouldn't mind, as long as the phone service is free, or at least only 20% of the cost. Then it would be so worth it.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.