Google to "modify or cease" ads after industry review board rejects appeal.
YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end “$600 less than cable” ads::Google to "modify or cease" ads after industry review board rejects appeal.
Remember when it was $35/month? Dropped them like a bad habbit when it went to $60 something. No ala carte and adding channels I never wanted were also contributing factors.
So what is the next step for Google? Raising YT TV to $100/month? $200/month? Raising Youtube Premium to $30/month? Google one to $200/month? Laying off employees?
I mean they gotta keep hitting that 5% growth every year, right? When does it stop? When there's nobody else at the company? When people can't afford anything anymore and go bankrupt?
When are companies gonna understand that growth for the sake of growth every year is just not feasable?
I used YouTube TV early on when it was a legit alternative to cable. It costs just as much so there is no benefit. I cancelled when the prices were raised to 45 a month. They can fuck straight off at 73 a month
Next advertising campaign: Cable companies sued to keep us from telling you how much money you'd save by switching to YouTube TV. Find out the numbers for yourself at calculate your savings link
YouTube TV launched in 2017 for $35 a month, but the base package is $72.99 after the latest price hike in March 2023. Google's "$600 less than cable" claim was challenged by Charter, which uses the brand name Spectrum and is the second-biggest cable company after Comcast. The National Advertising Division (NAD) previously ruled in Charter's favor but Google appealed the decision to the NARB in August.
"Charter contended the $600 figure was inaccurate, arguing that its Spectrum TV Select service in Los Angeles only cost around $219 a year more than Google's YouTube TV service," according to a MediaPost article in August.
A Google ad claimed that YouTube TV provided $600 in "annual average savings" compared to cable as of January 2023. A disclosure on the ad said the price was for "new users only" and that the $600 annual savings was "based on a study by SmithGeiger of the published cost of comparable standalone cable in the top 50 Nielsen DMAs, including all fees, taxes, promotion pricing, DVR box rental and service fees, and a 2nd cable box."
Not just YouTube TV. I was thinking about switching from the Spotify family plan to the YouTube family plan, but the Spotify family plan is $16.99/mo and the YouTube family plan is $22.99/mo. That does include YouTube with no ads, but it's still too expensive for me. It's just not worth an additional $6. Especially not while my adblocker still works. It does mean I can't cast ad-free YouTube to my Chromecast because Google would not allow that, but I can live with it.
Google has agreed to stop advertising YouTube TV as "$600 less than cable" after losing an appeal of a previous ruling that went against the company.
The National Advertising Review Board (NARB) announced today that it rejected Google's appeal and recommended that the company discontinue the YouTube TV claim.
The National Advertising Division (NAD) previously ruled in Charter's favor but Google appealed the decision to the NARB in August.
A disclosure on the ad said the price was for "new users only" and that the $600 annual savings was "based on a study by SmithGeiger of the published cost of comparable standalone cable in the top 50 Nielsen DMAs, including all fees, taxes, promotion pricing, DVR box rental and service fees, and a 2nd cable box."
Agreeing with the NAD decision, an NARB panel found that the price comparison provided by Google did not justify the "$600 less" claim.
Google said it "disagrees with NARB's determination that people watching the challenged commercials will somehow understand 'cable' to mean something other than traditional cable television," but "intends to modify or cease the disputed advertising claim."
The original article contains 443 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I know it is incredibly unlikely, but I do hope the outcome of the latest content/streaming apocalypse is actual a la carte ordering.
Had a blast watching Wrestle Dream the other night and wanted to get (more regularly) back into AEW. My options are 60-80 bucks a month for a "full" tv service or dealing with a mess of outdated APKs, sending payment information over VPNs, and all kinds of messes that just aren't worth it.
Hoping the Max sports thing eventually gets AEW. I would gladly pay 20 or even 30 bucks a month if it got me all the weekly shows (PPVs would be nice but...). But the cheapest I can get is one of the Sling packages for 40 and... 40 bucks a month is a lot.
But yeah. Amazon (and I think also Apple?) have already started paving the way by letting you subscribe to other services as "channels" in theirs. Probably MASSIVE contract issues means it will take a few years, but I could easily see Fox/FX splitting out. Same with whoever owns the block of networks that include USA. And this will even better map to the royalties issue because then you are watching reruns of Frasier instead of having access to the VODs and deciding you want to pretend you liked Becker and getting that crew another few cents this month.
It will likely come out a lot more expensive (30 bucks a month for TNT and TBS versus 40 bucks for TNT, TBS, and a shit ton of other channels I will probably never watch) but it will be a lot easier to swallow. And the people who actually want EVERY channel... are basically in their 60s?
paying a subs to let these douche of MrBeast pollute my timeline directly or indirectly?
paying for having the nth tech groupie talking about Apple last shit?
oh and i forgot about Isreali propaganda.
People pay for watching YouTube ? Lol why don't they use Firefox and ublock origin ? Or smartnext tube for android TV?,
I will never understand human beings.