In terms of employability, there is not much of a difference between the amount of jobs available for advertisers. If anything, there are more employment prospects for those who have technical abilities to be able to advertise on Youtube, that many broadcast-based employees would probably not be in posession of.
Therefore, the advertising industry would receive an immense amount of profit - not only from viewers who watch the advertisement forcefully, but also from those who click on the link that they would be unable to avoid. It could be argued that advertisers take advantage of those who have less experience in their use of the Internet/Computing, who may accidentally click on the link, unaware that they have just been pulled into a viral marketing attempt. This could cause vulnerable viewers to believe they have no choice but to buy the product if they would like to continue watching their chosen video, and therefore exploited by the institution. This would, however, increase profit for the institution by use of a set income received from every link that is clicked on.
However, the use of the new Adblock plugin on Firefox could show a slight decline in income, as users would be unable to see the advertising, let alone click on it. The reason it would cause only a slight decline instead of an income epidemic, is that not all users of the World Wide Web would be in posession of Firefox. Although efficient and noticeable quicker in download speed than Internet Explorer, many deem Firefox as having less security and therefore dangerous for the use of minors.
No comments:
Post a Comment