Would You Put Ads On Your Homescreens For Free Mobile Service?

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Moolah Mobile is teaming up with SurgePhone Wireless to offer people a new way to pay their cell phone bills -- by putting ads on their homescreens. Moolah CEO Vernell Woods (pictured above) said the startup has already been offering gift cards and other rewards to users who view its homescreen ads. So this is a similar model, except instead of earning gift cards, the ads are subsidizing cell phone service from Surge. The ads show up on users' homescreens during interstitial moments between using apps, so the goal is to offer free service without consumers having to change their behavior. Woods said all that ad time adds up, with "the average person who's using their phone on a consistent basis" viewing "easily between two to three hours" of homescreen ads each day. And that's enough to pay for the "equivalent" of Surge's $10 monthly plan. On the other hand, if for some reason a subscriber isn't hitting the necessary total, Woods said they can also earn more points by accepting offers or taking surveys. The subsidized wireless service will roll out in Florida, Virginia, Georgia and Texas initially, with an aim of reaching 40,000 locations by the end of the year.

Comments

Not only no

[e3m4n]

Not only no, but fuck no. Have you people not learned exactly how deep that fucking rabit hole will go? They OWN you when they give you free shit in exchange for being their whore!! Didnt Facefuck tesch you anything?!?!?!

Re:Not only no

[e3m4n]

I like my TVs to be dumb HDMI inputs redirected from a receiver where my other devices output video. I dont need a camera on my streaming devices and my ps4 VR only gets plugged in when I want to do some vr shit. I might be paranoid, but its probably because way back in the day my teachers made me read Animal Farm and 1984.

Re:Not only no

[tquasar]

I still have a piece of tape over the camera on my laptop. I don't live with my smartphone and have never used the social media. I read a real newspaper and subscribe to several magazines. I'm dead in dog years.

Re:Not only no

[sconeu]

Came here to post this EXACT comment.

Well, at least the first sentence. The rest is true, but I was just going to stop at fuck no.

Re:Not only no

[rtb61]

From a more sensible business perspective. Honestly why would you spend money advertising to people who can not pay for a basic mobile phone plan. You are spending advertising dollars to sell nothing because you are advertising to people who can not afford to spend much of anything and have very little choice in their consumer habits.

Technically it is a scam targeted at advertiser, getting them to buy worthless ads. It really is getting messy in ad space, people who can afford to buy product can also afford to by ad free content, people who can not afford to buy ad free content are the getting ads for products they can not afford to buy.

To be blunt outside of politics, why spend money advertising to, well, cough, cough, losers. Kind of a waste of money, outside of politics, yeah those, well, cough, cough, idiots will vote for whom ever they are told often enough, to vote for.

It is forcing ads and gross invasions of privacy and targeted manipulation that creates the problems for the rest of us and the reason why would should political target politicians to cripple the likes of M$, Google, Facebook et al.

Re:Not only no

[ctilsie242]

Exactly. Knowing previous history, even with ads, they will soon start charging a fee for "maintenance", then in no time, people will be paying the full cost of the mobile carrier again... and have ads. This has happened before. Cable TV is a good example, where it was initially ad-free, paid for by subscribers. Then, a few ads between shows. Now, you pay for the same, perhaps more ads as you get by watching OTA TV.

I'm would not be surprised if the ads would become more invasive over time. Perhaps demanding you watch a 2 minute spot before you can call, or watching 30 second ads per megabyte of bandwidth used. Of course, any of the data on the phone will be fair game, including geolocation, voice transcriptions of phone calls, screenshots of apps in use, etc.

Re:Not only no

[coofercat]

Whilst I agree with what you're saying, the likes of Amazon seem to be doing very well selling the Kindle Fire, at massive discount, subsidised by ads. FWIW, I've bought two - more on that in moment. Those things are wall-to-wall ads - on the lock screen, on your home screen, in every app you run - everywhere. All so you can save some money on the purchase price. It's a way to buy a 'proper brand' device at a 'chinese knock-off' price, and in some sense takes the risk out of that purchase.

In my case, I bought them for the kids. The 'kids mode' turns off every single ad, and limits what apps they can use to the ones I allow them to have. For us brits, that means I can load it up with BBC Iplayer Kids + some cbeebies apps and then hand the tablet to my kids knowing they can do what the hell they want without ever seeing any 'bad' (or even questionable) content, and also never, ever seeing an ad. Perfect! When they get old enough that I can take off the training wheels, they'll get a chinese knock-off tablet instead.

Back to the topic at hand - you'd have to be an idiot to want a 'free' phone that shoves apps at you day and night. Given that phones on contract don't cost much (at least, not 'ordinary' phones on 'ordinary' contracts), just pay up the £30/month and be done with it. You won't get an iPhoneX for free on these schemes, so it's not like you'd be getting a 'better' phone for less money than you'd be doing on contract.

Re:Not only no

[toebob]

The target demographic isn't always too poor to afford the products advertised. When you're poor you get money in small windfalls and you spend it quickly before it disappears on its own.

Payday comes around, or tax refund time, or welfare check time - whatever it is - and the advertisers want to make sure their product is right at the top of the minds of people who are yearning for something to make them happy. Many will gladly splurge on expensive sneakers or as-seen-on-TV gadgets to try to temporarily forget about normal life.

Maybe they can't pay for a monthly cell phone bill but they can certainly buy stuff.

Re:Not only no

[jellomizer]

There is a key difference between mobile service and free access to a website.
The reason for Ads on websites, is because many of them are nearly hard to monetize. Back in the early 2000's we talked about micropayments where you would be charged a fraction of a cent to hit a webpage. However that never caught on. Ads on most websites are the best way for them to make money, as their business model is based on trying to make it a popular place to go to. The economic problem is making a complex website is expensive, however it handles a lot of users for its investment so it may lead to a dollar per user. But charging people a small amount for access is just annoying to the users who can find somewhere else for free. So the Ad model came to be.
However for Mobile service we can charge the individual, for it. Because it is one bill for a unified service, and they can pick what they want more speed, less speed, unlimited, bandwidth caps...

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

It starts with ads paying for the service. Then the ads only give you a discount, but they're optional. Then the ads become mandatory. And then the discount goes away because there are no alternatives without ads. Do you want constant ad bombardment? Because this is how you get constant ad bombardment.

Re:Not only no

[mjwx]

Came here to post this EXACT comment.

Well, at least the first sentence. The rest is true, but I was just going to stop at fuck no.

This.

Because like anything else "ad supported", they'll eventually start asking for money and blocking off people who don't pay. Of course the ads will not go away no matter how much you pay.

A lot of ISP's in countries with more lax justice systems already inject ads into their clients service.

However here in the UK, my mobile service is £6 per month, no contract, for 1.5 GB of data with unlimited calls and texts... And that by far is not the cheapest plan I could get (in fact it puts me on the most reliable network in the UK). Parting with £72 a year for hassle free and ad free service is a fair deal to me.

Ads are not just ads

[themusicgod1]

In the 21st century, they are tracking devices, spying on you. The telescreens watch you through the ads. I do not consent to be watched by your panopticon, no.

Short Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Next.

Re: Short Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No next.

Not sustainable

[93 Escort Wagon]

The more ads you shove into the face of a consumer, the less engaged with each ad that consumer becomes - and the lower your return per-advertisement goes.

Re:Not sustainable

[JaredOfEuropa]

The solution: 1) more ads. 2) target ads more accurately by mining our private lives ever deeper.

Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

If you have a smart phone, you are already being tracked and spied on.

People are already giving away their personal information hand over fist for the sake of convenience or some stupid, mindless entertainment, so I would imagine they'd happily to it in exchange for saving a few bucks a month.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[Aristos Mazer]

But there are still ways to limit *who* is spying on you, and if we all collectively minimize that list, that makes those few easier to police/regulate.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[themusicgod1]

This is why I don't have a handheld surveillance device / smart phone. But it doesn't have to be this way. Purism, for example is making decent progress on a handheld computer that doesn't, though I doubt there's much they are doing on the radio side to protect the user from the predatory carriers.

The problem with the people who opt-out of such things is you don't hear about them so much. They exist.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[themusicgod1]

Agreed, but we're not even close to that, so for the time being treating as as an infection is good practice.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[Falos]

am tracked / am not tracked is a false dichotomy

Your defeatist attitude will sink you much lower on the very much not binary spectrum.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

If you have an Android phone, the one of the largest software companies on the planet is spying on you. Being concerned about smaller companies doesn't really make any sense.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[Aristos Mazer]

Of course it makes sense. Google is big enough to regulate and is subject to US law. If youâ(TM)re a US citizen, that gives some control over what it does with our data â" we could put whatever restraint we want, just as GDRP law did in Europe. The smaller companies often are not US players. Also, Google is boycot-able, and responsive to market pressures. The smaller companies are much harder to target with collective action.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

. Google is big enough to regulate and is subject to US law.

Are you kidding? The US has no laws about data privacy.

Also, Google is boycot-able, and responsive to market pressures

Again, are you kidding, or are you being serious?

Re: Phones are not just phones

[Aristos Mazer]

Just because we do not have data privacy laws does not mean we cannot. And several boycotts have worked on Google over the years (the revamping of YouTube, for one example), so I see no reason why they would not be effective in the future, were someone to start organizing one. So, to answer your question: yes, I am serious.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

What "Revamping of Youtube"? Youtube is still as much of a cesspool as it's always been.

I'm sorry, but if you look at recent US history, you'll see very few, if any, privacy laws passed in favor of regular people in the past few decades. It's not going to happen. We have an incredibly corrupt government.

No.

[mydn]

No.

What a stupid question.

No

[Jarik C-Bol]

No. Not only no, but Hell No.

no

[WCMI92]

Too many ads. No way.

Hell No!

[WindowsStar]

Hell No, Hell No! we are already commercialized to death on everything now!

Re:Hell No!

[Iwastheone]

I'm nearing 60 orbits around our Sun, have seen the "progress" of the internet over the years, back when annoying banner ads 'strobe light flashed' to get your attention. So I have learned to completely ignore any ad, thank God for adblocking software. Am I willing to have to wait while a 30/60 second ad plays before I can actually do what I intended? Of course not. Todays modern internet is invasive enough already. If I need to buy something I know how to find it, I do not need some ad telling me how happier my life will be if I buy this soda or car or whatever, but I'm old and much wiser now. The newer people are not aware of how advertising works, they are the new 'suckers' for the ad companies. God damn, we do live in an interesting time.

Headline Rules

[chromeronin799]

If there is a questionmark in the headline, the answer is NO!

Sweet remuneration

[Anonymous Coward]

2-3 hours of ad-viewing per day * 30 days = 60-90 hours per month all to receive a $10/month service. That means you'll be paid 11 to 17 cents per hour to watch ads. Who could resist that sweet remuneration?

Re:Sweet remuneration

[Excelcia]

This is meta, but has anyone else noticed odd downvotings? At the time I write this, there are about 10 "no" posts all downvoted to 0. The post I'm replying to being one of them, even though it is quite value added with a cogent and persuasive point about the benefit to time ratio.

Makes me question the moderation point generation system. I've noticed what appears to be targeted/questionable/organized downvoting on more and more posts in recent months.

Re:Sweet remuneration

[tepples]

At the time I write this, there are about 10 "no" posts all downvoted to 0.

Posts by Anonymous Coward start at zero.

Amazon already offers this

[WoodstockJeff]

To save $20 on a Kindle, you agree to allow them to put an advertisement on the screen when the Kindle is idle.

I gave them the extra $20.

Netzero?

[Anonymous Coward]

Took long enough for Netzero to reinvent itself.

Let me be clear

[Ziest]

FUCK NO!

Just in case someone is confused. FUCK NO means FUCK NO NEVER

Re:Let me be clear

[CanadianMacFan]

I'm sensing a slight negativity towards the idea.

Free PC 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they implement this better than Free PC did about 20 years ago.

Here's why Netflix had success...

[MindPrison]

...it wasn't because of their astonishing content,

but rather the fact your average Joe now had a way to say goodbye to AD's forever, well - almost forever, because Netflix is in certain parts of the world re-introducing advertisement into their subscription plans.

Youtube had a similar scheme, while it DID not become the subscription boom they've hoped for, it did gather a rather substantial amount of actually faithful subscribers (we're talking Youtube premium here), and it keeps growing. Yes - you can use ad-blockers, but let's face it, that doesn't pay anyone's bills, let alone the content creators.

Personally I have both, simply as a way to opt-out of all the onslaught of senseless, mind numbing repetitive irrelevant ads. A.I will always have an opinion on what you want or need, regardless of what you really think, this makes people scramble towards AD-free solutions, even if they have to pay for it, and I'm no different in that regards, I simply HATE ads. And that's coming from a guy who used to work in advertisement.

The reason they want to offer you "free anything" is because there really is no such things in this world as a free meal, if you want something for free, you won't get that - but you can accept being a slave of the consumer audience, meaning you accept certain chores (such as having to watch an ad) in order to get something in return, so - nothing for free here. But you'll soon find yourself tired to death over it, or buying stuff you don't really need - if you're weak.

Ad free - is the future. Your time is valuable, way more valuable than any wasted time on useless products you'll never need. Every minute you waste or being distracted by things that annoy you, serves you no good at all. But it does bring other people jobs, and money, while you suffer through it all - nothing is for free.

Your choice, essentially. Vote with your money!

Sounds like a great idea

[Pollux]

I mean, look how well it worked out for Free-PC!

People who do dumb things with their money

[raymorris]

You're not wrong.

At the same time, people who make dumb decisions might be the perfect audience for certain advertisers. Perfect place for a payday loan ad. (Grumble)

The yungguns

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe out of all these posts, you were the only person who mentioned Netzero. I came here specifically looking for it. The fucking kids don't know shit. Netzero got me through college!

Windows 10 beat them

[fph il quozientatore]

On the other hand, most people are already using on their computer a free (as in beer) OS which comes with Candy Crush ads in the main system menu...

I am rich, so no

[GuB-42]

I have a decently paying job now, I don't need to deface my home screen to get mobile service.
But before that, $10 is $10 so if it isn't too annoying, then yes.

BTW, it shows a flaw in that system. If you don't have money to pay for your mobile service, you most likely won't have money to buy what the ads are showing.

Let me think

[houghi]

I put black tape over the logo on my monitor, so I do not see the logo. I cut it out of my backpack (Not a hole into the backpack), so there is no logo.

I pay extra for stuff to have no logo, so the answer will be "unelikely".

Ovivo

[Going_Digital]

Was tried in the UK by a company called OVIVO, it crashed and burned.

Sure I would... trust me.

[ne1av1cr]

I'd be more than happy to load them then run a script to make them invisible so I never see them.

What a terrible idea

[danomac]

We're already bombarded with ads wherever we go.

I can see it now: You're having a heart attack and need to dial 911. But wait! Your phone forces you to watch an ad for aspirin before you can place the call...

Sure, the service will be free *for now*

[TheDarkener]

But in a couple of years when the board is looking for new revenue streams (COUGHhuluCOUGH) they'll start charging a small amount. Hell, maybe they'll offer "ad-free" service for a couple of bucks more a month for those who are tired of the ever-increasing and ever-annoying ads when they just want to respond to a text for 3 seconds.

Then it intensifies. More ads, so more people start switching to "ad-free". But then the ad-free service becomes "minimal ad" service. Then they slowly turn the dial up, slow enough for most not to notice consciously.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Until they get bought out by AT&T or some other similarly evil megacorp.

I pay for my service

[johnsie]

I pay for my service and get the service i expect.

maybe

[Cajun Hell]

I wouldn't show the ads on my real home screen or give them access to my real coordinates/camera/etc, but sure, in exchange for internet access I might be willing to run their malware inside of some kind of container, if I had confidence in the container really being secure.

Fuck

[MerlTurkin]

No.

No

[euxneks]

Fuck no. Ads can fuck right off.

TechCrunch

[rowleydaisy]

No, I don't Put Ads On my Home Screens For Free Mobile Service