When I use diverse social media tools, mostly Rednote as well as Instagram, I watch videos, read articles, and listen to songs, assuming that I consume the content free of charge. Last week, when I tried using the free version of Spotify, I recall that I had to watch three advertisements before the playlist commenced. Platforms like Spotify continues to raise prices for many of their premium products, NBC News, with an intention of incentivizing users to pay so that they can escape the very interruptions they create. Even if accessing the content from Instagram incurs no monetary cost, I now realise that I often pay through other means without knowing it.
How we pay for streaming services
Source: BBC NEWS
What Would Happen if We Had to Pay for Everything?
Let us assume that all media products require direct payment. How could the consumption of content change? I would now prefer to be offered services that feel indispensable to my routines, such as news, music, and on-demand entertainment, and abandon platforms that only provide short-term entertainment. I would not make a decision based solely on the financial ability but on the perceived value of emotional attachment, habit, and trust.
To be honest, this does not mean that decisions to access content are determined only by ability to pay for it. It means that other factors, such as emotional attachment, trust, habit, and the perceived value of a product, impact decisions on what content people prefer. Media scholar David Hendy explains that traditionally, public service broadcasting combined both profit and cultural interests in a way that resulted developing of information for a common good, not solely with the aim of generating profits. This aim, I think, has been lost with advertising and subscriptions taking over.
My Own Streaming Choices
On a personal scale, based on my personal media usage, I can say that I would still be willing to pay for Spotify and Netflix because they are an integral part of my life. I use Netflix and Spotify to watch movies and listen to music in the evening. I think I would likely stop subscribing to YouTube Premium because I usually use it to watch random clips on the platform. This reflection allowed me to realise that most of the decisions that I make rely on habit and personal attachment and not price alone. Subscribing to content with my own money would allow me to think about what services are really important to me and which I only use conveniently.
The change of media economics is a form of restructuring in how viewers are monetised. De-Lima-Santos et al. say that the industry is changing and moving away from one source of income (advertising or licensing) to a mixed system that includes subscriptions, sponsorship, and data mining. For instance, a combination of product placement, brand association, and user data analytics could currently sponsor one episode of a streaming show. It is not clear here who is being paid and who is paying; we consume but also create the wealth that sustains the platforms.
I believe there is a better way we can change this pattern. I would suggest an open contribution from users and the profit of the corporation. Think about the cooperative streaming model, which would be able to introduce the value in a more even manner. I believe that democratic communication is founded on ending media monopolies and the restoration of the right of state ownership. It not only implies returning to the time of government-monitored broadcasting but also encourages non-profit-making organisations where consumers are members, without focusing only on viewers. It is possible that the economics of media consumption will not be able to revert to the simplicity of a single subscription or a one-off fee. The main problem is to create systems that would consider audiences as not only commodities but also partners in production and sustainability.