The number of ads on Amazon Prime Video has doubled in less than 18 months

[midian182]

A hot potato: Do you feel like Amazon Prime Video has more ads than it used to? It's not your imagination. The streamer has reportedly increased the amount of ads to nearly double the amount it showed when the basic tier became ad-supported.

Amazon promised "limited advertisements" when it announced the controversial change to bring commercials to its Prime service, forcing customers to pay an extra $2.99 on their subscription to remove the interruptions.

The ads arrived on Prime in January 2024 at a rate of two to three-and-a-half minutes every hour. But according to Adweek, which cites six ad buyers and documents reviewed by the publication, that rate has increased to four to six ad-minutes per hour – double the initial load in less than 18 months.

Adweek writes that Amazon had informed investors of the increased ad load but not publicly acknowledged the change to customers. It reportedly told investors in 2024 that it would "ramp up" the volume of ads in 2025.

The number of ads Amazon now runs puts it in the middle of the pack compared to other streamers. Netflix, which charges $7.99 per month with ads, has the fewest per hour, while the likes of Hulu, Tubi, and Paramount+ are at the higher end. They're all still a lot lighter than what you would find on traditional TV, which typically serves between 13 and 16 ad-minutes per hour.

Most of the big streamers have introduced cheaper ad-free tiers for customers to save money at the cost of interruptions. But Amazon made ads the default for those already paying the full Prime membership price of $139 per year/$15 per month, asking for more money to remove them.

Further annoying Prime customers was the revelation that those who don't hand over the extra $2.99 per month also lose access to Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos surround sound support. This was something that Amazon previously failed to reveal, and seemed like a further punishment for those don't pay more.

In early 2024, subscribers filed a class action in federal court alleging Amazon misled Prime Video users by charging more for an ad-free experience – despite advertising the service as commercial-free. But US District Judge Barbara Rothstein dismissed the lawsuit in February, stating that no binding promise guaranteed perpetual ad-free streaming.

Image credit: Glenn Carstens-Peters

Permalink to story:

The number of ads on Amazon Prime Video has doubled in less than 18 months

 

[PXAbstraction]

And that's what my buddy's Plex is for. You want me to pay for your content (and yes, getting it as part of a Prime membership is still paying for it), then I don't want to see ads. Same reason I have no qualms using SponsorBlock on YouTuber when I pay for Premium. Maybe if they didn't spend a billion dollars on one season of a terrible Lord of the Rings show no one asked for, Prime Video would be more lucrative the way it was.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

I really wish Amazon would sell a version of Prime that is just for the shipping; I have no interest in any of the videos on their service & its obnoxious that it is a forced bundle.

 

[mgwerner]

Cable did this decades ago, and set the standard. The original attraction in the late 70s, and the point was driven in the sales pitch, was "no ads." The subscription fee pays what the ads would have. Over time, they added "ads" for their own content on the cable channel, then "informational" content in the dead network air spaces, and few complained. By the 90s there were ads everywhere, as well as high cable fees, and extra fees to get the channels you wanted. That's when we bailed on cable, and it has only gotten worse.

If you are still a subscriber to a fee-based service, you have only yourself to blame. Plenty of free content, and even more if you know how to torrent, all with no ads.

 

[Haaky]

The hole purpose of paying for Amazon Prime in the first place was because it was Ad free. Now they have been putting ads on there, and they want to put more ads on there?

I'll be cancelling my Amazon Prime and sticking with Netflix. Amazon is just another scam.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Thank God for unlock origin. The only service I'm willing to pay for without reservation.

I really wish Amazon would sell a version of Prime that is just for the shipping; I have no interest in any of the videos on their service & its obnoxious that it is a forced bundle.

Same, Amazon shipping is far more valuable. I want them to take it a step further, put their shoes like The Grand Tour on Blu Ray so I don't need streaming at all.

 

[Impudicus]

What's the difference in Amazon saying limited ads, vs unlimited ads?

 

[yRaz]

What's the difference in Amazon saying limited ads, vs unlimited ads?

Unlimited ads is the version where you just watch ads, no content.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

The hole purpose of paying for Amazon Prime in the first place was because it was Ad free. Now they have been putting ads on there, and they want to put more ads on there?

I'll be cancelling my Amazon Prime and sticking with Netflix. Amazon is just another scam.

That’s not why people pay for Prime lol. That’s why people pay for PRIME VIDEO which is $9 a month with ads and $12 for no ads. Netflix will cost you a 50% more for no ads.

When you pay for Prime, it adds $6 per month, free delivery, Music Prime, Prime Gaming, unlimited photo storage, free Grubhub+, Alexa+ (voice LLM assistant), and other perks. You can’t get any of that with Netflix.

 

[Haaky]

That’s not why people pay for Prime lol. That’s why people pay for PRIME VIDEO which is $9 a month with ads and $12 for no ads. Netflix will cost you a 50% more for no ads.

When you pay for Prime, it adds $6 per month, free delivery, Music Prime, Prime Gaming, unlimited photo storage, free Grubhub+, Alexa+ (voice LLM assistant), and other perks. You can’t get any of that with Netflix.

Yea exactly why I like Netflix, I'm not saddled with a bunch of garbage I don't need. I have Spotify for my music, Google Photos is free, Alexa, yea cause I really want that thing spying on me.
I like Amazon and order alot of stuff off of there that either you can't get locally or just to expensive to buy locally.
And Prime has some awesome shows on there. I can deal with the limited ads, but if its gonna go the way of network TV then the heck with it.
Bad enough Youtube has intrusive ads more than content, but I guess you can't expect anything for free now days, not even freedom.

 

[trents]

All drive by greed. Just plain greed. Amazon execs and stockholders not content to be rich, they want to be super rich and spends more time trying to figure out how to spend all that money on things they don't need.

 

[captaincranky]

I'm thrilled, tickled pink" in fact, that Amazon has maintained their, "free shipping over $35.00", policy. There isn't much to recommend, "free day next shipping", if you simply make your purchases before you need them. When Amazon is the shipper, they simply hold your goods until they have a Prime run in your area, then toss them in the truck. Living in a "high density environment", (read "ghetto"), I usually get my deliveries a day or so before the original estimate anyway.

I'm one of the worst procrastinators imaginable anyway. I open my packages when I get them to verify it's what I ordered and intact. After which, it might sit for a year+ before I get around to doing anything with it.

Since I don't have such lofty VGA goals, (or the finances), to need a GTX-5090, I've never received Care package foodstuffs in lieu of any electronics I've purchased.

 

[dansharp2014]

When Amazon started with ads I stopped watching Prime video. I think, and I may be wrong, that by not watching the videos I'm not helping revenue generation by watching. Since Bezo's left the current CEO seems to be steadily tearing Amazon apart one greedy piece at a time.

 

[captaincranky]

"The number of ads Amazon now runs puts it in the middle of the pack compared to other streamers. Netflix, which charges $7.99 per month with ads, has the fewest per hour, while the likes of Hulu, Tubi, and Paramount+ are at the higher end. They're all still a lot lighter than what you would find on traditional TV, which typically serves between 13 and 16 ads per hour."

@midian182 The average one hour OTA TV episode runs about 42 minutes. So, over 25% of the hour is ads. The side band channel ads are brutal, with a capital "B". They cover everything from adult diapers to, "100 blue or 100 yellow pills for $100.00." (They're not even saying what the hell is in them). My newest TV is "thoughtful enough", to kick in closed captions when you hit the mute button. There's no escaping them, unless you physically leave the room. BTW it's got the Google OS. It was $50.00 bucks cheaper than the same exact model equipped with Roku. I couldn't pass that up, much less not suffer along with the legions of other, "Android victims".

I've had enough Broadway Musical song and dance numbers for weight reduction drugs like "Wegovy", to last a lifetime. I'm hoping against hope that whatshisname will lift the regulations against cigarette ads. After all, between him and RFK Jr. they've already dropped most of the regulations on everything else that can possibly kill you. I'm a practicing Democrat, but those ads, and the ones for HIV prep drugs are even way too "woke", for this, (mostly), liberal. (Sorry but 300+ pound women trying to dance, and men kissing men at point blank range on a 65" TV is IMO "somewhat excessive", and enough to erode any commitment to "inclusiveness" I might have had, quite a bit.)

Federal funding for PBS has been either cut or eliminated. I shudder to think how much of their already incessant money grubbing "interludes" will increase because of it. PBS apparently intends to stream "Austin City Limits" in 4K HDR. The fundraising necessary for that to happen, could likely stretch that 1 hour show, to maybe 2 hours, if not beyond. Not to mention that in 4K on today's huge TVs will make viewers feel like they're right up on stage, a veritable integral part of the "beg-a-thon". I wonder if 4K broadcasting will lead to PBS expecting 4 times an individual's previous donation amounts. "Quick where's my checkbook? I'm psyched up already", or am I?

 

[learninmypc]

Cable did this decades ago, and set the standard. The original attraction in the late 70s, and the point was driven in the sales pitch, was "no ads." The subscription fee pays what the ads would have. Over time, they added "ads" for their own content on the cable channel, then "informational" content in the dead network air spaces, and few complained. By the 90s there were ads everywhere, as well as high cable fees, and extra fees to get the channels you wanted. That's when we bailed on cable, and it has only gotten worse.

If you are still a subscriber to a fee-based service, you have only yourself to blame. Plenty of free content, and even more if you know how to torrent, all with no ads.

Thanks, I remember that "The original attraction in the late 70s, and the point was driven in the sales pitch, was "no ads." The subscription fee pays what the ads would have."

 

[captaincranky]

Thanks, I remember that "The original attraction in the late 70s, and the point was driven in the sales pitch, was "no ads." The subscription fee pays what the ads would have."

I had cable way back when, with a couple of "no ads" premium movie channels. In fairness. the movies did run all the way through without interruption. However, movies are considered "feature length" at 90 minutes, but only scheduled every two hours. Which left up to 30 minutes to fill between them. Which was filled with an also "uninterrupted" massive commercial for the other upcoming movies.

Well, only a few were top box office draws, and the rest were "B" movie bullsh!t. IIRC, only a couple dozen were scheduled for the entire month. Of course they were shown at various times of the day, for the "viewers convenience". At the time, (again IIRC) the channels were somewhere between 7 and 10 bucks a pop, which was fairly pricey in a time of somewhere around a $2.00 an hour minimum wage.

Today's so called, "cutting the cord", is merely a euphemism for, buying your cable subscription. "a la carte". instead of. "a la mode".

Verizon foisted "Verizon TV" off on me when I applied for the Pandemic discount/subsidy program. Which I'm very grateful for them continuing to provide, after the fed bailed out of the program.

However, the internet TV after being installed, locked my access to OTA by antenna out completely. Anyway, within a few months of uninstalling it, the OS of the TV crapped out. It started doing weird things like spontaneously muting itself with no input command given.

I've never had a TV OS act that way before or after the streaming install and removal. I thought for all intents and purposes, a TV's OS was, "EPROMed in stone". It would seen, that's not so much the case.

I have no way of knowing if these events were truly predicated on one another. But, it did cause a bit of suspicion and conjecture on my part.

Oh well, the TV was only 55", it was about time for , "an upsize", oops, I meant "upgrade" anyway. My eyes aren't getting any younger, that's for sure.