People think of advertisements/sponsorships as "free money" to support things that otherwise couldn't be budgeted for (arts, sports, infrastructure), but if you think a bit deeper companies wouldn't pay for ads if they didn't expect a return on it.
If an ad during a sports game pays the teams/league 10 million dollars, that means they expect the audience to spend in aggregate 10 million more dollars on the product. Sure, the company might be making a bad bet, and sometimes they do, but surely it would be better for everyone involved (except the advertisers and advertising company) if the league/teams just charged customers 10 million dollars more (not necessarily 10 million/ticket number per ticket, it could be merch, or perks, or upcharging for the nicer seats, but they do that anyway).
If you think about it, ads are basically a tool to fix broken monetization. But as long as they exist, we'll never address why monetization is so broken, and I suspect people would be more willing to spend disposable income on the things they actually enjoy, instead of the things they see ads for.
If an ad during a sports game pays the teams/league 10 million dollars, that means they expect the audience to spend in aggregate 10 million more dollars on the product. Sure, the company might be making a bad bet, and sometimes they do, but surely it would be better for everyone involved (except the advertisers and advertising company) if the league/teams just charged customers 10 million dollars more (not necessarily 10 million/ticket number per ticket, it could be merch, or perks, or upcharging for the nicer seats, but they do that anyway).
If you think about it, ads are basically a tool to fix broken monetization. But as long as they exist, we'll never address why monetization is so broken, and I suspect people would be more willing to spend disposable income on the things they actually enjoy, instead of the things they see ads for.