Hide ads for Amazon Prime customers

I disagree with almost everything you said.  Even you appear to. You imply the customer of one is the customer of the other, then say, "That means they can treat Amazon's top customers with a bit more respect."  Sure...they could.  But what company would give up revenue to show respect to the customers of another site/company/partner of the first company, etc.?  That makes no sense at all.

As to Amazon buying them to "add value to what they sell..." that also makes no sense.  It helps them sell a higher quantity...having a relationship with IMDb does not change the "value" of an item they sell.  Adding demand to a nearly endless supply should allow them to lower price and increase market share...not raise prices. That would not make sense (assuming you meant the price would be higher and not that the movies were somehow improved).

But anyway...good luck with your suggestion.

Having a relationship with IMDb does not change the "value"
of an item they sell.

For one example, doesn't the X-Ray integration add some "value" to the Amazon Video user-experience?   As we know, X-Ray enables Amazon Video users to view information from IMDb while watching videos.   A VentureBeat writer has called this "a major differentiator between Amazon Video and the likes of Netflix."   If it really is useful enough to be a "major differentiator" then IMO, yes, it adds "value" for Amazon Video users.

I know almost nothing about x-ray...but does this only come about because of the relationship between Amazon and IMDb?  Would/could it not have happened if they had not become affiliated?  I remember the first DVD's out had content like filmography lists and the data  came from IMDb. IMDb had no affiliation, that I've ever heard of with Warner Brothers, et al.

Sure, adding content adds (mostly perceived) value. But the relationship between the two companies adds no real value.  Amazon clearly entered into the deal to receive clicks to their products...this does not add to "value" but to increase in traffic to their site. That does not increase the value of the items they sell.

Interestingly, the article you linked says that IMDb has to make their own money.  So, again, why would IMDb give away ad revenue just to make Amazon's customers happier?  If Amazon wants to make their own guests happier, that's their thing...not IMDb's.  Why would one not be suggesting instead that Amazon give away add revenue to people paying them for their premium service?  It doesn't make sense to say IMDb should take on that responsibility.

Anyway...I just don't see it happening...that's just me.  Have at it folks, if you want to spend your time debating it.  If we're down to parsing replies and nit picking about a word here and there, I see it as a double waste of time.

But have at it and enjoy!

... if you want to spend your time debating ....

Nah.  Unless the OP has more to say,
it looks like you got the last word
(except for me saying "you got the last word")!

@bluesmanSF, I'm not sure why you're so pro-IMDb ("champion"?).  I'd even consider a small fee for a premium IMDb version.  Pretty much everyone has a $1.99 or something like that version to remove ads, but all IMDb seems to care about is shoving useless ads for lame blockbuster movies made to satisfy the mindless masses.  I have literally never clicked on the ads they present other than to click the X and of late they've gotten even more obnoxious with full screen ads.

My points remains, Amazon is a public company, EVERYTHING IMDb does is tied to them legally.  Any profit they make reflects on Amazon.  Amazon could make it so Prime customers don't see ads or see fewer ads or see ads based on their search history, but no, they force canned movies like Captain America down our throats.  

You go right ahead and keep defending them, this isn't the first time this suggest has been made and it won't be the last.  I'll just use IMDb via AdBlock Plus's browser and solve this all together.