3 ms·
My guess here is that the subset of users who would be willing to pay a monthly subscription is strongly correlated with the subset that advertisers are interes
by red_admiral 10y ago
My guess here is that the subset of users who would be willing to pay a monthly subscription is strongly correlated with the subset that advertisers are interested in targeting most. If a site got say 10% of users to pay a subscription, their value to advertisers - and hence their advertising revenue - might drop a lot more than 10%, leaving them with a net loss.
- watwatwatwat 10y agoI run uBlock origin and would pay for a monthly subscription.
- fauigerzigerk 10y agoThat's a very interesting point. I never thought of that and I think you're right.
- GrinningFool 10y agoIt seems to me the opposite. If someone cares enough to pay for the content directly ,I suspect that person is the one who will be going out of the way to avoid ads and tracking in the first place.
- fdgdasfadsf 10y agoThe trouble is that at this stage hoovering up customer data is in Google's DNA. As far as my perceptions go all a paid option means is that now they attach my credit card details to their data on me.
- lliiffee 10y agoThat's a good point, but it also seems strongly correlated with those that run ad/privacy blockers. (Even with such a blocker, perhaps the data collected is still valuable, though?) My instinct is that by selling an ad and tracking-free site, they would be indicating that the ads and tracking are a bad thing, as opposed to the party line that it's all "to deliver better services to you".