3 ms·

Lots would if it weren't so inconvenient. I am not really sure about that. About 10 % of all Internet users are currently using an ad blocker. So 90 % are okay

by danbruc 10y ago

Lots would if it weren't so inconvenient. I am not really sure about that. About 10 % of all Internet users are currently using an ad blocker. So 90 % are okay with ads or don't care or whatever. Further I would estimate that users would have to pay between $5 and $10 per month to pay for the content they consume to provide an income for sites comparable to that of ads. Maybe 1 % of the ad blocker users - number pulled out of thin air - would be willing to replace their ad blocker with a monthly payment of $10 if this would would work frictionless, if you could magically convince the entire Internet to create some Netflix equivalent. In the end that would be 0.1 % of the Internet users which seems not really a huge incentive to bring such a Netflix equivalent into existence.

d-sc 10y ago
That would be a ~$30 million a year business in the United States alone which would be worthwhile if it was creating revenue out of previously non paying Adblock users. Numbers: Population: 300,000,00 million Percent internet users: 84%
- danbruc 10y ago
  It would be $30 millions for all sites combined, only a small fraction of that for each site. And every site would have to invest some money to integrate with such an offering. And you probably need quite a few site to make this work, nobody will pay much if it only gets you access to a hand full of sites. And this number hinges on the assumption of 1 % of the ad blocker user willing to pay which might be wildly optimistic. If it turns out to be only 0.1 %, you are down to $3 million for all sites combined. And there is of course the huge problem of bootstrapping this. Nobody will pay if you have no content to offer, nobody will invest into a solution without customers willing to pay.
anigbrowl 10y ago
That's exactly what people said about Netflix, so I'm gonna disagree without bothering to support my argument further.
- danbruc 10y ago
  I actually tend to believe that it could work but I also have some remaining doubts. In my comments I explicitly focused on dismissive arguments and points where I have doubts, hoping that someone would either back those doubts up or refute them. You should definitely not draw the conclusion that I think I could never work from the way I argued.

by danbruc 10y ago

d-sc 10y ago

That would be a ~$30 million a year business in the United States alone which would be worthwhile if it was creating revenue out of previously non paying Adblock users. Numbers: Population: 300,000,00 million Percent internet users: 84%

danbruc 10y ago
It would be $30 millions for all sites combined, only a small fraction of that for each site. And every site would have to invest some money to integrate with such an offering. And you probably need quite a few site to make this work, nobody will pay much if it only gets you access to a hand full of sites. And this number hinges on the assumption of 1 % of the ad blocker user willing to pay which might be wildly optimistic. If it turns out to be only 0.1 %, you are down to $3 million for all sites combined. And there is of course the huge problem of bootstrapping this. Nobody will pay if you have no content to offer, nobody will invest into a solution without customers willing to pay.

anigbrowl 10y ago

That's exactly what people said about Netflix, so I'm gonna disagree without bothering to support my argument further.

danbruc 10y ago
I actually tend to believe that it could work but I also have some remaining doubts. In my comments I explicitly focused on dismissive arguments and points where I have doubts, hoping that someone would either back those doubts up or refute them. You should definitely not draw the conclusion that I think I could never work from the way I argued.