3 ms·
> As long consumers keep paying more to be advertised to (buying) than they're willing to pay to not (donations, subscriptions, boycotting) it'll stay a lopside
by jnbiche 8y ago
> As long consumers keep paying more to be advertised to (buying) than they're willing to pay to not (donations, subscriptions, boycotting) it'll stay a lopsided game.
The reason most American consumers prefer advertised-supported products to paid products is simply that can't afford them otherwise.
Unlike people in the top 10% of incomes, like most here on HN, most Americans simply don't have the means to pay an extra $10 or $20 a month here and there for various subscriptions or products. Almost 50% of all Americans have a negative net worth AND struggle to pay their basic bills like water, rent, electricity, and phone/Internet.
Once you understand this, then you'll understand why most Americans can't afford to pay for additional services even if they understood the true cost of advertising-supported services. Unlike the average software developer, they don't have an extra $1000 discretionary income a month to save or spend. They spend their entire income on necessities.
Plus, the cost of ad-supported services are not always evident to the average American, which reinforces their belief that it's not a bad idea to use Facebook and similar services (where they are the product).
- rosser 8y agoAnd a pretty common consensus among technologists seems to be, "That's their fault. They should have gone into STEM. Losers." stacked against people, this narrative goes. Even being on the wrong end of the structurally inherent information asymmetry between seller and buyer is the buyer's fault, somehow.
- rosser 8y agoThat should read "Despite the system being stacked against people."