3 ms·
But $10 may be your ceiling, if you were paying them directly. Whereas if they continue to build information on you and ramp up impressions they believe they'll
by gdulli 8y ago
But $10 may be your ceiling, if you were paying them directly. Whereas if they continue to build information on you and ramp up impressions they believe they'll be able to raise that $9 to $15, then $24...
- giornogiovanna 8y agoBut then why won't Pinterest let me match whatever the advertisers are paying for my eyeballs for this year, and continue to gather data on me, just without showing me any ads? Oh, and maybe they could throw in some little inconsequential bonuses, just like Discord Nitro, so it doesn't just feel like paying for ads to be blocked. It sounds like everyone would win.
- dspillett 8y agoProbably because of the development and maintenance effort. It wouldn't actually take much such effort, but it might still be more costly than any benefit they'd get from the number of users who they think are likely to take part in such a scheme.
- edmundsauto 8y agoAlso, employee CPU cycle opportunity costs. These companies are interested in scale, so any employee's CPU cycles that are working on non-scalable stuff are basically wasted.
- scarejunba 8y agoBecause $100k of revenue is worthless at their scale. The feature may yield negative return after cost to build and maintain.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> why won't Pinterest let me match whatever the advertisers are paying for my eyeballs for this year The users who would opt out are likely educated and higher income. Taking them out of the pool reduces its value by a difficult-to-estimate amount to advertisers.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]