4 ms·

Total online ad spend works out to about $1/person/day in the US.[0] We have collectively sacrificed our privacy because we're collectively not willing to pay

by yodon 7y ago

Total online ad spend works out to about $1/person/day in the US.[0] We have collectively sacrificed our privacy because we're collectively not willing to pay $1/day for what used to be called newspapers and magazines ($1/day is equivalent to subscribing to a daily paper or a couple magazines, as most people did in days of old). There is a cost to providing news. The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions but consumers collectively said no I want free beer and laughed at newspapers and magazine publishers for being so stupid as to try to sell subscriptions. Having been told no I won't pay for subscriptions the industry was dragged forcibly from what was unquestionably its preferred subscription model into the ad tracking supported model we have today. All because costs people can see (subscriptions) are less palatable than far higher costs they can't see (ubiquitous tracking). [0] https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/24/18715421/internet-free-data-ads-cost https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/24/18715421/internet-free-...

tinus_hn 7y ago
Do you think the content owners wouldn’t take the marketeers $1 if you paid $1? You pay for a printed newspaper and it has ads as well.
- notatoad 7y ago
  Exactly. The publication that is the content of this article is a paywalled, subscription-based site. This is not an either/or situation.
aakilfernandes 7y ago
While a fair point, cost is not value. It is the lower bound of value. It could be that targeted ads are creating $10 value per person but it only cost $1 per person, $9 of which goes to the advertiser/consumer.
- yodon 7y ago
  The idea of 9x extra hidden value lurking in the system is a nice concept but unlikely to be present. It's unlikely to be present on the advertiser side because if advertisers were actually reaping 10x the value of their digital ad costs, ad prices would rise significantly because advertisers would be willing to pay significantly more than they do today. The excess positive value is unlikely to be present on the consumer side because as already commented the consumer is reaping a huge net negative hidden value as a result of the ubiquitous tracking it drives.
beagle3 7y ago
> we're collectively not willing to pay $1/day for what used to be called newspapers and magazines > The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions but consumers collectively said no That's not how I see it. People were happy to pay for cable TV and get no ads. But ... cable channels were all too happy to take that payment AND the money from ads. Magazines and newspapers aren't any different, and neither is the internet. I would be happy to pay $1/day, even twice as much, to not be tracked. There is no one I can pay that to, and there never was; and if such a thing would have existed, they would still likely start tracking at some point, as happened with cable TV and ads.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  That's not anywhere near enough. The guy who can pay is worth way more than the guy who can't pay. The $1 is the arithmetic mean but the distribution isn't uniform.
  - beagle3 7y ago
    And the end result is that the people who are not willing to pay $1/day are subsidizing me, the person willing to pay much more - because the currency is ads and tracking — of which I opt out as much as I can through uBO, uMatrix and a variety of other tools.
- m463 7y ago
  You know, if craigslist charged for some of their ads, then actually had a tracking-free newsdesk... You could recreate the newspaper.
notatoad 7y ago
>The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions but consumers collectively said no I want free beer I do want free beer, but the problem wasn't that consumers didn't want to pay for a subscription, it's that we don't want to pay for 300 subscriptions. If you try to pay for a subscription to every news website that deserves your money, you're paying a lot more than $1/day
- cwkoss 7y ago
  I can't wait for there to be a ubiquitous method to tip pennies (or fractions of a penny) to strangers on the internet easily. I'd happily throw a nickel at a good article, but I don't want to have to make a per-publisher account to do so.
  - notatoad 7y ago
    Blendle tried it. They had a bunch of good publishers signed on, and the platform created. But apparently people didn't want it.
  - Engineering-MD 7y ago
    Flattr (https://flattr.com https://flattr.com) fried something similar, but unfortunately never took off really. The initial idea as I understand it (May have changed since) is you pay a set amount per month and tip articles you read. The amount tipped is the amount you pay per month divided by the number of people you tip. Therefore you never pay more than your subscription amount.
diminoten 7y ago
I'm not paying $1 to every website I want to visit, that's way too much money. I happily give up some amount of my privacy to save myself the cost, especially considering the privacy I'm giving up is the kind of thing I'd tell a stranger readily. It's not like WaPo is asking for my family's deep dark secrets...
stubish 7y ago
Paying money to ad companies to not show you ads is a protection racket. I imagine if one of the larger players actually tried it they would get sued. And personally, supporting companies I would rather disappear isn't going to get much traction. It is a lot more than $1 a day per person who believes advertising is a requirement of a modern, functioning society.

by yodon 7y ago

tinus_hn 7y ago

Do you think the content owners wouldn’t take the marketeers $1 if you paid $1? You pay for a printed newspaper and it has ads as well.

notatoad 7y ago
Exactly. The publication that is the content of this article is a paywalled, subscription-based site. This is not an either/or situation.

aakilfernandes 7y ago

While a fair point, cost is not value. It is the lower bound of value. It could be that targeted ads are creating $10 value per person but it only cost $1 per person, $9 of which goes to the advertiser/consumer.

yodon 7y ago
The idea of 9x extra hidden value lurking in the system is a nice concept but unlikely to be present. It's unlikely to be present on the advertiser side because if advertisers were actually reaping 10x the value of their digital ad costs, ad prices would rise significantly because advertisers would be willing to pay significantly more than they do today. The excess positive value is unlikely to be present on the consumer side because as already commented the consumer is reaping a huge net negative hidden value as a result of the ubiquitous tracking it drives.

beagle3 7y ago

> we're collectively not willing to pay $1/day for what used to be called newspapers and magazines > The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions but consumers collectively said no That's not how I see it. People were happy to pay for cable TV and get no ads. But ... cable channels were all too happy to take that payment AND the money from ads. Magazines and newspapers aren't any different, and neither is the internet. I would be happy to pay $1/day, even twice as much, to not be tracked. There is no one I can pay that to, and there never was; and if such a thing would have existed, they would still likely start tracking at some point, as happened with cable TV and ads.

scarejunba 7y ago
That's not anywhere near enough. The guy who can pay is worth way more than the guy who can't pay. The $1 is the arithmetic mean but the distribution isn't uniform.
- beagle3 7y ago
  And the end result is that the people who are not willing to pay $1/day are subsidizing me, the person willing to pay much more - because the currency is ads and tracking — of which I opt out as much as I can through uBO, uMatrix and a variety of other tools.
m463 7y ago
You know, if craigslist charged for some of their ads, then actually had a tracking-free newsdesk... You could recreate the newspaper.

notatoad 7y ago

>The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions but consumers collectively said no I want free beer I do want free beer, but the problem wasn't that consumers didn't want to pay for a subscription, it's that we don't want to pay for 300 subscriptions. If you try to pay for a subscription to every news website that deserves your money, you're paying a lot more than $1/day

cwkoss 7y ago
I can't wait for there to be a ubiquitous method to tip pennies (or fractions of a penny) to strangers on the internet easily. I'd happily throw a nickel at a good article, but I don't want to have to make a per-publisher account to do so.
- notatoad 7y ago
  Blendle tried it. They had a bunch of good publishers signed on, and the platform created. But apparently people didn't want it.
- Engineering-MD 7y ago
  Flattr (https://flattr.com https://flattr.com) fried something similar, but unfortunately never took off really. The initial idea as I understand it (May have changed since) is you pay a set amount per month and tip articles you read. The amount tipped is the amount you pay per month divided by the number of people you tip. Therefore you never pay more than your subscription amount.

diminoten 7y ago

I'm not paying $1 to every website I want to visit, that's way too much money. I happily give up some amount of my privacy to save myself the cost, especially considering the privacy I'm giving up is the kind of thing I'd tell a stranger readily. It's not like WaPo is asking for my family's deep dark secrets...

stubish 7y ago

Paying money to ad companies to not show you ads is a protection racket. I imagine if one of the larger players actually tried it they would get sued. And personally, supporting companies I would rather disappear isn't going to get much traction. It is a lot more than $1 a day per person who believes advertising is a requirement of a modern, functioning society.