4 ms·
Not entirely related, but I remember thinking when Hulu was talking about an ad-free version of their streaming library that “this will clearly cost a lot more
by sharkweek 7y ago
Not entirely related, but I remember thinking when Hulu was talking about an ad-free version of their streaming library that “this will clearly cost a lot more per month because my eyeballs are worth A LOT!!”
Imagine my surprise when it turned out only being $4 a month to remove commercials. It almost hurts my feelings knowing how little I’m worth to advertisers...
- beagle3 7y agoBut it was 50% higher... that’s indeed a lot.
- porlune 7y agoBut "a lot" can still be insignificant. Imagine an ant falling from 1 meter, it would live, but would have fallen thousands of times its own height.
- natmaka 7y agoPaying to have commercials removed may not imply that your activity is not spied on, then the corresponding data not sold to third parties. You "locally" (on the site you paid) escape from advertising, indeed, but for the rest...
- squeaky-clean 7y agoIt's not only about allowing customers to pay for their share of ad revenue in order to remove it the ads. But to also enter new markets of customers. For example I would never subscribe to a service with ads, regardless of price. The Hulu tier that includes ads would have to pay me about $30/mo before I would consider switching from the ad free tier. The number might be unrelated to ad revenue at all and they figured that was the perfect threshold between capturing the highest number of "cheaper" subscribers while also maximizing new ad-free subscribers.