4 ms·

Man that's rough. You're right, my content is way not worth that. It's odd to me though. I could pay for content I care about at an amount far smaller than $20

Man that's rough. You're right, my content is way not worth that. It's odd to me though. I could pay for content I care about at an amount far smaller than $200/m, and the content creators would make more from me I imagine. Why the extreme overhead? There's no way some blogger is making $200/m off of a handful of clicks from me. I'd be shocked if they made $5/m directly from me. So where is the disconnect? (sidenote, i understand the $200/m figure was not for a single blogger. But, lets pretend that blogger was all of my traffic for the month. I still can't imagine it's even remotely close to $200/m)

freeone3000 7y ago
Everybody at every step takes a bit of money. It funds a billion-dollar industry of parasites.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Agreed. Which is sort of why I asked that. The reply to me said it would be closer to $200/m. However, I was wanting to pay content creators, not parasites. So my comment was talking about paying content creators. I can't imagine they come anywhere close to $200/m from me, as you put it it's all the middlemen. So why would I be concerned about $200/m?
__jal 7y ago
Google has a market cap of 894.52B at this point in time. For instance.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Yea, but in my comment I didn't care about Google. We were talking about money going directly to content providers, to compensate for the fact that they don't make ad money off of me.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    But do you care about all the services google provides? Do you use their search, email, etc? Those would also be things you would need to pay for.
    - asdkhadsj 7y ago
      Sure, and I'd love to see prices for those too. $200/m I doubt, though. Purely search though, nothing else from Google (I pay for my email/etc) To say though that Google has to get a piece of the $200/m that some blogger makes assumes of course that Google is the ad provider. Not sure, but it seems like a weak argument. I wish I could start seeing the real no-ads costs here.
- prewett 7y ago
  Market cap has nothing to do with how much ads are worth, it is just how much people are willing to pay for Google stock. Google's revenue from ads could be useful, though.

freeone3000 7y ago

Everybody at every step takes a bit of money. It funds a billion-dollar industry of parasites.

asdkhadsj 7y ago
Agreed. Which is sort of why I asked that. The reply to me said it would be closer to $200/m. However, I was wanting to pay content creators, not parasites. So my comment was talking about paying content creators. I can't imagine they come anywhere close to $200/m from me, as you put it it's all the middlemen. So why would I be concerned about $200/m?

__jal 7y ago

Google has a market cap of 894.52B at this point in time. For instance.

asdkhadsj 7y ago
Yea, but in my comment I didn't care about Google. We were talking about money going directly to content providers, to compensate for the fact that they don't make ad money off of me.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  But do you care about all the services google provides? Do you use their search, email, etc? Those would also be things you would need to pay for.
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    Sure, and I'd love to see prices for those too. $200/m I doubt, though. Purely search though, nothing else from Google (I pay for my email/etc) To say though that Google has to get a piece of the $200/m that some blogger makes assumes of course that Google is the ad provider. Not sure, but it seems like a weak argument. I wish I could start seeing the real no-ads costs here.
prewett 7y ago
Market cap has nothing to do with how much ads are worth, it is just how much people are willing to pay for Google stock. Google's revenue from ads could be useful, though.