6 ms·

I disagree substantially. Advertising, especially web advertising, allows us to pay for services not with money but our attention. When the Economist polled peo

I disagree substantially. Advertising, especially web advertising, allows us to pay for services not with money but our attention. When the Economist polled people how much they would pay to forego search engines, the result was over $17,000 [1]. It'd be simplistic to say that this is what Google could charge in a subscription model, but the point is that the value is very high. Is a world where poorer students who can't afford google have to compete against wealthier students with google a better world than one with web ads? I think it's easy to focus on the bad, the privacy issues and dark patterns that web ads incentivize, to the exclusion of the fact that it has expanded access to incredibly powerful services to people of all means (well, all means as long as they have access to the internet). 1. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/25/how-much-would-you-pay-to-keep-using-google https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/25/how-much...

6510 6y ago
Where advertisement automatons have better information (which they increasingly do) advertising things to poor people is carefully avoided. So the model has finite life-span. Japan CPC $1.32 CPM $0.38 Montenegro CPC $0.05 CPM $0.01 http://www.rudibedy.com/blog/facebook-advertising-cpc-cpm-per-country/ http://www.rudibedy.com/blog/facebook-advertising-cpc-cpm-pe...
- manfredo 6y ago
  Lower cost-per-click and cost per impression for lower income countries does not mean that companies are avoiding advertising to those populations. It just means people buying ads aren't as willing to spend money to reach those populations. The cost of advertising to populations with lower disposable income has always been lower. This isn't something new to web ads, it's a phenomenon that has existed long before the internet. I'm really not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
  - 6510 6y ago
    I don't see the add driven free services for all system survive in the long run. Say they start by dedicating more funds (hardware & software) to matching offers to customers with more disposable income. Say the next step is to offer more elaborate services or options to customers with money. Say, some coupon trick, if you buy a product A-Z you get 24 months of service B which is a paid version of the free service that served you the advert. This scheme is already doable with dumb adverts and without hoarding personal data. Its already that you send the poor person a 10% discount coupon for one box of chocolate and the rich person 4 boxes for free, a bottle of wine and a life time 10% discount. Why would the digital world be different?
marcus_holmes 6y ago
I would love a paid search service that excluded all the crap and just gave me the good stuff with no ads, let me set my own filter preferences for what I call "the good stuff".
- manfredo 6y ago
  And would you be willing to spend $17,500 a year on said service? That's the figure cited in the Economist. And even if you were willing to spend that sum, it'd be far beyond the means of most people. Heck, almost the average global income of $18,000.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Probably not that much ;) But I pay $10/month for all the music I could ever listen to if I did nothing but listen to music for the rest of my life, so how hard can it be?

6510 6y ago

Where advertisement automatons have better information (which they increasingly do) advertising things to poor people is carefully avoided. So the model has finite life-span. Japan CPC $1.32 CPM $0.38 Montenegro CPC $0.05 CPM $0.01 http://www.rudibedy.com/blog/facebook-advertising-cpc-cpm-per-country/ http://www.rudibedy.com/blog/facebook-advertising-cpc-cpm-pe...

manfredo 6y ago
Lower cost-per-click and cost per impression for lower income countries does not mean that companies are avoiding advertising to those populations. It just means people buying ads aren't as willing to spend money to reach those populations. The cost of advertising to populations with lower disposable income has always been lower. This isn't something new to web ads, it's a phenomenon that has existed long before the internet. I'm really not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
- 6510 6y ago
  I don't see the add driven free services for all system survive in the long run. Say they start by dedicating more funds (hardware & software) to matching offers to customers with more disposable income. Say the next step is to offer more elaborate services or options to customers with money. Say, some coupon trick, if you buy a product A-Z you get 24 months of service B which is a paid version of the free service that served you the advert. This scheme is already doable with dumb adverts and without hoarding personal data. Its already that you send the poor person a 10% discount coupon for one box of chocolate and the rich person 4 boxes for free, a bottle of wine and a life time 10% discount. Why would the digital world be different?

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I would love a paid search service that excluded all the crap and just gave me the good stuff with no ads, let me set my own filter preferences for what I call "the good stuff".

manfredo 6y ago
And would you be willing to spend $17,500 a year on said service? That's the figure cited in the Economist. And even if you were willing to spend that sum, it'd be far beyond the means of most people. Heck, almost the average global income of $18,000.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Probably not that much ;) But I pay $10/month for all the music I could ever listen to if I did nothing but listen to music for the rest of my life, so how hard can it be?