10 ms·
Too expensive. Google makes, on average, smtg like $50/user/year or something (not an accurate number). Now obviously this varies, so some people are much more
by sz4kerto 4y ago
Too expensive. Google makes, on average, smtg like $50/user/year or something (not an accurate number). Now obviously this varies, so some people are much more valuable, and some are less valuable. The value depends on many things, but one of the biggest factor is purchasing power.
Now -- if you're willing and able to pay eg. $10/month for Google Premium, then you likely worth much more than the average user. So the more you're willing to pay the more you worth as an advertisement target. I am not sure where those curves meet, but I presume it'd be a lot.
- throwamon 4y agoI know I'd pay just to never see an ad again because I don't care about them at all. If one slips through the cracks I do whatever I can to suppress it as soon as possible while actively denying any form of sensorial engagement with it. I suppose this is true for many people and paying might be more convenient than using adblockers, installing alternative apps, using PiHoles...
- passerby1 4y agoUsing adblock is indeed very convenient. Enable browser extension and forget about all web annoyances. Calm and peece. Google Ad Premium disables google ads only (or most of them?), while other ad nets (avg more than 80 cookies on every major news site!) will continue to annoy.
- fartcannon 4y agoUblock Origin and never see an ad again. I can't believe there are still people who don't do this. You can even do it on your mobile device if you use android and firefox.
- IgorPartola 4y agoIt works pretty well but (a) not on mobile and (b) not on blogspam.
- gzer0 4y agoPaying google for google premium wouldn’t help with the blogspam
- Nextgrid 4y agoIf Google's only revenue was from users they would have more incentive making features that encourage those users to keep paying them.
- nvrspyx 4y agoContent blockers on iOS work well for removing ads on Google. I'm not sure if there's an Android equivalent. The catch for iOS is that you have to use Safari, unless the browser has an ad blocker built-in. It won't solve blog spam either.
- OJFord 4y agoThe Android 'equivalent' is just using the uBlock Origin add-on in Firefox as usual, not some new Apple-invented category of app and hamstrung browsers that are all basically Safari.
- scarface74 4y agoGood luck with using that “equivalent” in an embedded web view. Besides, if I care about my privacy, why would I want to use an ad blocker that has access to my web browsing history? iOS content blockers tell Safari what to block and don’t have access to where you go.
- deadbunny 4y agoAndroid uses the default browser for webview. If you have Firefox + uBlock Origin as your default browser you get ad blocking in your webview.
- 4y ago
- dr_dshiv 4y agoI literally feel bad. Is there a name for that disorder? Excess corporate empathy? Idk
- fartcannon 4y agoI'd call it marketing.
- flanking_pajama 4y agoI'd feel bad if advertising law wasn't a joke, and ads weren't basically an aggressive waste of time/money as a result. Like man, I always hear "so many people make their living on this" but uh, maybe if false advertising law is practically unenforced and most ads are practically usually lies pushed by the already established winners in their industry... Which it certainly seems to be, then. I find it hard to feel too bad, especially when people in the advertising business are probably not going to end up street beggars if things suddenly changed. edit: although that "makes a living" argument may go wayside a little with the inevitable AI-generated, focus-group tested future we'll be living in. Hmm.
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoDo you feel bad when you don't read every marketing junk mail you receive?
- muzani 4y agoI consider the ads to be part of an unwritten contract. I get free content, they get to throw ads at me. Junk mail is not a part of that contract.
- Teever 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
- dr_dshiv 4y agoTruth
- slotrans 4y agoUBlock Origin, as awesome as it is, does not remove ads from Google search results.
- andrei_says_ 4y agoHow does one remove YouTube app ads on iOS? Already have pihole on my home network and unlock on all non-iOS browsers.
- b15h0p 4y agoI think using an adblocker and uninstalling the YouTube app should be sufficient. The downside being that the playback quality is worse (720p max, I think).
- ipaddr 4y agoMost top videos are 1080/60 some higher. Does anyone upload 360 or 180 videos on here?
- yonaguska 4y agoI simply don't use the YouTube app on mobile. I use YouTube via the brave browser which automatically blocks ads. Not the best experience since you can't background videos playing, but it works for me.
- backerei 4y agoTry turning on Background video playback in Settings in General category. At least it works for me.
- shaoonb 4y agoAdGuard and use the web version of YouTube.
- eins1234 4y agoAs a YouTube Premium subscriber who sees no ads, I find sponsor segments to be the real bane of my existence.
- indecisive_user 4y agoCrowd sourced extension to skip over those parts - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-y...
- Seasonwreckage 4y ago
- lordnacho 4y agoCan you imagine what would happen when "advertisers" discover they can make money by annoying people? Micro digital muggings will become a thing.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoI use Brave Browser. I am always shocked to see how bad the internet is for users without ad blocker. I also totally forgot that YouTube has annoying ads.
- peri 4y agoBe careful: NetOps/NetEng/NetSRE knows to look here too. 23!eris::::::::, NANOG is not the only cabal.
- monkeybutton 4y agoJust think about all the times you accidentally click the first result and how much it cost those companies. They probably paid a sum total that's way more than what you're willing to pay in a year.
- latexr 4y ago> So the more you're willing to pay the more you worth as an advertisement target. So the common wisdom goes. Alternative thought: the more you’re willing to pay to not see ads the likelier you are to block them or never click on them, making you worth less as a target.
- alephxyz 4y agoI would rather keep blocking ads and pay content publishers than pay money to the ad middleman.
- ithkuil 4y agoIf I'm willing to pay to not see ads in search results it's more likely that I'm not really engaging much with ads.
- legitster 4y ago> Now obviously this varies, so some people are much more valuable, and some are less valuable. I think people also underrate how much this varies. Our company has paid $50-$100 per click in the past for certain search terms. Letting a CTO at a tech company opt out of ads for like $50 is a sucker deal for Google.
- sflicht 4y agoWhat was the ratio of clicks to impressions for those super expensive terms?
- lelandfe 4y agoGoogle had a service, now discontinued, that allowed a user to enter into those bids, setting a monthly limit on ad spend. It was for external sites using AdSense, not Google Search, but I thought it was an amazing idea. > if the user wins the auction, [a thank you message] is placed in the ad space, and the cost of the ad is deducted from the user's monthly contribution. If the user does not win, the winning ad is displayed as normal and the user pays nothing for that slot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
- Nextgrid 4y agoHow many CTOs out there don't run ad-blockers though? I'd argue that anyone who doesn't run those shouldn't be let anywhere near a CTO position.
- lukeschlather 4y agoMaybe using a search engine that's trying to sell your attention to the highest bidder is a sucker deal for a CTO.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoSearch makes ~$40B per year. They likely have over >3B MAU. People that would realistically pay for the product - maybe 50M. I think a ~$10/m subscription could make sense. The problem is - they probably need to offer something beside just being ad free. And I'm not sure what they could possibly add that wouldn't be better suited just improving the product for the other 99% of searchers. I'd pay more than $10/m for Search if I had to. I pay for YouTube premium to get rid of the ads (and free YouTube Music). But I don't think the search ads are intrusive enough that I'm willing to pay $10 to get rid of them.
- firloop 4y agoAdvertising CPMs vary wildly between geographies and demographics. GP’s point is still valid: even if average global revenue is $10/mo/user, the average revenue of the group that would pay $10/mo is likely much higher.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoYeah, I can easily imagine a 90th percentile user in North America is worth closer to $100 per month. Which answers the OP’s question. And its likely a Pareto curve too. So a 99th percentile user could be worth $1000 per month, 99.9th percentile worth $10000 per month, etc. I imagine they would only take the risk to offer such a premium service when they can figure out how to get everyone to upload their payslips and bank account statements.
- atom_arranger 4y agoIt is possible people who would pay to remove ads are also people who are less susceptible to them in the first place. No idea if that’s true though.
- jsnell 4y ago> Search makes ~$40B per year. Per quarter, no?
- alephxyz 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tomc1985 4y agoThe problem with paying to not see ads is that now you have made yourself known as a juicier target for advertising -- they know you have enough money to buy frivolous things like a 'no ads' experience. Which makes them want to advertise to you even more. Examples: cable TV, Hulu, soon Netflix?
- zamadatix 4y agoYouTube Premium is $14.99/month for no YouTube ads for up to 5 people (among other features) so I'm not sure it is really so hard for the curves to meet.