6 ms·
This definitely looks like it targets big pages and personalities. If that’s true then that’s really cheap no? If it targeted normal users like me (I pay for t
by baby 4y ago
This definitely looks like it targets big pages and personalities. If that’s true then that’s really cheap no?
If it targeted normal users like me (I pay for twitter blue, for example) then it would let me do things like:
- set chronological newsfeed
- see less or no ads
That’s it. That’s enough to get me to pay
- Joeri 4y agoFacebook gets about 50 billion usd / year of ad revenue in the U.S. for 226 million mau. That boils down to about $18 / month / user of ad revenue. Is it worth $20 / month to get no ads and a chronological feed?
- codq 4y agoNo ads or tracking across all Meta platforms/pixels? I'd say that's worth $20/month.
- baby 4y agoI actually don’t mind tracking as I’m interested in better ads in general (if I really have to see them)
- eviks 4y agoExcept you don't get better ads
- baby 4y agoI’ve actually purchased a number of things through instagram ads, so I would say that they are getting better. Now I can also say I have been disappointed by the quality of some of the stuff I’ve bought through ads… so now if I see something interesting I’ll google/amazon/reddit it. It at least makes me discover new types of things to buy.
- baby 4y ago$20 is a steep price to pay, but I think users who would pay to see less ads are most likely users who don’t click on ads? So from that perspective it might be a different calculus? Also, twitter got away with half as many ads or something like this. Personally I’d pay $10 a month, but I don’t know about others.