4 ms·
This is the real issue with it - the people who opt in are almost certainly the least valuable from an advertisers' perspective. I would definitely wonder what
by idopmstuff 3y ago
This is the real issue with it - the people who opt in are almost certainly the least valuable from an advertisers' perspective. I would definitely wonder what kind of assumptions they built into their model about how much ad revenue folks would generate when deciding whether this was a viable business model. I wouldn't be shocked if they just used an average, ignoring the fact that this group is likely to be below average, and that renders the whole business infeasible.
- rg111 3y agoI don't see this as an issue. Sure, there are expensive stuff that get advertised which poor people are shy to spend money on. But there are lots of stuff that poor people do buy. Like toothpaste, mobile phones, shoes, clothes, dishwashers, deodrant, soft drinks. Although these stuff are cheap, they are billion dollar industries. And manikng a lot of people switch from one toothpaste to another will make a company a lot of money.
- SturgeonsLaw 3y agoThe thing about low income earners is that they spend pretty much 100% of the money they make, and there are a lot of them
- hiatus 3y agoYes but you are thinking that the ads would lead to increased spend instead of redirecting spend to the advertised alternatives.