27 ms·

Great news but the 10 euro per month price is completely insane right? Feels like they want to prove to regulators that nobody wants to pay this..?

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Isn't that comparable to other media sites?
sophiebits 3y ago
Meta Q3 ’23 ARPU for Europe was $19.04 per quarter. (Or $56.11 in US and Canada!) Factoring that people willing to pay probably skew wealthier probably skew more profitable, $10 seems about right.
- garblegarble 3y ago
  Wouldn't you also need to factor in that the people who will pay to avoid ads are likely already using ad blockers (or hate ads, in which case showing them an ad for your product is likely counter-productive)?
  - raydev 3y ago
    Specifically for Instagram, the number of well-monied native app users probably drowns out the well-monied exclusive-web audience. So no need to factor in the adblocker people.
- polonbike 3y ago
  19$ ARPU vs 10$/month is a big difference at the end of the year !
  - dfadsadsf 3y ago
    It's per Q so ~80/years. Difference between $80 (average ad revenue per year) vs $120 per year subscription is reasonable as subscriptions skew power users.
  - mardef 3y ago
    $19 is quarterly, so $76/year vs $120/year. But that $19 is for an average user. Paying users will presumably be your most engaged users that probably generate much more than that
- vasco 3y ago
  ARPU is an average so it includes every user, including users that never buy anything from an ad because they can't afford it. The average goes up a lot due to a minority of wealthy users. Those users will also be more likely to pay to remove ads. So Meta is afraid that the ad revenue will go down a lot and that's why they increase the monthly subscription by more than the current ARPU. This is similar to collective insurance. If the rich people all self-insure and remove themselves from the pool, the viability of the collective insurance gets risked because you're only left off with the people that actually need help and nobody with a surplus to share. For ads you get left off with a cohort of users that can't afford to pay to remove ads so can't also afford to pay for stuff advertised in said ads. Which means the ads will become more like TV ads for awareness rather than direct purchase, which will lower ad-based ARPU.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
baby 3y ago
Do you know how much I pay not to see ads on youtube? That one is insane
paxys 3y ago
Very dependent on location. I pay $18 for a sandwich and $5.50 for a latte, so this seems pretty cheap in comparison. I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. YouTube Premium at $14/mo is IMO one of the best value subscriptions out there.
- andybak 3y ago
  See my comment above for why I didn't subscribe to YouTube premium. Interesting to see you've reached a very different conclusion.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    In addition, YouTube doesn't remove the ads that are baked into the video stream itself. At the end of the day, you are paying 10 USD+ per month for an "ad-free experience", and still get ads because YouTube doesn't keep its promises. And there is no excuse for that, content creators could mark when sponsored segments are starting and ending, and YouTube could skip them.
    - coldpie 3y ago
      Those are not YouTube ads. YouTube doesn't receive any money from them.
      - rvnx 3y ago
        So, what's the issue here? When you subscribe to YouTube for ad-free content, you're essentially paying for an uninterrupted viewing experience. This is similar to how you'd expect no ads when you pay for a service like Netflix. For example, imagine watching "The Matrix" on Netflix and being unexpectedly interrupted by an Oreo commercial—it would be frustrating, especially since you paid for an ad-free experience. The issue with YouTube is that if they were to remove baked-in in-stream ads for Premium users, it might require them to compensate content creators more indirectly, which in turn could reduce Google's profits. This creates a financial disincentive for YouTube to fully eliminate ads. As a result, you might find be better if you use software like SponsorBlock. This situation is paradoxical; ideally, paying customers should receive the best user experience directly from the platform, and be rewarded for that. Technically, there is no limitation, LinusTechTips can perfectly take 1 minute to add a marker for its sponsored segments, at the moment he ticks "This video contains sponsored content". A more truthful description for YouTube Premium could be: "Pay 10 USD / month, to remove a lot of, but not all the ads", and then you understand it's not that of a good deal.
janejeon 3y ago
> completely insane right? Not universally, it all depends on how one values the use/enjoyment/value that they get out of the experience, and everybody values their time/enjoyment/convenience differently.
- munk-a 3y ago
  Wouldn't that mean that Facebook could charge a lower ad-subsidized price? Facebook earns 18/user*year - so 10/month is adding a 100$ surcharge to not see ads. If they offered an ad laden service for 8/mo and the ad-free experience for 10/mo that'd line up with your logic.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Isn't that comparable to other media sites?

sophiebits 3y ago

Meta Q3 ’23 ARPU for Europe was $19.04 per quarter. (Or $56.11 in US and Canada!) Factoring that people willing to pay probably skew wealthier probably skew more profitable, $10 seems about right.

garblegarble 3y ago
Wouldn't you also need to factor in that the people who will pay to avoid ads are likely already using ad blockers (or hate ads, in which case showing them an ad for your product is likely counter-productive)?
- raydev 3y ago
  Specifically for Instagram, the number of well-monied native app users probably drowns out the well-monied exclusive-web audience. So no need to factor in the adblocker people.
polonbike 3y ago
19$ ARPU vs 10$/month is a big difference at the end of the year !
- dfadsadsf 3y ago
  It's per Q so ~80/years. Difference between $80 (average ad revenue per year) vs $120 per year subscription is reasonable as subscriptions skew power users.
- mardef 3y ago
  $19 is quarterly, so $76/year vs $120/year. But that $19 is for an average user. Paying users will presumably be your most engaged users that probably generate much more than that
vasco 3y ago
ARPU is an average so it includes every user, including users that never buy anything from an ad because they can't afford it. The average goes up a lot due to a minority of wealthy users. Those users will also be more likely to pay to remove ads. So Meta is afraid that the ad revenue will go down a lot and that's why they increase the monthly subscription by more than the current ARPU. This is similar to collective insurance. If the rich people all self-insure and remove themselves from the pool, the viability of the collective insurance gets risked because you're only left off with the people that actually need help and nobody with a surplus to share. For ads you get left off with a cohort of users that can't afford to pay to remove ads so can't also afford to pay for stuff advertised in said ads. Which means the ads will become more like TV ads for awareness rather than direct purchase, which will lower ad-based ARPU.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

baby 3y ago

Do you know how much I pay not to see ads on youtube? That one is insane

paxys 3y ago

Very dependent on location. I pay $18 for a sandwich and $5.50 for a latte, so this seems pretty cheap in comparison. I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. YouTube Premium at $14/mo is IMO one of the best value subscriptions out there.

andybak 3y ago
See my comment above for why I didn't subscribe to YouTube premium. Interesting to see you've reached a very different conclusion.
- rvnx 3y ago
  In addition, YouTube doesn't remove the ads that are baked into the video stream itself. At the end of the day, you are paying 10 USD+ per month for an "ad-free experience", and still get ads because YouTube doesn't keep its promises. And there is no excuse for that, content creators could mark when sponsored segments are starting and ending, and YouTube could skip them.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    Those are not YouTube ads. YouTube doesn't receive any money from them.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      So, what's the issue here? When you subscribe to YouTube for ad-free content, you're essentially paying for an uninterrupted viewing experience. This is similar to how you'd expect no ads when you pay for a service like Netflix. For example, imagine watching "The Matrix" on Netflix and being unexpectedly interrupted by an Oreo commercial—it would be frustrating, especially since you paid for an ad-free experience. The issue with YouTube is that if they were to remove baked-in in-stream ads for Premium users, it might require them to compensate content creators more indirectly, which in turn could reduce Google's profits. This creates a financial disincentive for YouTube to fully eliminate ads. As a result, you might find be better if you use software like SponsorBlock. This situation is paradoxical; ideally, paying customers should receive the best user experience directly from the platform, and be rewarded for that. Technically, there is no limitation, LinusTechTips can perfectly take 1 minute to add a marker for its sponsored segments, at the moment he ticks "This video contains sponsored content". A more truthful description for YouTube Premium could be: "Pay 10 USD / month, to remove a lot of, but not all the ads", and then you understand it's not that of a good deal.

janejeon 3y ago

> completely insane right? Not universally, it all depends on how one values the use/enjoyment/value that they get out of the experience, and everybody values their time/enjoyment/convenience differently.

munk-a 3y ago
Wouldn't that mean that Facebook could charge a lower ad-subsidized price? Facebook earns 18/user*year - so 10/month is adding a 100$ surcharge to not see ads. If they offered an ad laden service for 8/mo and the ad-free experience for 10/mo that'd line up with your logic.