3 ms·
That argument could work better if premium wasn't priced at probably 10x the average revenue per user they are getting with the ads. I don't think even Google
by realusername 3y ago
That argument could work better if premium wasn't priced at probably 10x the average revenue per user they are getting with the ads.
I don't think even Google consider it as a real option internally, it's just a way to get more money out of higher income users.
- wombat-man 3y agoHow did you come up with this number? Advertisers pay a varied rate per impression. Actually, high income users are valuable ad viewers and I'm sure advertisers pay a premium to display ads to them.
- realusername 3y agoThey make 11B$ from the premium subcription with only 80 millions suscribers whereas they make around 30B$ from the ads from the rest of the 2.6 billions users. The pricing of the premium subscription is absolutely insane, they get peanuts from each users from the ads compared to that.
- wombat-man 3y agoThat is surprising! I read somewhere that advertisers are paying $.1 to $.5 per impression, which seems like it would add up pretty quickly over a month. I still think if you are a high value target for advertisers, it’s a probably a worse deal for YouTube if you’re on premium.
- acomjean 3y agoIt’s a little pricy. But it’s a bundle with YouTube music which is better than I expected. I think the payments to creators are a little greater because of that. It’s also a little bit moot because YouTube creators often in-line their own ads so they can’t be skipped…
- eddyg 3y agoFor the latter there’s the open-source SponsorBlock: https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/