5 ms·

The richest people, hence the most valuable for advertisers, would buy it. This significantly affects the whole ad business value. Such that the ad-free tier wo

The richest people, hence the most valuable for advertisers, would buy it. This significantly affects the whole ad business value. Such that the ad-free tier would have to be priced too high. It’s more profitable to “force” everyone to watch ads. I’m afraid.

PaulHoule 2y ago
Yep. Elephant in the room of media economics. Look at ads on daytime broadcast TV and it is: medicare advantage, something you can get from medicare, a medicare scam, personal injury lawyer, some drug your insurance might pay for, personal injury lawyer #2. Ads for something you spend your own money on are few and far between (maybe you will get a car ad because if nobody bought a car who'd get hit by a car and call William Matar?) People in that demographic don't have money to spend so they get subprime ads. In the day newspapers and magazines thought about the balance of ad and subscription revenue a lot. On top of (1) people have money for a subscription being better qualified than people who don't, (2) people who are motivated to get a subscription are qualified because they care about the topic (you can get a free magazine about construction equipment but you'd better convince them you are really in the industry) and (3) in the current era, subscribers give up their name and other personal details and will be more definitely tracked.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  You see the same effect with twitter's advertiser exodus since it was acquired. It was not long ago you'd see everything on twitter: prominent fashion brands, car companies, big name electronics, everything you'd expect from a healthy ad ecosystem. Now it's basically nothing but crypto scams, reverse mortgages, supplements, dude wipes and pills that make your dick work. Like you can feel whatever you feel about that, but it's a clear, marked shift.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    I bet those ads must drive away some people. Watching TV circa 2000 it would be easy to conclude "I want to die before I get old".
  - adamc 2y ago
    I love your summary of the ads. It sounds as gross as it is.
benj111 2y ago
Reverse (Dutch?) Ad sense. You compete with advertisers not to receive ads. If youre wiling to spend 1 galactic credit to not see an ad, and advertiser must spend 1.01GC to show it to you. Whether this work, only hinges on the question of whether we are already in the situation of having the maximum number of ads served to us, that it is possible to.
carlosjobim 2y ago
- You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. - Expensive cars and cruises are advertised all the time on open TV channels and other ad-supported media.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. It's not about being rich. It's about having disposable income and willing to spend it. A $10+/month subscription to some entertainment magazine? That's a clear sign you're open to spending money - a sign ads could make you spend on stuff in the first place.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Somebody spent ten dollars, so they must have a ton of disposable income that they're just itching to throw around? Let's be honest what it's really about: Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free. They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online. Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold – thus a delicious target for advertisers. Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      > Somebody spent ten dollars, so they must have a ton of disposable income that they're just itching to throw around? Very much yes. > Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free. Not really. But consider you're talking about two distinct groups here. Being a "hacker" / "computer enthusiast" is one of the cheapest hobbies possible, and while it may end up giving you a well-paid career in tech, until it does, as a "hacker" you're probably without any money of your own. Spending hours or days to get something for free? That's what people do when they can't afford what they want. Unsurprisingly, when your poor, parent-subsidized "hackers" turn into software industry professionals, they suddenly become good spenders, because they can afford to stop wasting time on bullshit. > They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online. Not "they" the "hackers / computer enthusiasts", and not insulted. Rather, it's general population that got culturally used to things on the Internet being free. Obviously, almost everyone younger than ~50 got exposed to the Internet when they were too young to have any income, but ultimately, this is something companies inflicted on themselves. "Free" is the singularity of commerce, it breaks competition; "free but subsidized by ads" is an anti-competitive business model. It won not because people demanded it, but because no one can compete with it. > Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold It may have been a view people had at some point, but that's more because the Internet was new and everything on it felt frivolous to those who didn't grow up in it. That's becoming a past now. Now, for the actual key point: > Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income. But they have! Why do you think there are so many ads in sports events, in cinemas? Why do you think advertising metastasized to cable TV so quickly after it was created? Why do you think malls are set the way they are? Merchants and advertisers are, and have always been, hunting for those with money to spend. This was true off-line, and it is true on-line. It's not always easy to tell who has disposable income and who counts every penny. However, one of the most reliable signals here is spending. People buying stuff have money to buy stuff. The more frivolously the buy, the more money they have that could be redirected to other frivolous purchases. And that's the whole thing advertising is after - redirecting people's purchasing decisions.
Zak 2y ago
I hadn't thought of that before reading this comment, and now it seems obvious.
int_19h 2y ago
Let's see how profitable it is as ad blocking gets more popular, then.

PaulHoule 2y ago

Yep. Elephant in the room of media economics. Look at ads on daytime broadcast TV and it is: medicare advantage, something you can get from medicare, a medicare scam, personal injury lawyer, some drug your insurance might pay for, personal injury lawyer #2. Ads for something you spend your own money on are few and far between (maybe you will get a car ad because if nobody bought a car who'd get hit by a car and call William Matar?) People in that demographic don't have money to spend so they get subprime ads. In the day newspapers and magazines thought about the balance of ad and subscription revenue a lot. On top of (1) people have money for a subscription being better qualified than people who don't, (2) people who are motivated to get a subscription are qualified because they care about the topic (you can get a free magazine about construction equipment but you'd better convince them you are really in the industry) and (3) in the current era, subscribers give up their name and other personal details and will be more definitely tracked.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
You see the same effect with twitter's advertiser exodus since it was acquired. It was not long ago you'd see everything on twitter: prominent fashion brands, car companies, big name electronics, everything you'd expect from a healthy ad ecosystem. Now it's basically nothing but crypto scams, reverse mortgages, supplements, dude wipes and pills that make your dick work. Like you can feel whatever you feel about that, but it's a clear, marked shift.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  I bet those ads must drive away some people. Watching TV circa 2000 it would be easy to conclude "I want to die before I get old".
- adamc 2y ago
  I love your summary of the ads. It sounds as gross as it is.

benj111 2y ago

Reverse (Dutch?) Ad sense. You compete with advertisers not to receive ads. If youre wiling to spend 1 galactic credit to not see an ad, and advertiser must spend 1.01GC to show it to you. Whether this work, only hinges on the question of whether we are already in the situation of having the maximum number of ads served to us, that it is possible to.

carlosjobim 2y ago

- You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. - Expensive cars and cruises are advertised all the time on open TV channels and other ad-supported media.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> You don't have to be rich to afford a subscription for a dozen dollars a month. It's not about being rich. It's about having disposable income and willing to spend it. A $10+/month subscription to some entertainment magazine? That's a clear sign you're open to spending money - a sign ads could make you spend on stuff in the first place.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Somebody spent ten dollars, so they must have a ton of disposable income that they're just itching to throw around? Let's be honest what it's really about: Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free. They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online. Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold – thus a delicious target for advertisers. Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > Somebody spent ten dollars, so they must have a ton of disposable income that they're just itching to throw around? Very much yes. > Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free. Not really. But consider you're talking about two distinct groups here. Being a "hacker" / "computer enthusiast" is one of the cheapest hobbies possible, and while it may end up giving you a well-paid career in tech, until it does, as a "hacker" you're probably without any money of your own. Spending hours or days to get something for free? That's what people do when they can't afford what they want. Unsurprisingly, when your poor, parent-subsidized "hackers" turn into software industry professionals, they suddenly become good spenders, because they can afford to stop wasting time on bullshit. > They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online. Not "they" the "hackers / computer enthusiasts", and not insulted. Rather, it's general population that got culturally used to things on the Internet being free. Obviously, almost everyone younger than ~50 got exposed to the Internet when they were too young to have any income, but ultimately, this is something companies inflicted on themselves. "Free" is the singularity of commerce, it breaks competition; "free but subsidized by ads" is an anti-competitive business model. It won not because people demanded it, but because no one can compete with it. > Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold It may have been a view people had at some point, but that's more because the Internet was new and everything on it felt frivolous to those who didn't grow up in it. That's becoming a past now. Now, for the actual key point: > Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income. But they have! Why do you think there are so many ads in sports events, in cinemas? Why do you think advertising metastasized to cable TV so quickly after it was created? Why do you think malls are set the way they are? Merchants and advertisers are, and have always been, hunting for those with money to spend. This was true off-line, and it is true on-line. It's not always easy to tell who has disposable income and who counts every penny. However, one of the most reliable signals here is spending. People buying stuff have money to buy stuff. The more frivolously the buy, the more money they have that could be redirected to other frivolous purchases. And that's the whole thing advertising is after - redirecting people's purchasing decisions.

Zak 2y ago

I hadn't thought of that before reading this comment, and now it seems obvious.

int_19h 2y ago

Let's see how profitable it is as ad blocking gets more popular, then.