3 ms·

These types of survey questions do not connect with what we want them to. “Do you hate ads?” is very different than “would you rather be nickle and dined for ev

These types of survey questions do not connect with what we want them to. “Do you hate ads?” is very different than “would you rather be nickle and dined for everything at every turn?” and even that is different than how people behave when they have to pull out their wallet. At this point, pay for use has clearly lost to ad supported. People prefer ads to paying.

serviceberry 2y ago
> People prefer ads to paying. Eh. Spotify has 250 million subscribers. Netflix has 300 million. Amazon Prime has 180 million. Heck, there's something like a million people paying Twitter for a checkmark, and half a million paying Reddit for nothing at all. People don't seem to be opposed to paying for online services. They were just never given choice. I have no doubt that publishers prefer ads because it just lets them extract value "for free" - which is probably why you're increasingly seeing ads in paid services, too (Netflix, etc).
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  Fair point, although the ad supported platforms are all 10x bigger. Meta has network effects which is a different issue. But what’re your thoughts on consumers using Google for free versus the paid search models? There, at least, there are good alternatives and people clearly prefer ads.
  - flossposse 2y ago
    Counterexample: TextNow offers a "free"(ad-supported) mobile phone service, yet people overwhelmingly prefer to pay for T-Mobile.
    - edmundsauto 2y ago
      Interesting, I’d never heard of text now. I wonder if it’s an awareness thing, or is it aligned with previous conditioning? (Eg I always paid for cell service and it’s cheaper and better now than it’s ever been… whereas Google has always been free)
- SquareWheel 2y ago
  > They were just never given choice. There was Google Contributor[1], which they tried three launching three different times before giving up on it. It seems like nobody was interested in paying to remove ads on the web. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
  - happymellon 2y ago
    Reading your link, it basically launched twice, with the second time you couldn't even pay to remove adverts but you could bid as your browsed to drive up the price of advertising. So you paid, and you still saw adverts, it was never available outside of the USA, and didn't last very long for each launch. Not that people weren't interested. However this is the first I've heard of it, so there's that too.
flossposse 2y ago
> People prefer ads to paying. People's use of ad-driven services should not be taken as a true expression of their preferences, or as consent. The data that is collected in the name of ad-tech is used for many things other than to display ads. But most people have zero awareness of that. The true price we are paying is kept hidden from us. People who would prefer paying with money rather than data are not given the opportunity to express that preference. There is no premium version of YouTube where my viewing history is not tracked. No "AT&T Platinum" subscription where my location history is not sold to third parties.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  Maybe it’s just my social circle, but for about 20 years I’ve been having these conversations and approximately 0% of people care about this stuff. They just want cheap or free crap. The human mind seems to, as a default state, only care about visible and immediate cost, filtered through a lens of many other biases. At this point, I feel we need to judge based on observed behaviors rather than armchair psychology of what people actually want but have been given no chance to try. Alternatives to Google exist only as a niche; to me, this feels like pretty conclusive evidence about what most people prefer.
- amelius 2y ago
  In addition, with the ad-based monetization model the user actually pays _more_ than if they paid the content publisher directly. Because ads make products more expensive, and more than you'd expect. The ad-watcher is basically subsidizing the existence of companies like Google.

serviceberry 2y ago

> People prefer ads to paying. Eh. Spotify has 250 million subscribers. Netflix has 300 million. Amazon Prime has 180 million. Heck, there's something like a million people paying Twitter for a checkmark, and half a million paying Reddit for nothing at all. People don't seem to be opposed to paying for online services. They were just never given choice. I have no doubt that publishers prefer ads because it just lets them extract value "for free" - which is probably why you're increasingly seeing ads in paid services, too (Netflix, etc).

edmundsauto 2y ago
Fair point, although the ad supported platforms are all 10x bigger. Meta has network effects which is a different issue. But what’re your thoughts on consumers using Google for free versus the paid search models? There, at least, there are good alternatives and people clearly prefer ads.
- flossposse 2y ago
  Counterexample: TextNow offers a "free"(ad-supported) mobile phone service, yet people overwhelmingly prefer to pay for T-Mobile.
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    Interesting, I’d never heard of text now. I wonder if it’s an awareness thing, or is it aligned with previous conditioning? (Eg I always paid for cell service and it’s cheaper and better now than it’s ever been… whereas Google has always been free)
SquareWheel 2y ago
> They were just never given choice. There was Google Contributor[1], which they tried three launching three different times before giving up on it. It seems like nobody was interested in paying to remove ads on the web. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
- happymellon 2y ago
  Reading your link, it basically launched twice, with the second time you couldn't even pay to remove adverts but you could bid as your browsed to drive up the price of advertising. So you paid, and you still saw adverts, it was never available outside of the USA, and didn't last very long for each launch. Not that people weren't interested. However this is the first I've heard of it, so there's that too.

flossposse 2y ago

> People prefer ads to paying. People's use of ad-driven services should not be taken as a true expression of their preferences, or as consent. The data that is collected in the name of ad-tech is used for many things other than to display ads. But most people have zero awareness of that. The true price we are paying is kept hidden from us. People who would prefer paying with money rather than data are not given the opportunity to express that preference. There is no premium version of YouTube where my viewing history is not tracked. No "AT&T Platinum" subscription where my location history is not sold to third parties.

edmundsauto 2y ago
Maybe it’s just my social circle, but for about 20 years I’ve been having these conversations and approximately 0% of people care about this stuff. They just want cheap or free crap. The human mind seems to, as a default state, only care about visible and immediate cost, filtered through a lens of many other biases. At this point, I feel we need to judge based on observed behaviors rather than armchair psychology of what people actually want but have been given no chance to try. Alternatives to Google exist only as a niche; to me, this feels like pretty conclusive evidence about what most people prefer.
amelius 2y ago
In addition, with the ad-based monetization model the user actually pays _more_ than if they paid the content publisher directly. Because ads make products more expensive, and more than you'd expect. The ad-watcher is basically subsidizing the existence of companies like Google.