3 ms·
I don't know about "always", but the general correlation of interest in "paying to not have ads" and interest of advertising dollars in "paying to get to you" r
by zamadatix 11mo ago
I don't know about "always", but the general correlation of interest in "paying to not have ads" and interest of advertising dollars in "paying to get to you" rings true and is often overlooked.
- dylan604 11mo agoI think the general correlation is that corps will find ways to make more money than they are now while they will all eventually realize data aggregation can be monetized
- monerozcash 11mo agoI'm not sure this is true, the people who would pay to not have non-distracting ads are likely a demographic that does not convert very well.
- SR2Z 11mo agoIf they're half as likely to convert but four times wealthier, does it matter?
- monerozcash 11mo agoFour times wealthier does not mean they'll spend four times more on your products. The answer here isn't really obvious, but I'd suspect that in many cases this is not a very attractive demographic to advertise to.
- neom 11mo agoThey should have used the term more valuable not more wealthy, their point is generally cogent. On the wealthy side, you don't need to be that rich to pay not to get ads.
- SR2Z 11mo agoFair enough, but keep in mind that many Americans are just not wealthy enough for a lot of advertised products; a luxury car ad, for example, is mostly useless if it's shown to people making < $60k a year. This demographic is inherently attractive simply because they can spend money.