4 ms·
The problem is if Google were to do that, the value of their ads would plummet since the kind of people who would pay to opt out of ads are the same people who
by igul222 13y ago
The problem is if Google were to do that, the value of their ads would plummet since the kind of people who would pay to opt out of ads are the same people who would be most likely to pay for things in ads.
Not 100% sure but I think this is is the same reason TV companies don't want to offer their content for streaming online, and Hulu can't remove ads for its premium users.
- davidw 13y agoMaybe. I sometimes don't even notice there are ads there because I ignore them so completely. I think you'd have to study the matter further.
- bulatb 13y agoWhy are people who hate ads more likely to be influenced by them?
- derefr 13y agoPeople who can't tune out ads are most likely to be both influenced by, and aggravated by, them. People with "banner blindness" might not complain about your ad, but they're not worth a penny to the advertisers.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI think op means people with enough money to pay to turn ads off. People with money are the people advertisers want to target. Even if the person doesn't like ads the right one could still catch their eye.
- lostlogin 13y agoIf I find an advert song to be catchy or memorable I go out my way to avoid that product to such a severe extent that it really irritates me if something I use or like is advertised. It has me wondering how I'll ever manage without X.
- tomp 13y agoI'd say it's exactly the reverse. The people who are most bothered by ads are the people to whom the ads provide the lowest value, and are thus the least likely to click them. For example, me.
- igul222 13y agoWhether you pay to opt out of ads is a function of how much you hate ads and how willing you are to spend money in general. I think the latter factor is more significant.
- ronaldx 13y agoYour premise is at least partially fallacious - whether or not I am willing to spend money anyway, is not the same as whether or not I am influenced by advertising. If I spend money in the same way as I would have spent anyway, then the advertising has been a waste of time.
- ryan-allen 13y agoI tend to agree with this. I rarely, if ever, click on ads because they seem interesting. I mostly see an ad and say "oh that is interesting, I was searching for cars before and now I'm being advertised cars on a music site, how completely useless". The truth is I think Google's adsense business has never had any real true value to customers (except for perhaps their 'first page at the top' paid ads, I use them a lot, mostly because I figure companies willing to pay for ads usually are a likely 'proper solid business'). Most of the adsense these days is 'trick next buttons', where people put them at the bottom of a page that appears to be the 'next page' button, and it's not. I spend absolute craptonnes of money of stuff I don't need. Internet advertisements I am exposed to contribute almost zero impact to my purchasing habits. Except for Belroy wallets. I have no idea how they figured to target me ('hipster' programmer?), but I did end up buying a wallet from them when their ads followed me around for a while. And their products are nice :) But that is it! I couldn't care less if they are giving backdoors to the NSA to all my email including all company crap that is confidential and all. If they put ads into my email I will look elsewhere unless there is a paid option.
- kolinko 13y agoWow, never thought of it this way..
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dalore 13y agoBy offering to pay you've identified as someone who pays for things making you more valuable to google, thereby increasing what you should pay to Google if you want to go ad free. Then google could offer a bidding war to advertisers to pay more than what your paying to get ads back. Then you have to pay more than that. Until an equilibrium is reached.
- losvedir 13y agoPresumably Google would consider that when calculating the OP's comment of "how much money they make from me".