5 ms·
That's not necessarily true. Google's advertising market is based entirely on matching the impedance between customers and advertisers. People advertising valua
by aston 19y ago
That's not necessarily true. Google's advertising market is based entirely on matching the impedance between customers and advertisers. People advertising valuable things that customers often click on don't have to pay much to get good placement, meanwhile spammers trying to get an undeserved spot pay a ton for the privilege.
Where Facebook differs is that with ads that aren't based on click through rates or some other user action, there's no concern for how users like or dislike what's being advertised. Facebook can focus on making the advertisers happy, and the customers have to bear that inconvenience as their cost of using the site.
- fauigerzigerk 19y agoYou're assuming, in principle, that ads can add value to a service. That's disputable. If at all, it's only valid for some types of sites like fashion magazines. Most of the time it's an inconvenience that people bear as the cost of using the site, no matter how well the matching works. The question is whether this way of bearing the cost helps the overall quality of services. And I think the answer is clearly no. If there was a direct way for users to pay the exact same amount of money, services would be better. Unfortunately there is no such alternative way in many cases.