| ▲ | teeray 21 hours ago |
| If you have the disposable income to pay to remove advertising, you are exactly the market segment advertisers want to reach. They will always be willing to pay to outbid that segment’s own desire to not see ads. |
|
| ▲ | quietbritishjim 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Added to that: it's in the middleman's interest to blur this distinction. You can sell a lot more "may or may not be rich enough to buy your product" adverts than you can "definitely rich enough" adverts. Even if the rate per advert is slightly lower, it probably makes the middleman (Uber in this case) more money. (And the rate per advert probably won't be a lot lower because companies have fixed advertising budgets.) So now, to justify removing someone from your pool of advertisees, they don't just need to pay what could be made by advertising to them; they need to pay for what could be made to advertise to them and (unwittingly) several poorer people. |
|
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yep. People are paying for the privilege of segmenting themselves into the high disposable income categories of the market. They're paying to do the corporation's market segmentation for them. |
|
| ▲ | darth_avocado 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So it’s not “If you don’t pay for a product, you are the product” It’s “If you don’t pay for a product, you are a less valuable product than if you’d pay for the product” |
|
| ▲ | zamadatix 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I 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 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'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 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they're half as likely to convert but four times wealthier, does it matter? | | |
| ▲ | monerozcash 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Four 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 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | They 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | landgenoot 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is very insightful |
| |
| ▲ | neom 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just to give you another little titbit if you're interested. I work in go to market, and part of that is awareness, and part of that is advertising. Where people use the platform has a huge impact on the prices you pay to advertise on the platform, for example reddit is very expensive because they have a very high mobile traffic population, and the ads can't be blocked, advertising on X is hard because the people I want to reach all pay for premium, so the traffic you get from it now is basically useless, linkedin skews towards desktop, but their targeting is amazing, but because they skew towards desktop people run ad blocks, some platforms let you pick the devices you serve to, some don't, all of it impacts the price you pay to serve the ads. | | |
| ▲ | landgenoot 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | So, don't do targeted advertising then? | | |
| ▲ | neom 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, it doesn't really matter that it's expensive or hard: that's what we have VCs for. More money you can raise, better targeting you can pay up for. You'd be amazed at how much oxygen you can suck out of a market for a million bucks. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | carlosjobim 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If you have the disposable income to pay to remove advertising So a fancy way to say that if you have 10 dollars? |
| |
| ▲ | teeray 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m describing the general principle. If x + x = 2x, then it already follows that 1 + 1 = 2. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | You could just as logically say that if the user has spent money to remove advertising, then they now have less money and are less valuable to advertise for. | | |
| ▲ | csa 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You could just as logically say that if the user has spent money to remove advertising, then they now have less money and are less valuable to advertise for. Thank you for the laugh. While this may be true on an individual level, it’s wildly not true in aggregate. The first dollar is hardest to get. Once someone has shown a propensity to spend on pretty much anything, they become much more valuable as an advertising target. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Cpoll 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I started to rebut this with the expected value of the bid... but if you're advertising a sports car, it's worth paying $100/impression even if your conversion rate is 1%. |
| |
| ▲ | rbalicki 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If the ad impression is worth that much (which seems extremely rare), then there's a profitable trade to be had, where I'm paid to see the ad and the platform is paid to provide the ad. Then all parties are happy. Anyway, the devil is in the implementation details here, but this doesn't strike me as a common case. | |
| ▲ | dmitrygr 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For ads I see in places I paid not to see them, I add all the vendors to my "never buy from" list when this happens. | | |
|
