3arn0wl@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I guess this is a fair indication then of how much Meta receives per person from advertisers…
You’re money will always be less valuable than your data.
The amount is based on the threshold at which they believe most people will just accept the ad terms rather than pay. Thus it is slightly more than pretty much any other mainstream streaming or subscription service.
Perversely; I’m always less inclined to buy a product that I’ve seen advertised… “Why do they need to advertise it? It can’t be up to much.” And “Part of the ticket price has gone into advertising, so it’s not so valuable a thing.”, usually being my first thoughts.
While that’s totally fair, I’d argue that new businesses have to reach customers somehow, and social media is a cheap and effective advertising tool.
Meta received about 4-5$ per user per month, so the Zuck is pulling everyone’s legs here.
The users willing to pay are the most valuable users on the platform for advertisers because they are, let me consult me notes… will to pay for things.
The logical conclusion is you must charge more for users to not get ads than your average revenue per user from ads or you end up losing money because the quality of your non paying users has taken a nose dive.
And then you lose the entire community, because of the sheer drop of the population. You can’t run a social media platform with just “whales”.
This guy businesses
Szymon@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
There is always a grift, I’d expect the charge to users to be probably 20-50% higher than the revenue from normal users.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Add an extra 0 if reddit API stuff was any indication
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes. I think they are padding this to make it feel more punitive. This flips the bird to the regulatory body, and discouraged people from switching. Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t make it higher.