←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.052s | source
Show context
mrtksn ◴[] No.44289633[source]
Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?

I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as content gets curated by those who extract money by giving us the "free" services.

It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.

replies(32): >>44289645 #>>44289703 #>>44289718 #>>44289745 #>>44289761 #>>44289772 #>>44289802 #>>44290036 #>>44293255 #>>44293334 #>>44293379 #>>44294057 #>>44294163 #>>44294406 #>>44294408 #>>44294581 #>>44294594 #>>44294635 #>>44295476 #>>44295719 #>>44295781 #>>44295934 #>>44296021 #>>44296753 #>>44297076 #>>44297147 #>>44297258 #>>44297386 #>>44297435 #>>44297650 #>>44300018 #>>44301446 #
barnabee ◴[] No.44289772[source]
I’d love to know the expected ad revenue per user for makers of apps like WhatsApp, Instagram.

I’m pretty convinced I’d pay 10x or more than that amount for a completely ad free version but I can’t be sure.

replies(4): >>44289817 #>>44290028 #>>44290756 #>>44294067 #
detaro ◴[] No.44290028[source]
I'm not sure if the number was for Facebook specifically or all Meta apps, but they did quote a number of around $70 revenue per year per US user a while ago. (with (much) lower numbers in other parts of the world)
replies(2): >>44290733 #>>44290781 #
disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44290781[source]
These numbers are actually kinda interesting, in that they're based on user location, not advertiser. So basically all global companies target the US first because it's a big market with consistent regulations and mostly one language (compare to the EU where you'd need English/German/French/Spanish/Polish and still would miss a lot).

So, those numbers reflect a capital inflow to the US market rather than (as many people think) absurdly high conversion US users.

Meta stopped reporting user numbers/CPMs by geography after the market freaked out when user growth plateaued in the US (because they'd acquired basically everyone).

replies(1): >>44291243 #
1. detaro ◴[] No.44291243[source]
> So, those numbers reflect a capital inflow to the US market rather than (as many people think) absurdly high conversion US users.

But the capital inflow is also because there is a lot of consumer spending in the US to convert.

replies(1): >>44296176 #
2. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44296176[source]
Sort of. It's more because of how ML models work. If you have an audience of 100mn then it's much easier to get enough conversions to optimize the models. It's much harder to do it with an audience of 3mn.
replies(1): >>44296412 #
3. detaro ◴[] No.44296412[source]
By that logic Indonesia and Bangladesh would have higher ad-spend per head than France, because they are larger markets and it doesn't matter how much money people have to spend?
replies(1): >>44300478 #
4. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.44300478{3}[source]
It's clearly both. But if I have a 1/100000 outcome, I can get maybe 500 conversions in France or the UK, but 3000 in the US. That makes a really large difference in terms of how many times your ad is shown to likely users.

But yeah, ML models do in fact work better in Indonesia and Bangladesh, but as you noted they have less money to spend.