Thread

1. matheusmoreira · 1789992443 · focus · HN ↗

   It literally never fails.

   If you pay to avoid ads, you are merely letting them know that you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff. You're doing their job for them by segmenting yourself into the upper echelons of the market.

   At some point, some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to show up and notice how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to all of those people full of disposable income.

   1. carlosjobim · 1789996799 · focus · HN ↗

      You can cancel a subscription. That's how subscriptions work. That means that any future changes is not a concern for current offerings.

      And I can't understand why hackers never acknowledge this.

      I can put gas in the tank of my car. In the future, they might lower the quality of the gas - or even make it more expensive! That doesn't change anything about the gas that I will currently put in my car.

      > you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff

      Advertisers already know that a hundred percent of the population have $20 in disposable monthly income, because they can pay with credit. So they don't learn anything new.

      1. wright08 · 1790007473 · focus · HN ↗

         I am morbidly curious of your definition of 'the population', could you elaborate?

         1. carlosjobim · 1790012302 · focus · HN ↗

            So you don't die: The population in the regions where these subscriptions are offered.

            Every region where a streaming subscription costs $20 per month, 100% of the population has $20 in disposable income per month whether they actually have the money or not, because credit is offered for consumption.

            Every region where a streaming subscription costs $5 per month, 100% of the population has $5 in disposable income per month for the same reason.

            The original argument I responded to, is a typical hacker trope and of logical fallacy that gets repeated infinitely. It goes like this: "Just because somebody spent $10 or $20 on something which I would never want to buy, means they must be extremely rich and extremely wasteful with their money. So advertiser are drooling and crawling over each other to get their hands on this cash."

            If that's the case, then advertisers clearly must also target tattooed people as the most valuable customer group possible, since every tattoo is proof that somebody once had 50 dollars.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.