Meta is considering offering ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram for $14 a month – but only in Europe.

Meta wants to charge EU users $14 a month if they don’t agree to personalized ads on Facebook and Instagram::Meta is considering offering ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram for $14 a month – but only in Europe.

  • 3arn0wl@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2022·
    9 months ago

    I guess this is a fair indication then of how much Meta receives per person from advertisers…

    • Szymon@lemmy.caEnglish
      125·
      9 months 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.

            • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.ripEnglish
              2·
              9 months ago

              I’m thinking $4.99 for the DunceCap* premium filter

              one-time use only, usage of filter gives consent in perpetuity, with no restrictions, for Meta to scan your entire disgusting naked body for usage in Meta’s upcoming “MoleCheck” biometric security login feature*

              **Usage of MoleCheck grants Meta perpetual license with no restrictions to train its “Dr. ZuckCancer” AI (not a real doctor) on your disgusting naked body and to withhold any cancer diagnosis Dr. ZuckCancer (not a real doctor) might find if you have not paid your monthly subscription to “MetaMedical”, a real bargain at only $350/week! Remember, choose MetaMedical, because “You Might as Well, We Already Have Your Medical Records Anyway!”

        • Auli@lemmy.caEnglish
          32·
          9 months ago

          Except they are not forcing you to pay. You can still use it as it is right now.

        • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          Why would paid users need to compensate for free users? This is a per user choice between ad personalization or a monthly fee. The “free” users will still be generating revenue the existing way.

      • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Yes. I think they are padding this to make it feel more punitive. This flips the bird to the regulatory body, and discourages people from switching. Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t make it higher.

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.worldEnglish
      38·
      9 months ago

      Your 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.

      • 3arn0wl@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • maymay@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          91·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • theonetruejason@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        9 months ago

        The users willing to pay are the most valuable users on the platform for advertisers because they are, let me consult my notes… willing 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.