[Mefis]

Just make it an all you can eat plafond.

I know I am worth ~50$ a year to the Ad business. I'll gladly pay $60 a year for access to content. That $60 gets redistributed to content providers based on the share of my viewership they get.

Basically, cut the middle man (ad companies in this case).

[dwild]

How can you know that? I remember back in high school I made a few flash games, that was the only time I ever got a few ECPM mesure of every countries, and I could get up to 10$ per 1000 views from the US. It did include video ads though.

Let stay conservative and say 3$ per 1000 views. I heard of plenty of people that make more and that's including what Google take out of it. There's no way you only see 20 000 pages a year. It's at least 5-6 times that amount of page.

Ads are also amazing by the fact that they still pay even though you are underage and can't get a credit card. My passion of software engineering wouldn't have been fulfilled if it wasn't from all the free resource. I learned from Site du Zéro, I was there pretty early when they started, I've seen the website owner going from nothing to building an amazing company. Now they no longer depends on ads, so that's good, but that's only because me seeing their ads at the being was enough for them to work full time on it.

[dan-robertson]

20000 pages a year comes to 54 a day every single day. 5-6 times that amount would be 250-300 pages a day. I don’t think many people read that much.

Also note that this is in the context of the typically more valuable video ads. On eg YouTube if you say 1 ad per 10 minutes it would take 9 hours of video watching per day to rack up 54 ads.

I don’t know what rate of ads one can expect from a mobile game but maybe it would be more. I think you would still likely need several hours to get so many. And presumably you want to play less if there are more frequent ads.

[dwild]

>I don’t think many people read that much.

Anyone on Hacker News read much more than 250-300 pages a day. Just casually browsing on Hacker News would give a few dozens (multiple pages, looking at comments, going to the actual page). Any software engineer will look at reference on the web. I regularly reach 1000 pages a day myself at works (verified using a Chrome extension) and it doesn't take into account my usage over my phone.

> On eg YouTube if you say 1 ad per 10 minutes it would take 9 hours of video watching per day to rack up 54 ads.

Video ads pay much more, as I said, they can go up to 10$ for 1000 views and that's not included the ad provider part.

[ghaff]

And you only need to get everyone on the planet who wants to sell content to participate in the network and agree to standardized compensation. It's the same type of issue as with blockchain for supply chains, etc. Everyone needs to participate or it doesn't really work. It can work--it's been reasonably well worked out in music--but that's arguably a more standardized product.

[tonyedgecombe]

The thing is someone in our community is probably worth $500 a year to the ad business whereas 90% of people are worth nothing. Would you be willing to pay $600 a year to access content, what happens to the other 90% who couldn't afford that. What media would they be condemned to consume.

[isostatic]

$2 a day?

If you really want to be socially inclusive, raise taxes on those that can afford to pay (wealthy pensioners are massively undertaxed in the UK for instance), and distribute it as "consumer tokens", or cash, that people can spend on consuming crap.

[ghaff]

Yeah, taxing other people is a simple answer to just about everything.

[isostatic]

That's what advertising does. You're taxing me to pay for low income people to get free adverts

If you want to subsidise low income people, then be honest about it.

[Rjevski]

I actually doubt someone in our community is worth that much. If anything, we're worth less than non-tech-savvy people because we see through the bullshit (when we don't outright block it) where as they don't.

A friend of mine recently fell prey to a scam ad on Facebook and they got some money off her. I have yet to buy anything from an online ad in my entire life; so she is actually a much better investment than I am in terms of ad spend.

[barrow-rider]

> because we see through the bullshit (when we don't outright block it) where as they don't.

Sounds like the "marketing doesn't work on me cuz I'm so smart" fallacy, which usually means you're getting hacked by a different type of marketing.

Getting the eyes of wealthy target demographic -- and IT/CS/Dev/STEM folks qualifies -- is definitely worth $$$, the only question is if it's $500 or lower (or higher?). I used to have clients who existed to target the hyper-wealthy, and they made cash hand over fist schlepping details about those folks.

$500 bucks for semi-personalized deets about FAANG devs making $300k+ makes sense, and you can find those people on HN for sure.

[crooked-v]

My preferred marketing vulnerability is Consumer Reports- or Wirecutter-style. They're making money off marketing things to me, but they're not dependent on any particular brand, so I can feel reasonably confident that I'll be happy with the results.

[nine_k]

See https://contributor.google.com/ which offers almost exactly this.

It's $5/mo even for the limited list of sites participating (already $60/mo). I suppose removing ads everywhere by paying web sites the amount advertisers from all networks pay them would cost several times as much.

[the_snooze]

It's a sensible way of having content creators get paid, but I'm not particularly comfortable with Google watching what websites I visit, which is necessary so they can dole out the cash.

What's worked for me is a combination of aggressive ad-and-tracker-blocking and subscribing to the print versions of content I enjoy.

[crooked-v]

That seems worse than just a pay-per-page model, because it's pay-per-page AND you have to put money up front.