763
Google has a price for you. We found it. (proton.me)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Price of Free Google Report.

Proton analyzed over 54,000 demographic profiles using 2025 ad auction data to estimate what advertisers pay to reach different types of Americans. The range is much wider than you might expect.

The average American generates about $1,605 a year in advertising value. A 35- to 44-year-old man in Bozeman, MT, without children, using a desktop and making high-value corporate searches, generates an estimated $17,929.30. An 18- to 24-year-old father in Fort Smith, AR, using an Android phone and making low-value searches, generates $31.05.

That’s a 577x difference between two people using the same free service.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 140 points 4 months ago* (13 children)

but nobody is making any sales revenue off somebody like me.

Everybody who thinks this is definitely having sales revenue made off of them. It needs to be restated forever in discussions like this that the metric for success in online advertising is not largely "oh shit, I could go for one of those right now".

Those are what stick out in our mind because we remember them. I really did see an ad for Roblox as a kid and immediately go start playing. But sooooo much of advertising is subconscious to a point that we couldn't possibly measure its true effect except by statistics.

Even beyond what we purchase: I've been bombarded with sponsorships for Raycons for years. Even with SponsorBlock on YouTube, sometimes they leak through. I will never buy a Raycon product. But I still occasionally talk about them, inadvertently advertising them, simply because they're a good punching bag. I watched a whole video reviewing what pieces of shit Raycons are. Fuck it: I'm talking about Raycon right now. And that's still among the worst-case scenarios for the advertiser. So much of advertising isn't "I want this product now" or even "this product looks desirable"; it's headspace.

The idea that advertisers' psychological manipulation just doesn't work on certain people needs to die and stay dead. If you saw it, it had an effect on you, and any effect is a better effect than nothing. If you realize an advertisement worked on you, the advertisement has failed part of its job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 54 points 4 months ago

    People think they're not targets because they don't do certain things, but not being part of a group also says a lot about you! User blocking ads? This is information about you. User doesn't buy online? Also information about you. Everything is information and everything together is a valuable consumer profile

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    What about me? On the rare occasion I see an advertisement, I have no idea what I'm even seeing. I saw a commercial a few days ago when my adblock failed.

    A woman running through a public park. A man hidden in bushes, in all black watching her with binoculars. More shots of her running. He slips down into the bushes. Screen goes black, and then plain white text. "He's watching".

    WHAT THE HELL AM I EVEN SUPPOSED TO BUY???

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago*

    WHAT THE HELL AM I EVEN SUPPOSED TO BUY???

    If you're a woman, sexy jogging gear. If you're a man, binoculars and tick repellent. If you're nonbinary, donate to your local parks department to fund sidewalks and bushes.

    It's just that simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Ed Bernays pioneered this stuff, to the best of my knowledge.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago*

    The Century of Self - documentary by Adam Curtis

    The Century of Self, by Adam Curtis, discusses the emergence and rise of psychoanalysis as a pivotal means of persuasion for corporations and governments. It covers the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, as well as PR consultant Edward Bernays. The series reveals how those in positions of power have used Freud’s theories to influence and control the public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    I mean, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but the sentence “If you saw it, it had an effect on you, and any effect is a better effect than nothing” is just absolutely wrong. Getting a person to install an ad blocker is bad, getting a person to talk negatively about you is bad, like the whole “no press is bad press” thing is not true. You telling everyone you know that raycons are bad is directly bad for the company.

    Scientists finding out that sodas are bad for you didn’t result in more soda sales, it resulted in fewer.

    Companies absolutely do not want you talking shit about them, that’s literally why they use NPS to measure how well they’re doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_promoter_score

    “If you realize an advertisement worked on you, the advertisement has failed part of its job.” Is also just wrong, but let’s argue one point at a time.

    Finally “Everybody who thinks this is definitely having sales revenue made off of them” is such an all encompassing statement it will never be true. I think that the majority of companies I see advertisements for will never make sales revenue off of me. Why? Well many reasons, but you haven’t really bothered to think of why that could be the case and you’ve just made a wide all encompassing statement so I’m not really sure I want to bother. But I will make one point. People thinking about a product has nothing to do with spending money on that product. I’m sure that you know someone that talks to you about raycons all the time (oh wait, maybe that’s your friends). Do you (they) go out and spend money on raycons? Probably not. Same for talking about new cars, etc.

    Sentiment matters, which is what a lot of advertisement is, not headspace.

    For a great example of this, look at amazon with their Super Bowl ring advertisement (which I didn’t even see). Do you think that resulted in more sales or less?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I'm guilty of exactly this. I buy almost nothing online. But I recently got into weight lifting. I wanted good at home adjustable dumbbells. I have a fully stocked gym that I use four times a week, but when I miss a day, I want to at least do something.

    Fast forward to me refusing to pay $1,000 for them. I am the target demographic described in the high income no kids male part and low and behold, a beautiful kind Lemming pointed out I can get the exact pair I had been looking for on Facebook marketplace cheaper (and new) on a website I'd never heard of.

    Watching reviews, breakdowns, demos, all were imprinting in my mind that I want this particular set. Am I sucker? Maybe. Did I spend $250 on a product I use often and increases my overall quality of life? Definitely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Yeah, you look at products long enough, and you start getting imprinted with what ends up looking like a reasonable price. Is it a good or bad thing? I don't know. But, like you said, you use it and it's worth it to you.

    Personally, I got a regular set of 1" weights, two 1" dumbbell bars, and clips. And a cable column. That was way back during covid, and it helped get me through being at home a lot. Now I just go to a gym.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    Ever since a nephew of Freud introduced concepts of Psychology into the Marketing world back in the mid XX century that advertising has shift mainly to work via psychological effects.

    Perfect examples are perfume TV adverts (all about associating a perfume with sex and feeling sexy) and Car TV adverts (generally about associating a car with freedom, success and sometimes power).

    So yeah, most of that shit is meant to just reside in your subconscious and subtly prod you towards a certain product or service at the right time, even if only because a certain brand name feels "familiar" or even "trustworthy" when you have to make a choice about a kind of product or service you don't usually buy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    This sounds like something the advertising world would want you to believe. It's in their interest to keep the public thinking that advertising works. It's good for their bottom line if people believe that even if you don't act on an ad immediately it's something that eventually nudges you.

    Maybe that's not true. Maybe, in fact, sometimes advertising is a net negative because you're bombarded so often with an ad that you come to resent the company pushing it. I don't know what Raycon is, but based on what you've said I'm also not interested in ever giving them money. So, the worst case for the advertiser is that not only do their ads reduce sales from people who are reached by those ads, they also reduce sales in anybody those people talk to.

    The idea that advertisers' psychological manipulation just works on people needs to die and stay dead. If you saw it, it had an effect on you, and if that effect is negative then it's obviously worse than nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent