Would being asked to pay Facebook to remove ads make you appreciate their
value or resent them even more? As Facebook considers offering an ad-free
subscription option, there are deeper questions than how much money it could
earn. Facebook has the opportunity to let us decide how we compensate it for
social networking. But choice doesn’t always make people happy.
In February I explored
the idea of how Facebook could disarm data privacy backlash and boost
well-being by letting us pay a monthly subscription fee instead of selling our
attention to advertisers. The big takeaways were:
·
Mark Zuckerberg insists that Facebook will remain free to everyone, including
those who can’t afford a monthly fee, so subscriptions would be an opt-in
alternative to ads rather than a replacement that forces everyone to pay
·
Partially decouplingthe business model from maximizing your total time spent on Facebook could let it actually
prioritize time well spent because it wouldn’t have to sacrifice ad revenue
·
The monthly subscription pricewould need to offset Facebook’s ad earnings. In the US &
Canada Facebook earned $19.9 billion in 2017 from 239 million users. That means
the average user there would have to pay $7 per month
However, my analysis
neglected some of the psychological fallout of telling people they only get to
ditch ads if they can afford it, the loss of ubiquitous reach for advertisers,
and the reality of which users would cough up the cash. Though on the other
hand, I also neglected the epiphany a price tag could produce for users angry
about targeted advertising.
What’s Best For Everyone
This
conversation is relevant because Zuckerberg was asked twice by congress about
Facebook potentially offering subscriptions. Zuckerberg endorsed the merits of
ad-supported apps, but never ruled out letting users buy a premium version. “We
don’t offer an option today for people to pay to not show ads” Zuckerberg said,
later elaborating that “Overall, I think that the ads
experience is going to be the best one. I think in general, people like not
having to pay for a service. A lot of people can’t afford to pay for a service
around the world, and this aligns with our mission the best.”
But that word ‘today’ gave a glimmer of hope that we might be able
to pay in the future.
What would we be
paying for beyond removing ads, though?. Facebook already lets users concerned
about their privacy opt out of some ad targeting, just not seeing ads as a
whole. Zuckerberg’s stumping for free Internet services make it seem unlikely
that Facebook would build valuable features and reserve them for subscribers
Spotify only lets paid
users play any song they want on-demand, while ad-supported users are stuck on
shuffle. LinkedIn only lets paid users message anyone they want and appear as a
‘featured applicant’ to hirers, while ad-supported users can only message their
connections. Netflix only lets paid users…use it at all.
But Facebook views social
networking as a human right, and would likely want to give all users
any extra features it developed like News Feed filters to weed out
politics or baby pics. Facebook also probably wouldn’t sell features that break
privacy like how LinkedIn subscribers can see who visited their profiles. In
fact, I wouldn’t bet on Facebook offering any significant
premium-only features beyond removing ads. That could make it a tough sell.
Meanwhile, advertisers trying
to reach every member of a demographic might not want a way for people to pay
to opt-out of ads. If they’re trying to promote a new movie, a restaurant
chain, or an election campaign, they’d want as strong of penetration amongst
their target audience as they can get. A subscription model punches holes in the
ubiquity of Facebook ads that drive businesses to the app.
Resentment Vs Appreciation
But the biggest issue
is that Facebook is just really good at monetizing with ads. For never charging
users, it earns a ton of money. $40 billion in 2017. Convincing people to pay
more with their wallets than their eyeballs may be difficult. And the ones who
want to pay are probably worth much more than the average.
Let’s look at the US
& Canada market where Facebook earns the most per user because they’re
wealthier and have more disposable income than people in other parts of the
world, and therefore command higher ad rates. On average US and Canada
users earn Facebook $7 per month from ads. But those willing and able to pay
are probably richer than the average user, so luxury businesses pay more to
advertise to them, and probably spend more time browsing Facebook than the
average user, so they see more of those ads.
Brace for sticker
shock, because for Facebook to offset the ad revenue of these rich hardcore
users, it might have to charge more like $11 to $14 per month.
With no bonus
features, that price for something they can get for free could seem way too
high. Many who could afford it still wouldn’t justify it, regardless of how
much time they spend on Facebook compared to other media subscriptions they
shell out for. Those who truly can’t afford it might suddenly feel more
resentment towards the Facebook ads they’ve been scrolling past unperturbed for
years. Each one would be a reminder that they don’t have the cash to escape
Facebook’s data mines.
But perhaps it’s just
as likely that people would feel the exact opposite — that having to see those
ads really isn’t so bad when faced with the alternative of a steep subscription
price.
People often don’t see
worth in what they get for free. Being confronted with a price tag could make
them more cognizant of the value exchange they’re voluntarily entering.
Social networking costs money to operate, and they have to pay
somehow. Seeing ads keeps Facebook’s lights on, its labs full of future
products, and its investors happy.
That’s why it might
not matter if Facebook can only get 4 percent, or 1 percent, or 0.1 percent of
users to pay. It could be worth it for Facebook to build out a subscription
option to empower users with a sense of choice and provide perspective on the
value they already receive for free.
No comments:
Post a Comment