(I'm not actually going to do this, but it's a fun thought experiment.)
And an obscene amount would take the $50 and create a new account (or simply not reveal their real account).
I agree it'd be a fun experiment, though. And I see no reason to keep it hypothetical. I'd be particularly interested in seeing how much is raised (which I suspect would be relatively little).
This was my first thought - a dollar is worth wildly different amounts to different people. If I'm struggling to put food on the table and fuel in my car, then a dollar is pretty important. If I'm sitting in my mansion sipping fine wine and contemplating what to do with the afternoon, a thousand dollars may be inconsequential.
The median wage in the US is $31k [1], or about $15 an hour.
The average facebook user spends 50 minutes on the site a day [2], or 300 hours a year. That's a $4500 a year that they are already spending on facebook.
[1] https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/facebook-bends-t...
Glad someone mentioned this. It would be a very different situation if you switched Facebook over to a subscription model, and it'd be a different outcome still if you had people bid to be the only one still able to use Facebook in the auction.
I honestly think this is actually a really bad metric to choose, even if it's better than nothing. I, for instance, barely use Facebook, but would require a decent chunk to bother to deactivate it, just because I'm really insensitive to extra money compared to the general population. I would, on the other hand, probably not pay much to keep it because that requires extra work. Still better than nothing, but hopefully someone can top this.
Comparable: Many people pay $1000 a year for cable TV. They may complain about but they fork over the money.
Companions: You might spend $1000 a year for internet access (either wired or wireless) which you might use to access Facebook. You might spend $1000 a year for a phone that you access Facebook on.
I've found that companions are a good way to estimate "Willingness to Pay" quickly. For instance if somebody spent $50,000 on a software license you can probably sell them a $50,000 server to go with it.
They are definitely related.
FB creates some kind of value - some goes to them in terms of profit, some goes to the user in consumer surplus.
As FB shows more ads, the consumer surplus goes down.
Obviously corps are the one paying, but value to consumers does matter.
They also left out those who wouldn't leave for any amount of money, ostensibly, which is tricky because they probably valued it tremendously.
The silicon valley user-currency ponzi scheme is just for show, and to be able to afford a home
Facebook derives a lot of value from its users but it isnt solely proportional, it is a multinational with many revenue streams
2) This shouldn't be surprising as it tells us most people don't care that much, and a few people 'really do' - which is normal for most goods.
3) Since we're dealing with network externalizations, wherein the value goes up when more people use it (the value of FB is the network, less so the features) - then a lower price makes more sense. If all those people who bid $100 or less (say 2/3 of the population) quit FB tommorow, than those in the $1K range who 'really like FB' would probably leave as well, because their friends would not be there.
This gives us a hint that in product wherein the consumer surplus is not very evenly distributed - and there are strong network effects ... that the optimal price should be low.
4) Getting paid to leave is simply a different metric than having to get out your wallet to pay for something. Surely the authors know this but I didn't see it mentioned. 'WTP != WTL' i.e. willingness to pay is not the same as willingness to leave.