Now, you have to imagine the CPM is directly related to the value of the goods being sold. That scales per country. It's probably not the perfect proxy, but in the same sense that your viewers from other countries pay out different CPMs, they can probably afford different amounts per video.
It isn't about anonymity. It's about abuse of data. I'm not mad that I can't make anonymous phone calls, I'm mad that my phone provider sells my real time location data. I am happy to pay a company that preserves privacy and trust them with my information. This is a bit aside though, because I more or less trust Google with my information, I just don't like ads. It's not about anonymity.
Sometimes we pay a lot more: https://graphtreon.com/patreon-stats
> The true value of the video is likely much lower.
The true value of the video varies a lot. Some are demonstrably very highly valued: https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators
A premium account is $10/mo.. or $30/quarter. Pandora is part of sirius now.. but spotify has revenue of about 5.50/user/quarter.
Either Pandora is 6x more effective at monetization than Spotify (very unlikely), or that engineer was wrong.
It's sort of related.
Except that the vast majority of the advertising on the internet supports mainly low-quality junk ... The more ads, the scummier and more worthless the site gets, usually.
There are exceptions, few and far between, like news websites I guess. But most of the ads on the Internet are used to support content that you never asked for, never wanted, never would visit, and still get shoved in your face occasionally.
Afaik nobody really tried true micropayments yet. Micro actually means 10^-6, so as TACIXAT mentioned below/above it comes down to 0.025-0.4 cent per one piece of something. Meanwhile what we have seen from the industry is $.99 macro payments. Did Google Contributor really charge people ~0.025-0.4 cent per impression?
People want to be able to opt out of Google entirely, and that product didn’t do it.
I don't care about seeing ads, but I am willing to pay money (and I do, when such an option exists) in exchange for stopping the spying that ads bring.
That's probably because they actually have tried it: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta
It may seem frustrating for some of us living in nice places, having our own money and access to easily accessible electronic payment systems but for a lot of the world (geographical, age and economic status) that's not available. So while I support being able to have the option to pay to not see ads I also support being able to just see pages (with ads) without having to configure billing, etc. Otherwise a lot of the high value Internet would be only accessible to the group of people I mentioned above and that would be sad (and going against why Internet has penetrated so much of the world).
PS: If you think it's hard to stay anonymous in an Internet of ads, I cannot see how you'd be anonymous in one where you have to configure billing which is traceable (by design) to your physical person.