Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#51

Post by dublo7 »

mschaef wrote: post #36

My first inclination is to think this is a good thing. That it's a sign of a better customer experience. It's the cynic in me that worries this will be seen by some as an opportunity to increase RPU and screw up the site. (And the new UI supports that cynical take, at least somewhat.) I 'grew up' in the era of USENET, which had a couple benefits over the forums and then social media sites that sprang up to replace it…

The new layout is annoyingly modern but I do like the ability to read an article and go back to the list without reloading the page.

Now if res can just be updated for the new site to further fix all the little niceties. The fast use switching inevitably drives me back to old mode soon enough.

In the mean time create a bunch of accounts to help their valuation right? I've got a dozen accounts and forgotten the password to at least as many.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#52

Post by z3t4 »

rimunroe wrote: post #33
z3t4 wrote: post #18

I thought advertising on Reddit must be really cheap then, compared to Facebook, Google et.al. But it seems I can not advertise on Reddit if I have an ad blocker ... !?

I’m all for adblockers, but why would you be allowed to advertise if you use one? Do you have some reasoning for why other people should potentially see your ad while you don’t see those of others? Does your adblocker whitelist some things? Genuinely curious.

You wont do much business if you lock out all the hypocrites.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#53

Post by he6s4vyu »

mrweasel wrote: post #50
he6s4vyu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right tab is full of ads, no?

What tabs? You have the friends list and the "send a snap" screens, those are the only two I see... and sometime my profile.

First tap down here: https://i.imgur.com/6SUbJeK.jpg

Scroll down and you will see lots of ads.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#54

Post by mrweasel »

he6s4vyu wrote: post #53
mrweasel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tabs? You have the friends list and the "send a snap" screens, those are the only two I see... and sometime my profile.

First tap down here: https://i.imgur.com/6SUbJeK.jpg Scroll down and you will see lots of ads.

Interesting, I'm surprised that they're able to make money on that. Also Snapchat apparently thinks I'm Norwegian.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#55

Post by he6s4vyu »

mrweasel wrote: post #54
he6s4vyu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First tap down here: https://i.imgur.com/6SUbJeK.jpg Scroll down and you will see lots of ads.

Interesting, I'm surprised that they're able to make money on that. Also Snapchat apparently thinks I'm Norwegian.

All I get is gossip, clickbait and political propaganda. Very unethical, especially for an app where the dominant demographic is early teens. :/

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#56

Post by ashelmire »

zeeed wrote: post #39
ashelmire wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a pretty dubious assumption. Who’s to say they aren’t more desperate for cash due to that? Reddit makes it painful to browse their site on mobile exactly because they want you to use the app so they can track you.

I think they’re doing pretty well: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-reddit-funding/reddit-val... Now that doesn’t mean they’ve found a good long term model yet. But if I had to choose between Reddit’s and Facebook’s app (not that the comparison would make a lot of sense) then I’d choose Reddit on all days of the week.

Valuation has little to do with income; and in fact it means they have to live up to that valuation by getting more revenue and answer to more outside investors. I’m not sure how you thought this was a counterpoint?

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#57

Post by Nasrudith »

dominicr wrote: post #49
indigochill wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As those willing to pay, is exactly those an advertiser want to target. How does this follow? A user is not just on a scale from "I don't pay for anything" to "I pay for everything." People pay to solve what they perceive as problems. For some people, that problem is online advertising (but they don't use adblock because for instance they think it's unfair to the platforms they use). For others, it might be that the…

^ What indigochill said. In addition, for Reddit it seems a paying subscriber is worth 20 non-paying subscribers and is a more secure form of income. So I imagine they're exactly the type of user they want. Why would the subscription model exist if it hurt advertising revenue?

My guess although I don't agree with it is that some marketers think "people willing to pay to not deal with ads" are a more valuable demographic to advertise to. Which is cosmically missing the point really.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#58

Post by intopieces »

dominicr wrote: post #11

That makes me like Reddit more. I wish more social media would allow me to pay to access a version of the service that wasn't centred around advertising. Even with adverts Reddit doesn't feel like it's manipulating everything you see just to sell access to your eyeballs. Reddit has an ad-free premium subscription, although at $5.99 a month it's obviously a lot more than the $0.30 they reckon each user is actually wor…

Does Reddit offer a version of their site that filters out non-paying users? This would be my ideal experience.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#59

Post by rchaud »

pjc50 wrote: post #40
abhiminator wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One good thing I commend reddit for is their business model centered around the user-funded 'gold system' (now called reddit premium [0]). Kind of like a win-win: You see a great post or a comment by a random user, you buy gold (or awards/coins as it's now called), reddit gets the money, post or comment's author gets the recognition in that thread via a special badge (aside from a host of other experience-enhancing b…

I'd love to see something similar for Twitter. Perhaps with better moderation support as one of the perks. "Gold" systems that actually pay the content creator, patreon-style, are an interesting idea too. But they have considerable potential downsides.

Content is constantly being reposted on Reddit with zero attribution. You're better off trying to create a new community with these types of pay-the-creator systems built into it, than shoehorning it into Reddit where the incentive systems would be completely warped due to the Wild West nature of 'content ownership'.

Re: Reddit’s revenue per user is much lower than that of other social networks

#60

Post by rchaud »

qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #14
cube00 wrote: post #2

It makes sense when you consider how many "throw away" accounts are out there. You couldn't get away with creating those kind of accounts on other platforms.

Users won’t ask the stuff they do without throwaways. They’re needed for some level of anonymity, within reason.

I agree with this. But one of the irritating things about Reddit is just how much straight up lying happens simply because the poster wants a high-attention thread. r/relationships and r/sex is full of these 'that happened' absurd scenarios that well-meaning posters do still try to help with.
Post reply on HN