Would you pay for no Facebook ads?

So this would imply that Facebook is so compelling that users would pay to use it? Is that really the case?

I guess some people are loose enough with money that they are paying to send "virtual" gifts so maybe there are some people that would pay for membership?

Maybe I am a Luddite or just an old fart but I think both ideas are ludicrous.

I don't think I would pay, Brian, but I suppose it's possible that there are people who might. The guy who wrote the blog post I linked to certainly suggested that he would.

And thanks for the note about the posting time. I guess Wordpress doesn't automatically adjust for daylight saving time :-)

I thought that was Facebook's plan all along.

The service is either free (but you have to put up with our targeted ads), or you pay for no ads (unless you want some, in which case Facebook gets paid twice -- once by the advertiser, and once by the subscriber).

And then maybe Facebook would starting paying members who forward a 'cute' ad to their friends. But not with real money -- it would be the Facebook Buck, redeemable in subscription credits or at the Facebook store, where members can buy Facebook T-shirts, hoodies and other branded merchandise.

This is almost laughable from my point of view. Pay for facebook for no ads? I'd just stop using facebook.

The more I think about this, facebook should be paying the users for handing their data over to advertisers.

I'm all for that, Jason :-)

You'd be surprised how little you'd have to pay if all you need do is replace the value of your "eyeballs" for the media owner. I made this proposal a while back and think it's viable in all sorts of places:

http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/memo...

The question is whether anyone will try it or whether they fear angering the advertisers. As a user, I'd love to pay to supress ads in a variety of places.

I'm with Webomatica.

I'll just stop using FB as well.

I find it hard to believe anyone will actually follow through on their "threats" to leave FB while at the same time using (or having used) MySpace -- the ad whore of all social networks.

Mark will do fine.

Well, there's 'leaving Facebook' and then there's 'cutting back my time on Facebook' -- I only visit the site occasionally, mostly to stay in touch with some of the friends and family that I know through Facebook. The introduction of ads probably won't affect me too much, but a heavy Facebook user who gets tired of the ads may decide to cut down on their visits.

Mark Zuckerberg may have his hand on the wheel at Facebook, but never forget that his subscribers also have the option of changing their traffic patterns, and that will most certainly affect the future path of the SS Facebook as well.

I was once a loyal CompuServe member (73067,1500) in the pre-Web days, happily paying by the minute for 2400 baud access to the OS/2 and Canopus forums. But times changed, and after a few months of using the Web and leaving my CompuServe account dormant, I closed the account -- it just wasn't relevant any more. And today it seems impossible to imagine a world without Facebook, but fads come and go -- and with a few wrong turns, the site could implode in favour of the next big thing, and then we'll be reminscing about the good old Web 2.0 days of Facebook.

Perhaps by then it will be just another answer in the 2010 version of Trivial Pursuit .. "What Social networking site got its start in 2004 at Harvard .."

Great post Mathew.

The pressing question is actually: 'How Will Facebook pass the EU's Privacy Test?'

There are fairly strict Data Protection laws in the UK, for example.

Here are a few:

* Data may only be used for the specific purposes for which it was collected.

* Data must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). It is an offence for Other Parties to obtain this personal data without authorisation.

* Individuals have a right of access to the information held about them, subject to certain exceptions (for example, information held for the prevention or detection of crime).

* Personal information may be kept for no longer than is necessary.

* Personal information may not be transmitted outside the EEA unless the individual whom it is about has consented or adequate protection is in place, for example by the use of a prescribed form of contract to govern the transmission of the data.

* Subject to some exceptions for organisations that only do very simple processing, and for domestic use, all entities that process personal information must register with the Information Commissioner.

* Entities holding personal information are required to have adequate security measures in place. Those include technical measures (such as firewalls) and organisational measures (such as staff training).

Culled from a really comprehensive post on Mashable here:
http://mashable.com/2007/11/09/facebook-asks-ca...

My offer of £7.50 per month for a Facebook subscription without ads now seems a little... foolish. What's the point if agreeing to the Terms of Use mean that the privacy laws designed to protect me above, cannot.

Hmm...

Having said that, it will be interesting to see how Facebook's core demographic take to the ads.

It is quite possible that they might not care.

I am going to close my facebook ads account too.I have more than 240$ free credit inside but it expired soon

It's economics. Never is the question yes or no, it's how much. I would pay a dollar a month to not have ads slow down the load time. The problem is that in those ads are placed there by out sourcing to other sites though Java Script. Even if a facebook page could load quickly, the connection hangs because the ads's servers are too unresponsive for a fast connection like mine. Most of the time when I wait for a page to load its because of the site, not my connection.

So yes, 1 dollar a month is worth not sitting through page loadings when I otherwise wouldn't have to.