Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

80% Positive

Analyzed from 639 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#google#users#ads#mean#usd#user#revenue#average#services#world

Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

dotcomaabout 4 hours ago
There's a problem...

Population of the US: 349 M, of which 250-300 M use Google services, multiplied by 1605 USD per user = from 401 B USD to 481 B USD, but in 2025 Alphabet did 403 B in total, from every service, in the whole world.

dathinab12 minutes ago
This could be explained by the 250-300 M you refer to not matching the same distribution due to

1. this seems to be google ad network specific, not google services per-see

2. the analysis seem to only include users which do in general generate ad revenue, e.g. all AD Block everywhere users are not included in the distribution

3. given the lower bound I assume ad views which have no clear attributable user, and/or users with a very low and irregular amount of views, are not included (e.g. some mostly "offline" people, people mostly using an ad-block but sometimes somewhere still seeing an add, also it's G-Ads, so anyone using only FB, TickTock etc. would not show up I think)

dzonga17 minutes ago
not back of the napkin - but back of the head quick calculations - number seem about right.

remember the average 'world' user is about 100x to 500x less valuable than a US user.

itemize123about 3 hours ago
google's the middleman, and it won't capture the whole 1600 right?
dotcomaabout 2 hours ago
No. They are saying 1605 USD is the average amount Google make from a user in the US.
cebertabout 2 hours ago
There are some people who don’t use Google. I use Duck Duck Go for search. Additionally, with the rise of LLMs I have been using search much less in general.
dathinab38 minutes ago
and ad blockers also can kill ad revenue in various ways (like by not displaying them, or even if displayed by causing them to not be counted due to not realizing they where displayed or finding irregularities due to which they are classified as bot views).

similar anti-fingerprinting tech can kill ad revenue as it makes users non distinguishable from bots (but likely doesn't matter here)

dotcomaabout 2 hours ago
Let's say 100 M ?
nonameiguess25 minutes ago
Caveat I'm no expert on Google ads. Never bought one, never plan to, never advertised anything at all on any service. But since I'm capable of doing a basic web search, I found:

https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/6366577?hl=en

This is the process for determining which ads get run. The bid is only one of many factors, so as their support document indicates, the price you pay is often quite lower than the bid, which reflects a ceiling rather than a real sale price.

https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2580383?sjid=17...

This is their guidance on demographic targeting. Note there is no category allowing you intentionally target children. This doesn't mean advertisers can't figure out some way to do it anyway, but it means Proton can only sample from adults. Presumably, some probably very large number of the people who "use Google services" in your estimate are children, which childstats.gov indicates represent about 22% of all Americans. That makes it more like 195-235M adult users of Google services.

https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2464960

As indicated here, you don't pay to place an ad. You pay for clicks, so regardless of what you bid and who you target, Google isn't getting revenue for the number of placements you bid on, which is what Proton is sampling here. Presumably of the 250 x 0.78 to 300 x 0.78 million adult users advertisers are placing those $1605 average bids on, quite a bit fewer than 100% actually click on at least one ad.

amazingamazingabout 2 hours ago
Presumably this only counts internet users who use Google.
dotcomaabout 2 hours ago
Correct. If 250 M people use it in the US out of a population of 349 M, Google would make 401 B USD out of them, vs 403 B USD in worldwide revenues. These numbers do not look right to me.
amazingamazingabout 1 hour ago
If you’re going to extrapolate you should use the median, which would put it at 200B for USA.
hacker_homieabout 3 hours ago
revenue vs profit?
devttyeuabout 3 hours ago
yieldcrvabout 2 hours ago
ok, and?

proton did 54,000 samples of US users and made an average of what advertisers are willing to pay to target, not what they actually did across the whole population

and plus this isn’t to inform you, it’s to sell you on another proton honeypot

dotcomaabout 2 hours ago
I think you are right on this point.
dathinab40 minutes ago
This is a good example of why averages (by themself) can be very misleading:

- avg. $1_605

- but mean is $760, i.e. half the users generate $760 or less

I also wouldn't be surprised if the sampling distribution has two maxima even if smoothed (on around the mean and another at the lower end). Would be nice to have that plotted out properly.

JumpCrisscross39 minutes ago
> mean is $760, i.e. half the users generate $760 or less

Median*. Mean and median are both measures of averages, though colloquially average is taken to exclusively mean the mean.

dathinab27 minutes ago
yes, typo/auto correct
derwikiabout 2 hours ago
Glad I block ads and use Kagi
kybb4about 3 hours ago
Add Meta and the rest of the Attention Economy and for a family of 4 they extract 10K a year. The rest of the world its like $700-1K. The US Attention pool gets overfished because thats where most of the world cash sits. Over optimized Cream Skimming.