If you have the disposable income to pay to remove advertising, you are exactly the market segment advertisers want to reach. They will always be willing to pay to outbid that segment’s own desire to not see ads.
So now, to justify removing someone from your pool of advertisees, they don't just need to pay what could be made by advertising to them; they need to pay for what could be made to advertise to them and (unwittingly) several poorer people.
I also click them often. $$$$
“If you don’t pay for a product, you are the product”
It’s
“If you don’t pay for a product, you are a less valuable product than if you’d pay for the product”
The answer here isn't really obvious, but I'd suspect that in many cases this is not a very attractive demographic to advertise to.
This demographic is inherently attractive simply because they can spend money.
On the wealthy side, you don't need to be that rich to pay not to get ads.
So a fancy way to say that if you have 10 dollars?
Thank you for the laugh.
While this may be true on an individual level, it’s wildly not true in aggregate.
The first dollar is hardest to get. Once someone has shown a propensity to spend on pretty much anything, they become much more valuable as an advertising target.
That's like thinking that a girl is likely to sleep with everybody because she has a boyfriend. "She's already sleeping with one guy, so why shouldn't she sleep with everybody?".
Of course your current customers are excellent targets for your own upsells and your other products. But not much else.
Anyway, the devil is in the implementation details here, but this doesn't strike me as a common case.