Last quarter, they made $10.12 per user[1, slide 4], however that's not evenly distributed. They made $53.01 per user in US and Canada. But even that isn't evenly distributed.
The users who are likely to pay for the subscription are also the most valuable to advertisers because they have disposable income. Some Instagram users see ads for luxury cars, real estate, and vacations, while other users see ads for dollar stores and dropshipped junk. FB earns much more in their auction from that first set of users, but those will be the first users willing to pay to opt out of ads.
Dynamic pricing would probably offend both audiences - "what do you mean the algorithm thinks I'm worthless?" "what do you mean that I'm worth thousands of dollars to you?"
That's for Facebook broadly, which is a beast of a corporation that encompasses dozens of services and properties. I'm talking about instagram specifically.
those will be the first users willing to pay to opt out of ads.
The service would have to be built from the ground-up to not have a free option, it would have to be equalized across all users. Again, this is where the difficulty lies in an economy that already offers so much for free.
IF someone could pull it off, they would benefit from the gym membership effect of people keeping the subscription while barely using the service (and it's resources).
There would also be considerable savings on the engineering and sales side if you cut all adtech out of the equation and provide a simple time-series feed.
Dynamic pricing would probably offend both audiences - "what do you mean the algorithm thinks I'm worthless?" "what do you mean that I'm worth thousands of dollars to you?"
[1] https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2021/q2...