3 ms·

Online advertising is a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, where that commons is the general public's attention. Any individual publisher or adverti

Online advertising is a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, where that commons is the general public's attention. Any individual publisher or advertiser can do a little bit better by surpassing what the general public finds acceptable, but when enough of them do this some of the general public resorts to ad blockers - causing overall ad revenues to decline, which causes more publishers and advertisers to push the boundaries in search of higher revenue, which causes more people to install ad blockers... No matter how or what you feel about advertising and tracking, this cycle is well underway, and I believe it's no longer capable of being stopped. There's still short-term wins out there, but I'd be long-term bearish on anything involving ad tech or analytics, and structure your career accordingly.

officialchicken 11y ago
At the end of the day, we all agree that shining shit is their job. Media/Ad buyers and sellers need to realize that there are 2 issues (intrusive ads and tracking) at play, not one. The IAB can't deflect on "bad actors" too much longer and they know it - that campaign has run it's course. They have to correct their own behavior and not modify ours as they're naturally inclined to try.
- PantaloonFlames 11y ago
  > we all agree that shining shit is their job. I don't know about that. I'm a consumer. I use the internet to search for things I'm considering for purchase. Tires for my automobile, landscaping services, holiday trips. After searching (and prior to adblock sw), I'd see ads related to my searches. They were relevant. Many (most?) ads are horsepucky and annoying. Some are not. I am not defending ad-based models for dissemination of information and news as the one true way. Just disagreeing with your extreme statement.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Let's add a third: security. You can't let a 3rd party advertiser send arbitrary web content to your customers, and then just wash your hands of it and say "It wasn't us, it was the ad network" when it eventually gets used to deliver malware to your customers. It's like if you hired a housecleaning service and they told you "Whoops, looks like somebody took a dump on your living room floor. Not our fault though. It was a subcontractor."
Fede_V 11y ago
That's actually an exceptionally useful way to think about this. The more intrusive are the ads you sell, the more valuable they are (to brands) - while the more intrusive they are, the more people will block them. Of course, unless you are Google or Facebook, you have very little ability to lower the 'global' shittiness of ads, but you have a lot of ability to make your own ads more lucrative and targeted.

officialchicken 11y ago

At the end of the day, we all agree that shining shit is their job. Media/Ad buyers and sellers need to realize that there are 2 issues (intrusive ads and tracking) at play, not one. The IAB can't deflect on "bad actors" too much longer and they know it - that campaign has run it's course. They have to correct their own behavior and not modify ours as they're naturally inclined to try.

PantaloonFlames 11y ago
> we all agree that shining shit is their job. I don't know about that. I'm a consumer. I use the internet to search for things I'm considering for purchase. Tires for my automobile, landscaping services, holiday trips. After searching (and prior to adblock sw), I'd see ads related to my searches. They were relevant. Many (most?) ads are horsepucky and annoying. Some are not. I am not defending ad-based models for dissemination of information and news as the one true way. Just disagreeing with your extreme statement.
wlesieutre 11y ago
Let's add a third: security. You can't let a 3rd party advertiser send arbitrary web content to your customers, and then just wash your hands of it and say "It wasn't us, it was the ad network" when it eventually gets used to deliver malware to your customers. It's like if you hired a housecleaning service and they told you "Whoops, looks like somebody took a dump on your living room floor. Not our fault though. It was a subcontractor."

Fede_V 11y ago

That's actually an exceptionally useful way to think about this. The more intrusive are the ads you sell, the more valuable they are (to brands) - while the more intrusive they are, the more people will block them. Of course, unless you are Google or Facebook, you have very little ability to lower the 'global' shittiness of ads, but you have a lot of ability to make your own ads more lucrative and targeted.