6 ms·

From the moment that some ad sets you in contact with a product/service or a brand that brings value to you, it will become valuable to your life - on that part

From the moment that some ad sets you in contact with a product/service or a brand that brings value to you, it will become valuable to your life - on that particular moment. Else how would you reach out to your possible customers, that would find your product/service of great value to them? Do not fool yourself by saying that advertisement doesn't work... it does, and I bet it has influenced your decision plenty of times in your life - and I mean this in a positive way, not in a "mind controlling" way. The problem of spamming is just a matter of cheap distribution, a lot of inventory and the need to monetize free content.

csydas 9y ago
Aside from a small outspoken few, I don't think that anyone is really arguing that advertising doesn't work. That's never been the contention, and the goal isn't to be completely rid of advertisements. The argument has been the annoyingness and frustrating way in which advertisements present themselves and constantly worm their way into your private life without your permission. It's advertising rings with exceptionally poor vetting allowing malicious ads through, no scrutiny applied. It's advertisers ignoring the expressed wishes of individuals who set Do Not Track, or installing adblockers; I will concede the latter often isn't much about philosophy and choice as it is about annoyance, but the site has the ability and choice to not provide content in that case - the sites and advertisers work to circumvent it. The problem with the idea of discussing advertisements in a sound way is that it's always been a discussion in bad faith on the side of advertisers. Think of every time there has been a major privacy breaking advertising and data collection tactic - the only reason these times stopped was because they got caught, not because someone inside thought "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy." Look at the recent issues with Android based phones listening for silent beacons without user permission; a 40 page TOS on a phone does not constitute a fair warning, and courts have repeatedly upheld this position. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" advertisers, but it's a poisoned landscape. The advertisements you see going to the majority of the web aren't from these good advertisers, and websites aren't interested in it either. There's money and incentive in crappy advertising and invading people's privacy. It's not "bringing value to customers", it's bringing value to advertisers and data hoarders while paying out a little to services, and these services are happy enough to lie to you about adblockers. Look at this pop-up from Bloomberg of all places: [1] It's a flat-out lie as to why they want you to unblock ads; the page renders perfectly fine and is perfectly reasonable without it, they just want you to see ads. It's not about creating value, it's about getting eyes on ads. Doesn't matter how, why, or what in many cases, just eyes and ears in contact with ads. Advertisers have dug a huge hole for themselves, and they're just digging deeper every time there is another upset over something advertisers do - they issue a stock apology, then do it all over again with a slightly different method. It's absurd, and the idea that somehow we need to meet advertisers half-way is equally absurd. There has not been a show of good faith from the advertising realm, even in the face of government regulation. It's complete disregard for everything in the name of a few bucks and more eyes and ears in contact with whoever happens to pay enough to get an ad there. Even with the hoards of data that they mine about people, you still get ridiculous advertisement patterns along the lines of "I see you just bought a washing machine. Here are washing machines you might want to buy!" There's no sense or reason, it's not advertising as a service, it's just spewing non-sense out there, and the amount of infrastructure, time, technology, and brainpower used to spew it out there is absolutely mind-boggling. [1] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWTmRNw.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWT... Edit: Fixed a sentence where I forgot words: "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy."
justinpombrio 9y ago
> From the moment that some ad ... it will become valuable to your life Ok, ads can be valuable. So can gym memberships. But we don't require that people buy gym memberships, and we shouldn't prevent them from blocking ads. In other words, I want to clarify that this argument should be "advertisements are valuable, so you should choose not to block them", rather than "advertisements are valuable, so ad-blockers are wrong". Of course, most people would choose not to see ads, so they don't seem to think they're valuable...
- Denzel 9y ago
  To use your analogy then I should just install a gym-membership blocker, stroll in every morning, and use their workout machines without paying. That's absurd. My argument has always been: if you want to use an ad-blocker, be my guest, then block the damn content too. Ad-blockers seem to have this entitlement complex where they deserve the content how they want it -- others' rights be damned. No one's forcing anyone to consume this content just like no one's forcing anyone to get a gym membership. And somehow you don't see how your own analogy proved the absurdity of the situation?
  - syrrim 9y ago
    The argument made was against the statement that ads were valuable in and of themselves. If they aren't, than the whole system becomes a zero sum game: advertisers pay content creators, who show you ads, you pay money for products, and the product seller gives a portion of the money to the advertiser. Unless value is being introduced somewhere, the whole system serves only to misdirect where your money is going. You might as well give the money directly to the content creator, and skip the advertising middleman. Only if being given the opportunity to watch ads is valuable to you can you say that the advertisers contribute to the system rather than introducing inefficiency. Someone who has chosen to block ads is clearly making the statement that the ads provide them no value. Such a person might decide to contribute in other more efficient ways, or perhaps might decide to become a leech. Note that there is an easier way to leech from the content creator than to block the ads: view the ads, and then don't buy the product. In this way, you are decreasing the overall value of ad impressions, and thereby decreasing the money funneled to the content creator. This option is ignored by ad-blocking opponents because you so clearly have a right to ignore the advice of ads. How, though, is it so different from blocking ads? Furthermore, by analysing this option, we see the core advantage - or problem, depending on your viewpoint - of an ad based model: some people (those who are more frugal) can contribute less money than others. If you consider this a problem, than you will find a clear solution: charge all viewers the same price upfront, rather than hiding it behind the advertising machine. In this way, you become more honest, while forcing the poor to contribute the same as the rich.
Sir_Substance 9y ago
>or a brand that brings value to you I have, exactly once in my life, connected with an ad in this way. I remember it vividly, because even at the time, it struck me as amazingly strange an ad would actually be anything other that pointless noise. I'd been house sitting at a friends place for a week, and so had been to all the takeout joints in the area several times. I didn't really want any of the options again, but was kinda hungry for lunch. At that moment a subway ad came on TV, and I remembered that there was a tiny subway tucked away off the main street, so I went there for lunch. That's it, that's my story of ads putting me in contact with a brand that brought value to me. It happened once, and only once, and it happened at Norwood, South Australia. I feel like I could have dug deep and lived without that brand connection.
- ChairmanPao 9y ago
  Jared!? They let you on the internet?
- majewsky 9y ago
  I picture you sitting in a rocking chair 50 years from now while telling this story. "Grandpa, can you tell us again of the time when you saw a useful ad?" - "Ah yes, those were the times. But first, some messages from our sponsors!"
- libertine 9y ago
  I wonder if you ever clicked on a Google Adwords ad, after you searched for something.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    No. Even in the cases where the adword result is at the top and the exact same result is right below it, I choose to click the non-ad version. That situation is, in fact, a classic example of why adwords results are not relevant, ever. Either the actual google search result is literally the same as the ad word result, or the google result is more on point. Never has there been a case where the ad word result has been what I wanted, but Google couldn't find it, and that's not surprising because Google is the one assembling both the search results and the ads, so if they can't find it in the search they also can't find an ad for it.

csydas 9y ago

Aside from a small outspoken few, I don't think that anyone is really arguing that advertising doesn't work. That's never been the contention, and the goal isn't to be completely rid of advertisements. The argument has been the annoyingness and frustrating way in which advertisements present themselves and constantly worm their way into your private life without your permission. It's advertising rings with exceptionally poor vetting allowing malicious ads through, no scrutiny applied. It's advertisers ignoring the expressed wishes of individuals who set Do Not Track, or installing adblockers; I will concede the latter often isn't much about philosophy and choice as it is about annoyance, but the site has the ability and choice to not provide content in that case - the sites and advertisers work to circumvent it. The problem with the idea of discussing advertisements in a sound way is that it's always been a discussion in bad faith on the side of advertisers. Think of every time there has been a major privacy breaking advertising and data collection tactic - the only reason these times stopped was because they got caught, not because someone inside thought "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy." Look at the recent issues with Android based phones listening for silent beacons without user permission; a 40 page TOS on a phone does not constitute a fair warning, and courts have repeatedly upheld this position. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" advertisers, but it's a poisoned landscape. The advertisements you see going to the majority of the web aren't from these good advertisers, and websites aren't interested in it either. There's money and incentive in crappy advertising and invading people's privacy. It's not "bringing value to customers", it's bringing value to advertisers and data hoarders while paying out a little to services, and these services are happy enough to lie to you about adblockers. Look at this pop-up from Bloomberg of all places: [1] It's a flat-out lie as to why they want you to unblock ads; the page renders perfectly fine and is perfectly reasonable without it, they just want you to see ads. It's not about creating value, it's about getting eyes on ads. Doesn't matter how, why, or what in many cases, just eyes and ears in contact with ads. Advertisers have dug a huge hole for themselves, and they're just digging deeper every time there is another upset over something advertisers do - they issue a stock apology, then do it all over again with a slightly different method. It's absurd, and the idea that somehow we need to meet advertisers half-way is equally absurd. There has not been a show of good faith from the advertising realm, even in the face of government regulation. It's complete disregard for everything in the name of a few bucks and more eyes and ears in contact with whoever happens to pay enough to get an ad there. Even with the hoards of data that they mine about people, you still get ridiculous advertisement patterns along the lines of "I see you just bought a washing machine. Here are washing machines you might want to buy!" There's no sense or reason, it's not advertising as a service, it's just spewing non-sense out there, and the amount of infrastructure, time, technology, and brainpower used to spew it out there is absolutely mind-boggling. [1] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWTmRNw.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWT... Edit: Fixed a sentence where I forgot words: "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy."

justinpombrio 9y ago

> From the moment that some ad ... it will become valuable to your life Ok, ads can be valuable. So can gym memberships. But we don't require that people buy gym memberships, and we shouldn't prevent them from blocking ads. In other words, I want to clarify that this argument should be "advertisements are valuable, so you should choose not to block them", rather than "advertisements are valuable, so ad-blockers are wrong". Of course, most people would choose not to see ads, so they don't seem to think they're valuable...

Denzel 9y ago
To use your analogy then I should just install a gym-membership blocker, stroll in every morning, and use their workout machines without paying. That's absurd. My argument has always been: if you want to use an ad-blocker, be my guest, then block the damn content too. Ad-blockers seem to have this entitlement complex where they deserve the content how they want it -- others' rights be damned. No one's forcing anyone to consume this content just like no one's forcing anyone to get a gym membership. And somehow you don't see how your own analogy proved the absurdity of the situation?
- syrrim 9y ago
  The argument made was against the statement that ads were valuable in and of themselves. If they aren't, than the whole system becomes a zero sum game: advertisers pay content creators, who show you ads, you pay money for products, and the product seller gives a portion of the money to the advertiser. Unless value is being introduced somewhere, the whole system serves only to misdirect where your money is going. You might as well give the money directly to the content creator, and skip the advertising middleman. Only if being given the opportunity to watch ads is valuable to you can you say that the advertisers contribute to the system rather than introducing inefficiency. Someone who has chosen to block ads is clearly making the statement that the ads provide them no value. Such a person might decide to contribute in other more efficient ways, or perhaps might decide to become a leech. Note that there is an easier way to leech from the content creator than to block the ads: view the ads, and then don't buy the product. In this way, you are decreasing the overall value of ad impressions, and thereby decreasing the money funneled to the content creator. This option is ignored by ad-blocking opponents because you so clearly have a right to ignore the advice of ads. How, though, is it so different from blocking ads? Furthermore, by analysing this option, we see the core advantage - or problem, depending on your viewpoint - of an ad based model: some people (those who are more frugal) can contribute less money than others. If you consider this a problem, than you will find a clear solution: charge all viewers the same price upfront, rather than hiding it behind the advertising machine. In this way, you become more honest, while forcing the poor to contribute the same as the rich.

Sir_Substance 9y ago

>or a brand that brings value to you I have, exactly once in my life, connected with an ad in this way. I remember it vividly, because even at the time, it struck me as amazingly strange an ad would actually be anything other that pointless noise. I'd been house sitting at a friends place for a week, and so had been to all the takeout joints in the area several times. I didn't really want any of the options again, but was kinda hungry for lunch. At that moment a subway ad came on TV, and I remembered that there was a tiny subway tucked away off the main street, so I went there for lunch. That's it, that's my story of ads putting me in contact with a brand that brought value to me. It happened once, and only once, and it happened at Norwood, South Australia. I feel like I could have dug deep and lived without that brand connection.

ChairmanPao 9y ago
Jared!? They let you on the internet?
majewsky 9y ago
I picture you sitting in a rocking chair 50 years from now while telling this story. "Grandpa, can you tell us again of the time when you saw a useful ad?" - "Ah yes, those were the times. But first, some messages from our sponsors!"
libertine 9y ago
I wonder if you ever clicked on a Google Adwords ad, after you searched for something.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  No. Even in the cases where the adword result is at the top and the exact same result is right below it, I choose to click the non-ad version. That situation is, in fact, a classic example of why adwords results are not relevant, ever. Either the actual google search result is literally the same as the ad word result, or the google result is more on point. Never has there been a case where the ad word result has been what I wanted, but Google couldn't find it, and that's not surprising because Google is the one assembling both the search results and the ads, so if they can't find it in the search they also can't find an ad for it.