4 ms·

Back in the olden days where ads where more sparse, they would have so much more impact. Nowadays after the awash of ads we have everywhere, companies are colle

Back in the olden days where ads where more sparse, they would have so much more impact. Nowadays after the awash of ads we have everywhere, companies are collectively loosing their ability to make ads impact. (by logic, the more we are exposed to it, the less effective it it). Therefore they did it to themselves. They abused it, so that now people reject them where they can, and it becomes less profitable. No sympathy from me.

VMG 9y ago
Recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14833508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14833508 > The growth of “zero-sum” activities may, however, be even more important. Look around the economy, and it’s striking how much high-talent manpower is devoted to activities that cannot possibly increase human welfare, but entail competition for the available economic pie. Advertising seems to be a zero-sum game. I can imagine some industries cartellizing to stop it altogether.
- emn13 9y ago
  It's a pipe dream; but advertising/lobbying deserves regulatory hurdles much like other public health threats (e.g. tobacco). And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new. It's simply detrimental to the overall ability for us to think.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    > And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new. So the slippery slope people were right after all.
    - emn13 9y ago
      Yeah. You clearly intend for this newfangled freedom of speech thing to protect critical commentary, avoid repression and promote the exchange of valuable ideas; and all of the sudden people apply it in all kinds of nonsensical counterproductive ways. Slippery slope and all... Unless of course you really think that protecting the rich & powerful's ability to mislead and trick others is really a societal benefit.
    - Retra 9y ago
      Freedom of speech isn't a blanket "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" rule. It is the freedom to communicate with interested parties about the matters of your choosing. It is not supposed to be a freedom to perform mass campaigns of dishonesty in economic or political domains.
      - jpttsn 9y ago
        I don't think this is a true dichotomy. 1) "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" I agree, that would be silly; the perpetrator could choose to call any action speech. 2) campaigns of dishonesty Could these campaigns be carried out by actions that fall under a commonly before hand agreed on definition of speech?
        Retra 9y ago
        Sure they could, but it's not the definition of speech that needs to be fixed, it's the definition of "dishonesty campaign." And there, the problem is not about speech, but identity-protection for the religious. One person's lies are "protected tradition" while another person's lies are "dangerous fake news."
  - acangiano 9y ago
    Suggested read on this topic, "The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads" by Tim Wu.
prostoalex 9y ago
Ads worked differently back in the days. A hiking site would accept sponsorships by outdoor brands, basically copying the magazine model, where the targeted audience gets served targeted ads with publishers inserting themselves in the middle and collecting a fee. The big brands have figured out that in cost-per-click (or any cost-per-action model) retargeting delivers the best results, so if you go and search for flights to Barcelona or some shoes, those flights and those shoes will follow you around - there's a high probability that a click will lead to a purchase, and it costs advertisers essentially zero if they're wrong, since you likely won't click. The Web ads industry thus turned into a raffle industry - ads for same flights to Barcelona will turn up on outdoor enthusiast sites, CNN, Wired magazine, ESPN, your local newspaper site, Facebook and whatever else you happen to visit the next few days. In a raffle scenario the entity with the most raffle tickets gets higher chances of winning, so publishers are locked in a war to accummulate as many raffle tickets as possible with the hopes that one of them will be a major winner, i.e. you finally buying those tickets to Barcelona and those shoes on Zappos.
- droidist2 9y ago
  I see this as positive in some ways. Previously most topics made a pittance compared to the "mesothelioma attorney" kind of topics. So if your site wasn't about one of these high-paying keywords, tough luck. Retargeting levels the landscape a little.

VMG 9y ago

Recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14833508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14833508 > The growth of “zero-sum” activities may, however, be even more important. Look around the economy, and it’s striking how much high-talent manpower is devoted to activities that cannot possibly increase human welfare, but entail competition for the available economic pie. Advertising seems to be a zero-sum game. I can imagine some industries cartellizing to stop it altogether.

emn13 9y ago
It's a pipe dream; but advertising/lobbying deserves regulatory hurdles much like other public health threats (e.g. tobacco). And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new. It's simply detrimental to the overall ability for us to think.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  > And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new. So the slippery slope people were right after all.
  - emn13 9y ago
    Yeah. You clearly intend for this newfangled freedom of speech thing to protect critical commentary, avoid repression and promote the exchange of valuable ideas; and all of the sudden people apply it in all kinds of nonsensical counterproductive ways. Slippery slope and all... Unless of course you really think that protecting the rich & powerful's ability to mislead and trick others is really a societal benefit.
  - Retra 9y ago
    Freedom of speech isn't a blanket "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" rule. It is the freedom to communicate with interested parties about the matters of your choosing. It is not supposed to be a freedom to perform mass campaigns of dishonesty in economic or political domains.
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      I don't think this is a true dichotomy. 1) "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" I agree, that would be silly; the perpetrator could choose to call any action speech. 2) campaigns of dishonesty Could these campaigns be carried out by actions that fall under a commonly before hand agreed on definition of speech?
      - Retra 9y ago
        Sure they could, but it's not the definition of speech that needs to be fixed, it's the definition of "dishonesty campaign." And there, the problem is not about speech, but identity-protection for the religious. One person's lies are "protected tradition" while another person's lies are "dangerous fake news."
- acangiano 9y ago
  Suggested read on this topic, "The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads" by Tim Wu.

prostoalex 9y ago

Ads worked differently back in the days. A hiking site would accept sponsorships by outdoor brands, basically copying the magazine model, where the targeted audience gets served targeted ads with publishers inserting themselves in the middle and collecting a fee. The big brands have figured out that in cost-per-click (or any cost-per-action model) retargeting delivers the best results, so if you go and search for flights to Barcelona or some shoes, those flights and those shoes will follow you around - there's a high probability that a click will lead to a purchase, and it costs advertisers essentially zero if they're wrong, since you likely won't click. The Web ads industry thus turned into a raffle industry - ads for same flights to Barcelona will turn up on outdoor enthusiast sites, CNN, Wired magazine, ESPN, your local newspaper site, Facebook and whatever else you happen to visit the next few days. In a raffle scenario the entity with the most raffle tickets gets higher chances of winning, so publishers are locked in a war to accummulate as many raffle tickets as possible with the hopes that one of them will be a major winner, i.e. you finally buying those tickets to Barcelona and those shoes on Zappos.

droidist2 9y ago
I see this as positive in some ways. Previously most topics made a pittance compared to the "mesothelioma attorney" kind of topics. So if your site wasn't about one of these high-paying keywords, tough luck. Retargeting levels the landscape a little.