15 ms·
I work in advertising. I've even worked literally trafficking ads. Targeting any more specific than a good contextual match is usually a waste and not any mor
by FridgeSeal 9y ago
I work in advertising.
I've even worked literally trafficking ads.
Targeting any more specific than a good contextual match is usually a waste and not any more effective. Advertisers do not need this information and should not be given it.
The agreement is that they show an ad in return for you seeing the page, that does not (and should not) mean that they get access to any more information than is absolutely necessary to display said ad.
If I go onto a site about bikes, I expect to see bike ads. If I go on a tech/programming site, I expect to see tech/programming ads. I don't like going somewhere and seeing random ads for something unrelated to where I am because some advertiser thought I might like Caribbean holidays or something. The solution is not to give them more of your information just so they can "serve you a better ad" (a trade that they benefit off far more than you do), the solution is for them to advertise contextually.
- gaius 9y agoI work in advertising. I've even worked literally trafficking ads. +1 from me for admitting it. That's the first step. Good luck!
- mlinksva 9y ago> Targeting any more specific than a good contextual match is usually a waste and not any more effective. I'd like to believe this. But why then does user tracking adtech exist? Why is the advertising industry opposed to this move to limit user tracking? Advertisers (the ones paying $ for adtech) are conned? Can you point at evidence for your claim?