4 ms·

I'm really confused because it seems most people haven't used these tools. In reality, people respond better to people that look like them in ads. People talk

I'm really confused because it seems most people haven't used these tools. In reality, people respond better to people that look like them in ads. People talk about this all the time when talking about "representation." Say you have a housing and want to target "families" - It's probably smart to create the following ad groups: * White families * Black families * Hispanic families * Mixed families * And however many more depending on ad group size. Then you'd create a specific ad using images that reflect those families. That's pretty standard online ad management + part of the reason why so much spend has shifted online - it can be a lot more precise. Sure, you could get one image and blanket target everyone, but I would bet your ROI gets beat by the above strategy.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Is that not just the tech equivalent of "Separate but Equal"?
- swsieber 9y ago
  I don't think so - unless you consider an ad a service.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  No. It's called ad optimization.
- baddox 9y ago
  Just as an educational aside, I think many people are mistaken about what the “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson actually was. I always used to think the decision said that it’s okay for restaurants and other buildings to provide separate restrooms and facilities for different ethnicities, but it was actually more than that. The decision said that it’s okay for state government to require all business to provide separate facilities. I think it’s a bad thing to do either way, for the record. Forgive me for hijacking your comment to throw in a little factoid.
ghaff 9y ago
That's true, but the article describes something that goes a step further. You don't even show ads to certain groups. Now, I'll agree that the distinction between having targeted ads and having targeted ads where one of the targets is basically No Ad starts to look like an odd distinction. Furthermore pre-digital, no one would have had any serious issue in only running ads in publications known to have specific readership demographics. (Like "families" which itself is a demographic.) And no one would have issues if these were ads targeted at specific blogs or other sites with a demographic different from almost everyone like Facebook is.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  A point below made the case that this gets tricky with other things like medical. Should you force someone to run "no ads" to a demo that isn't their target market. Obviously since this is housing/race, that gets a messy quick. But, if you forced advertisers fb-wide to advertise to an audience that isn't their target market, you could be spending a ton of money targeting people who won't buy. I don't know the legal aspects for housing related advertisements, so maybe fb makes it there are a specific criteria of goods that have limited targeting options, but having a set of people to show "no ads" to that aren't likely buyers is what you spend most of your time doing through "optimization"
  - scarface74 9y ago
    There are specific laws against housing discrimination and targeting that don't apply to other products.
rhizome 9y ago
It's probably smart to create the following ad groups Why? Then you'd create a specific ad using images that reflect those familiar. How much better performing are ads that display a demographic than those that display a mix? Isn't this essentially pandering to racial prejudices? "We only want our ads to be seen by people who value skin color." You suggest a bet on ROI, have you previously done this research?
- rudedogg 9y ago
  > You suggest a bet on ROI, have you previously done this research? I used to run a lot of social media ads, and I would bet the same thing. Little stuff like this usually makes a huge difference in click-through rates.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  It depends on the ad, but broadly speaking yes - -people respond to people who look like them. Source: been doing online marketing for the last 7 year. Managed spend for multiple fortune 500 companies. If you have a budget and would like to run a test, I'd be happy to show you ;)
  - baddox 9y ago
    I’m sure that’s true. I wonder if you know of any data on the performance of ads featuring diversity (in skin color, age, regional/cultural attire, etc.) Ads and marketing images featuring such diversity is also pretty common. Apple is a great example of a company that does this. My guess would be that it performs well for some people and poorly for others, based on a number of factors.
- baddox 9y ago
  I think these filters that Facebook provides are troublesome, but I also don’t have an inherent problem with showing people ads featuring images of people who look similar to them (whether it’s skin color, gender, socioeconomic status, interest/activities, etc.) I can’t think of a strong reason to oppose such targeting, assuming the level of ad exposure itself isn’t targeting based on features irrelevant to the product being advertised. I oppose targeting real estate ads based on skin color, since that is irrelevant, but I don’t oppose targeting ads based on directly relevant factors (e.g. high-end condos for wealthy people, NBA tickets for people who like “basketball” on Facebook, gender-targeted attire or toiletries, etc.) That said, I realize that drawing the line may not be so easy in many cases, and there may still be societal consequences that I oppose (a prominent example being the traditional concepts of which types of toys are intended for children of each gender, although I have my own opinions on the separate issue of targeting ads at children).
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Once again, for the people in the back: This would be fine, if our country didn't have a horrific history of oppressive and violent racism that resulted in the immiseration of millions upon millions of individuals, many of them American citizens. We have that history, we are still struggling under the weight of that history (some more than others, of course), and that is why we "can't have nice things". Think of it this way, there's a lava flow running right next to the village you live in, which means you have to be careful not to do things that would get people killed. Sure, this can be restrictive at times, but, you know, there's frickin' lava. Right. There. For some reason a lot of people (they tend to have something in common, not sure what) don't see the entrenched institutionalized racism in this country, nor do they seem to consider it a serious problem. It is one of the most serious problems that continues to face this country, and historians are going to damn us (yes us, you, me, all of us) for not having dealt with it properly for far too long. Concerns like the effectiveness of advertisements are so far down the rungs compared to this problem that they aren't worth caring about.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Is that not just the tech equivalent of "Separate but Equal"?

swsieber 9y ago
I don't think so - unless you consider an ad a service.
joelrunyon 9y ago
No. It's called ad optimization.
baddox 9y ago
Just as an educational aside, I think many people are mistaken about what the “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson actually was. I always used to think the decision said that it’s okay for restaurants and other buildings to provide separate restrooms and facilities for different ethnicities, but it was actually more than that. The decision said that it’s okay for state government to require all business to provide separate facilities. I think it’s a bad thing to do either way, for the record. Forgive me for hijacking your comment to throw in a little factoid.

ghaff 9y ago

That's true, but the article describes something that goes a step further. You don't even show ads to certain groups. Now, I'll agree that the distinction between having targeted ads and having targeted ads where one of the targets is basically No Ad starts to look like an odd distinction. Furthermore pre-digital, no one would have had any serious issue in only running ads in publications known to have specific readership demographics. (Like "families" which itself is a demographic.) And no one would have issues if these were ads targeted at specific blogs or other sites with a demographic different from almost everyone like Facebook is.

joelrunyon 9y ago
A point below made the case that this gets tricky with other things like medical. Should you force someone to run "no ads" to a demo that isn't their target market. Obviously since this is housing/race, that gets a messy quick. But, if you forced advertisers fb-wide to advertise to an audience that isn't their target market, you could be spending a ton of money targeting people who won't buy. I don't know the legal aspects for housing related advertisements, so maybe fb makes it there are a specific criteria of goods that have limited targeting options, but having a set of people to show "no ads" to that aren't likely buyers is what you spend most of your time doing through "optimization"
- scarface74 9y ago
  There are specific laws against housing discrimination and targeting that don't apply to other products.

rhizome 9y ago

It's probably smart to create the following ad groups Why? Then you'd create a specific ad using images that reflect those familiar. How much better performing are ads that display a demographic than those that display a mix? Isn't this essentially pandering to racial prejudices? "We only want our ads to be seen by people who value skin color." You suggest a bet on ROI, have you previously done this research?

rudedogg 9y ago
> You suggest a bet on ROI, have you previously done this research? I used to run a lot of social media ads, and I would bet the same thing. Little stuff like this usually makes a huge difference in click-through rates.
joelrunyon 9y ago
It depends on the ad, but broadly speaking yes - -people respond to people who look like them. Source: been doing online marketing for the last 7 year. Managed spend for multiple fortune 500 companies. If you have a budget and would like to run a test, I'd be happy to show you ;)
- baddox 9y ago
  I’m sure that’s true. I wonder if you know of any data on the performance of ads featuring diversity (in skin color, age, regional/cultural attire, etc.) Ads and marketing images featuring such diversity is also pretty common. Apple is a great example of a company that does this. My guess would be that it performs well for some people and poorly for others, based on a number of factors.
baddox 9y ago
I think these filters that Facebook provides are troublesome, but I also don’t have an inherent problem with showing people ads featuring images of people who look similar to them (whether it’s skin color, gender, socioeconomic status, interest/activities, etc.) I can’t think of a strong reason to oppose such targeting, assuming the level of ad exposure itself isn’t targeting based on features irrelevant to the product being advertised. I oppose targeting real estate ads based on skin color, since that is irrelevant, but I don’t oppose targeting ads based on directly relevant factors (e.g. high-end condos for wealthy people, NBA tickets for people who like “basketball” on Facebook, gender-targeted attire or toiletries, etc.) That said, I realize that drawing the line may not be so easy in many cases, and there may still be societal consequences that I oppose (a prominent example being the traditional concepts of which types of toys are intended for children of each gender, although I have my own opinions on the separate issue of targeting ads at children).

InclinedPlane 9y ago

Once again, for the people in the back: This would be fine, if our country didn't have a horrific history of oppressive and violent racism that resulted in the immiseration of millions upon millions of individuals, many of them American citizens. We have that history, we are still struggling under the weight of that history (some more than others, of course), and that is why we "can't have nice things". Think of it this way, there's a lava flow running right next to the village you live in, which means you have to be careful not to do things that would get people killed. Sure, this can be restrictive at times, but, you know, there's frickin' lava. Right. There. For some reason a lot of people (they tend to have something in common, not sure what) don't see the entrenched institutionalized racism in this country, nor do they seem to consider it a serious problem. It is one of the most serious problems that continues to face this country, and historians are going to damn us (yes us, you, me, all of us) for not having dealt with it properly for far too long. Concerns like the effectiveness of advertisements are so far down the rungs compared to this problem that they aren't worth caring about.