3 ms·
It may be that ads fail in the moment, the click-me-now-sense. But they may still work in the old-fashioned "strong signal way", i.e. you notice that a brand is
by jacobush 9y ago
It may be that ads fail in the moment, the click-me-now-sense. But they may still work in the old-fashioned "strong signal way", i.e. you notice that a brand is strong (can pay for a lot advertising) and you remain aware of the brand.
The "strong signal" message is diluted by ultra-targeted-ads, but you will still be aware of the product.
Whether it still is a net gain in your (and similar targets) case, maybe no one knows.
- tzakrajs 9y agoFor bigger brands, I am sure advertisers can use the audiences browsing patterns to predict their buying patterns and so therefore which ads to show them. An inversion of the basic advertising model.
- ramblenode 9y ago> But they may still work in the old-fashioned "strong signal way" This is a good point and does affect me to varying extent. I would say strong signaling is the least effective for certain food items, mouthwash, toothpaste, vitamins, etc. where the makeup and price of the item is simple and comparable between brand names and off-brands. Where there are sufficient trustworthy reviews of items, it is also less effective. When it's something I need quickly or when the tolerance for failure is low, I'm much more likely to default to a peacock type of product that's established itself.
- jacobush 9y agois that what you are aware of? I suspect a lot of us also choose the strongly signalled product also for mundane products.