6 ms·

GDPR will have some negative effects, but why is lowering online ad revenue (if that is what will happen) one of them? It's simple math. The ad industry has g

GDPR will have some negative effects, but why is lowering online ad revenue (if that is what will happen) one of them? It's simple math. The ad industry has gotten so large because complex ad targeting tools made it possible to deploy ad campaigns profitably. With those tools extremely watered down due to GDPR, most ads that were profitable on May 24th are not profitable today. Most companies will not sustain these losses for long, and will simply shift their ad spend to other markets where they can still make a profit. Some brand advertisers might stick around in the EU market - Coke, Pepsi, maybe Apple, etc. But with most everyone else out of the picture, the market will shrink. It will likely never again be the size that it was on May 24th.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jeena 8y ago
scratching my head - that sounds to me like a positive thing. If a industry has gotten big by doing something bad (misusing private data or using slaves as workers) and a law comes along and forbids that practice than I can't see how this is something negative for the sociaty overall.
- downandout 8y ago
  You're comparing a retargeting pixel to slavery? That is the kind of mentality that brought us GDPR.
  - jeena 8y ago
    https://wikidiff.com/comparison/analogy https://wikidiff.com/comparison/analogy
    - downandout 8y ago
      You used the slavery reference for a reason - because you consider those two things to be in the same ballpark. There are millions of other references you could have chosen. So yes, my use of the term “compare” was accurate.
      - jeena 8y ago
        No I didn't, I used it because I was looking for another bad thing for my analogy and slavery was the first bad thing which came into my mind this time. There are always millions of other and better references one could take for an analogy. But let's look at one of the examples on the wikidiff: > "hardware is to software as a television set is to the shows that appear on it" Would you say that in this analogy the author compares "hardware" to "a television" and "software" to "shows that appear on a television"?
        downandout 8y ago
        I know what an analogy is. I also know that you chose the slavery reference specifically because you wanted to equate - or compare, if you like - the two things.
        jeena 8y ago
        I just told you that I didn't chose it to compare but to insert into my analogy, you still keep comming back with telling me that you know what I wanted to do. I'm not sure how to respond to that.
  - TheForumTroll 8y ago
    No, reading-comprehension like yours is. People read the law like you read his comment. The fines are the biggest new thing. The laws are mostly from the late 90's.
Jare 8y ago
> will simply shift their ad spend to other markets That's totally fine, and nothing of tangible value will be lost to society. Some valuable innovations have happened thanks to $$ being fueled into the tech sector via adtech and privacy invasion, and those will suffer, but that's a trade me and many others are happy to make. The "value add" of privacy invasion is purely an arms race.
joejerryronnie 8y ago
It's simple math. The ad industry has gotten so large because complex ad targeting tools made it possible to deploy ad campaigns profitably. I don't think anyone really knows this for sure. Of course, Ad Tech companies will come up with some type of "metrics" to show how profitable their particular targeted ads are compared to everyone else. But I think much of the recent technical advances in ad tech are driven more from an arms race mentality - i.e. as an advertiser I feel pressured into using the latest ad targeting tech, not because it is more effective, but because my competitors are using it and I don't want to be left behind (kind of like the VC FOMO herd mentality). Edit: Perhaps you meant profitable for the Ad Tech companies themselves and not the actual product companies purchasing the ads. In this case, I believe your statement is valid (again, not because of the effectiveness of the tech but because of FOMO).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jeena 8y ago

scratching my head - that sounds to me like a positive thing. If a industry has gotten big by doing something bad (misusing private data or using slaves as workers) and a law comes along and forbids that practice than I can't see how this is something negative for the sociaty overall.

downandout 8y ago
You're comparing a retargeting pixel to slavery? That is the kind of mentality that brought us GDPR.
- jeena 8y ago
  https://wikidiff.com/comparison/analogy https://wikidiff.com/comparison/analogy
  - downandout 8y ago
    You used the slavery reference for a reason - because you consider those two things to be in the same ballpark. There are millions of other references you could have chosen. So yes, my use of the term “compare” was accurate.
    - jeena 8y ago
      No I didn't, I used it because I was looking for another bad thing for my analogy and slavery was the first bad thing which came into my mind this time. There are always millions of other and better references one could take for an analogy. But let's look at one of the examples on the wikidiff: > "hardware is to software as a television set is to the shows that appear on it" Would you say that in this analogy the author compares "hardware" to "a television" and "software" to "shows that appear on a television"?
      - downandout 8y ago
        I know what an analogy is. I also know that you chose the slavery reference specifically because you wanted to equate - or compare, if you like - the two things.
        jeena 8y ago
        I just told you that I didn't chose it to compare but to insert into my analogy, you still keep comming back with telling me that you know what I wanted to do. I'm not sure how to respond to that.
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  No, reading-comprehension like yours is. People read the law like you read his comment. The fines are the biggest new thing. The laws are mostly from the late 90's.

Jare 8y ago

> will simply shift their ad spend to other markets That's totally fine, and nothing of tangible value will be lost to society. Some valuable innovations have happened thanks to $$ being fueled into the tech sector via adtech and privacy invasion, and those will suffer, but that's a trade me and many others are happy to make. The "value add" of privacy invasion is purely an arms race.

joejerryronnie 8y ago

It's simple math. The ad industry has gotten so large because complex ad targeting tools made it possible to deploy ad campaigns profitably. I don't think anyone really knows this for sure. Of course, Ad Tech companies will come up with some type of "metrics" to show how profitable their particular targeted ads are compared to everyone else. But I think much of the recent technical advances in ad tech are driven more from an arms race mentality - i.e. as an advertiser I feel pressured into using the latest ad targeting tech, not because it is more effective, but because my competitors are using it and I don't want to be left behind (kind of like the VC FOMO herd mentality). Edit: Perhaps you meant profitable for the Ad Tech companies themselves and not the actual product companies purchasing the ads. In this case, I believe your statement is valid (again, not because of the effectiveness of the tech but because of FOMO).