8 ms·

The only social networking I do anymore is twitter. The list of the thousand people I follow is so intimate, I feel like just flipping through that would reveal

The only social networking I do anymore is twitter. The list of the thousand people I follow is so intimate, I feel like just flipping through that would reveal everything about me and be a huge violation of privacy. But even on this platform I've spent almost 10 years curating the perfect feed on, the one that should know absolutely everything about me, I still get served endless garbage ads for junk food and pickup trucks. I can't think of two products I care about less. Amazon is a similar story, they seem convinced that I'm a woman despite having some pretty detailed purchase history going back to 1998 suggesting otherwise. The targeting algorithm is often wrong, they just don't seem to know it be willing to admit it.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> The targeting algorithm is often wrong, they just don't seem to know it be willing to admit it. It doesn't matter if their targeting algorithm is wrong. It just has to be 1) better than random and 2) not significantly worse than anyone else's. In fact, even that isn't necessary. It just has to be perceived as those two things by those who are willing to give Google or Amazon money to try to improve their chances of selling you stuff.
- mhb 8y ago
  Wouldn't Google and Amazon rather have more money for effectively targeted ads?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    It's a continuum. Better targeted ads are worth more than less-well-targeted ads. They do the best they can, and they keep trying to get better. Their targeting may be lousy, but it's still good enough for them to get paid.
meditate 8y ago
I think it's a common misconception that "the algorithm" is responsible for this, when what is actually happening is that an advertiser is bidding on the wrong users and effectively buying bad ads.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  I think it's a common misconception that "targeted" advertising in any way involves the ad viewer's interests. Showing you only ads for things you are interested in was never a goal. The advertiser targets who should see the ad, which may or may not match what the viewer's interests. Advertising junk food and pickup trucks to someone that "can't think of two products I care about less" isn't an error. It's an attempt to make you care (if possible), and reinforce the brand so their name is familiar= if opinions change about junk food or pickup trucks in the future.
  - abrichr 8y ago
    Fascinating, thank you! Where can I read more about this?
    - justapassenger 8y ago
      Google “purchase funnel”. It’s 101 in ads business.
  - ffilipa 8y ago
    More like the advertisers who could cater to a person’s interest are not able to locate the individual. Because the platform knows ads can be creepy, and will result in user disengagement. Facebook often accurately targets people, and the result is terrified users. So, the answer is other platforms have taken note, and are providing cover for users, to retain them. This augments the return on ad spend, but only slightly, since ads actually aren’t very effective in practice. Ads are simply signage, nothing more. They don’t actually change behavior, but only reorganize behavior that usually would have happened anyway, so that the existing outcomes possibly land in the finite set of buckets differently. Thus ad platforms only need to target so vigorously, and with that, it becomes obvious that targeting can be made less acurate, and buyers of ad space would never know. So you can quickly see that Facebook’s game is absolute overkill, and other players likely underkill by a margin, with much improvement to their platform reputation.
    - 8y ago
nameisu 8y ago
amazon knows you are getting a sex change
barbecue_sauce 8y ago
Every time I get a Spanish-language ad on Spotify or YouTube, I take solace in the fact that the algorithms have not yet won.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  I get spanish language from the credit card machine at the supermarket, it’s written in the card that it is French.
manigandham 8y ago
95% of ads are not using targeting based on your personal interests. Advertisers don't just upload ads and let them go. They add the targeting themselves and start wide open so that they can optimize after seeing the actual performance amongst different groups and cohorts. Far cheaper and more effective. Ad networks might add their own algorithms but they definitely aren't going to stop advertisers from spending money otherwise.
Mirioron 8y ago
Are you sure that it's the algorithm that's wrong or could it instead be that the people who buy ads target the wrong categories? If I want to target 18-25 year old males with make-up products then no algorithm is going to save me from myself.
- futurix 8y ago
  Your example might be seen as an advertiser trying to capture a nascent market (which it actually seems to be).
nitwit005 8y ago
Simple test: Google "wedding ring", click the top 10 links and browse around each a bit. You'll see the ads on a lot of the web change. I'm sure if your Twitter feed was full of automotive posts you'd see car ads. It's probably full of stuff no advertiser cares about, like your love of old British railway cars, so instead you get generic ads about spicy nacho cheese.
- hakfoo 8y ago
  >It's probably full of stuff no advertiser cares about, like your love of old British railway cars As a railway enthusiast myself, I would say that's actually an opportunity for very effective targeted marketing: * There are loads of specialized reference and historic books and video on the subject. * The crossover interest to model railways, a hobby involving many high-margin purchases, is very high. * Many enthusiasts literally plan their vacations around preservation railways and museums. Everyone from the tourist-railpass sellers to full-fledged package tour operators should be targeting them. If that interest is not well advertised to, it's either because they're doing a poor job identifying the interest and routing it to advertisers, or they've done a terrible job of fostering ad buyers in those verticals.
  - nitwit005 8y ago
    While, yes, it's theoretically possible, there must exist some company paying Twitter to sell one of those products, and who wants it specifically targeted to the group.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

> The targeting algorithm is often wrong, they just don't seem to know it be willing to admit it. It doesn't matter if their targeting algorithm is wrong. It just has to be 1) better than random and 2) not significantly worse than anyone else's. In fact, even that isn't necessary. It just has to be perceived as those two things by those who are willing to give Google or Amazon money to try to improve their chances of selling you stuff.

mhb 8y ago
Wouldn't Google and Amazon rather have more money for effectively targeted ads?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  It's a continuum. Better targeted ads are worth more than less-well-targeted ads. They do the best they can, and they keep trying to get better. Their targeting may be lousy, but it's still good enough for them to get paid.

meditate 8y ago

I think it's a common misconception that "the algorithm" is responsible for this, when what is actually happening is that an advertiser is bidding on the wrong users and effectively buying bad ads.

pdkl95 8y ago
I think it's a common misconception that "targeted" advertising in any way involves the ad viewer's interests. Showing you only ads for things you are interested in was never a goal. The advertiser targets who should see the ad, which may or may not match what the viewer's interests. Advertising junk food and pickup trucks to someone that "can't think of two products I care about less" isn't an error. It's an attempt to make you care (if possible), and reinforce the brand so their name is familiar= if opinions change about junk food or pickup trucks in the future.
- abrichr 8y ago
  Fascinating, thank you! Where can I read more about this?
  - justapassenger 8y ago
    Google “purchase funnel”. It’s 101 in ads business.
- ffilipa 8y ago
  More like the advertisers who could cater to a person’s interest are not able to locate the individual. Because the platform knows ads can be creepy, and will result in user disengagement. Facebook often accurately targets people, and the result is terrified users. So, the answer is other platforms have taken note, and are providing cover for users, to retain them. This augments the return on ad spend, but only slightly, since ads actually aren’t very effective in practice. Ads are simply signage, nothing more. They don’t actually change behavior, but only reorganize behavior that usually would have happened anyway, so that the existing outcomes possibly land in the finite set of buckets differently. Thus ad platforms only need to target so vigorously, and with that, it becomes obvious that targeting can be made less acurate, and buyers of ad space would never know. So you can quickly see that Facebook’s game is absolute overkill, and other players likely underkill by a margin, with much improvement to their platform reputation.
  - 8y ago

nameisu 8y ago

amazon knows you are getting a sex change

barbecue_sauce 8y ago

Every time I get a Spanish-language ad on Spotify or YouTube, I take solace in the fact that the algorithms have not yet won.

nraynaud 8y ago
I get spanish language from the credit card machine at the supermarket, it’s written in the card that it is French.

manigandham 8y ago

95% of ads are not using targeting based on your personal interests. Advertisers don't just upload ads and let them go. They add the targeting themselves and start wide open so that they can optimize after seeing the actual performance amongst different groups and cohorts. Far cheaper and more effective. Ad networks might add their own algorithms but they definitely aren't going to stop advertisers from spending money otherwise.

Mirioron 8y ago

Are you sure that it's the algorithm that's wrong or could it instead be that the people who buy ads target the wrong categories? If I want to target 18-25 year old males with make-up products then no algorithm is going to save me from myself.

futurix 8y ago
Your example might be seen as an advertiser trying to capture a nascent market (which it actually seems to be).

nitwit005 8y ago

Simple test: Google "wedding ring", click the top 10 links and browse around each a bit. You'll see the ads on a lot of the web change. I'm sure if your Twitter feed was full of automotive posts you'd see car ads. It's probably full of stuff no advertiser cares about, like your love of old British railway cars, so instead you get generic ads about spicy nacho cheese.

hakfoo 8y ago
>It's probably full of stuff no advertiser cares about, like your love of old British railway cars As a railway enthusiast myself, I would say that's actually an opportunity for very effective targeted marketing: * There are loads of specialized reference and historic books and video on the subject. * The crossover interest to model railways, a hobby involving many high-margin purchases, is very high. * Many enthusiasts literally plan their vacations around preservation railways and museums. Everyone from the tourist-railpass sellers to full-fledged package tour operators should be targeting them. If that interest is not well advertised to, it's either because they're doing a poor job identifying the interest and routing it to advertisers, or they've done a terrible job of fostering ad buyers in those verticals.
- nitwit005 8y ago
  While, yes, it's theoretically possible, there must exist some company paying Twitter to sell one of those products, and who wants it specifically targeted to the group.