3 ms·

Proposed reason that just popped into my head, and could be wrong: advertising that cannot be targeted to individuals is less effective, so there is less compet

Proposed reason that just popped into my head, and could be wrong: advertising that cannot be targeted to individuals is less effective, so there is less competition for it. Thus prices are low relative to ads that can be targeted. Thus companies with a wide target demographic can buy these spots cheaper, while companies that are targeting a specific niche get more bang for their buck from relatively expensive targeted ads.

tracker1 8y ago
The size/scale of Twitter or Facebook, etc may be an example where it might be better for generic inline advertising over the "promoted" messages. I can understand where a smaller site may do better with random targeted ads... I'm just a little surprised it hasn't been done or tried much that I am aware of.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  I don't see why scale should affect whether targeting makes sense (with the exception of entities like facebook that have collected so much data on their own that they can target better than smaller competitors, which leads targeting increasing with scale, not decreasing). Television isn't targeted because it wasn't designed to be, and hasn't been updated (yet) -- they would need to deliver different ads to different homes. This is already done for different localities, but not individual homes (that I'm aware of). It's not a scale issue. Targeted billboards are coming[0], albeit not based on individual browsing habits (yet). I don't think this is about scale (mostly), I think it's about the technical feasibility of tracking and targeting customers on a given platform in $CURRENT_YEAR. >random targeted ads I'm genuinely confused by what this is supposed to mean. To me, random is antithetical to targeted. In my reading I decided to drop the random, but I should note that I may be parsing your intent incorrectly as a result of that. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2018-08-10/google-s-targeted-ads-are-coming-to-a-billboard-near-you https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/a...

tracker1 8y ago

The size/scale of Twitter or Facebook, etc may be an example where it might be better for generic inline advertising over the "promoted" messages. I can understand where a smaller site may do better with random targeted ads... I'm just a little surprised it hasn't been done or tried much that I am aware of.

blotter_paper 8y ago
I don't see why scale should affect whether targeting makes sense (with the exception of entities like facebook that have collected so much data on their own that they can target better than smaller competitors, which leads targeting increasing with scale, not decreasing). Television isn't targeted because it wasn't designed to be, and hasn't been updated (yet) -- they would need to deliver different ads to different homes. This is already done for different localities, but not individual homes (that I'm aware of). It's not a scale issue. Targeted billboards are coming[0], albeit not based on individual browsing habits (yet). I don't think this is about scale (mostly), I think it's about the technical feasibility of tracking and targeting customers on a given platform in $CURRENT_YEAR. >random targeted ads I'm genuinely confused by what this is supposed to mean. To me, random is antithetical to targeted. In my reading I decided to drop the random, but I should note that I may be parsing your intent incorrectly as a result of that. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2018-08-10/google-s-targeted-ads-are-coming-to-a-billboard-near-you https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/a...