4 ms·

Are ad-hating HN users ever going to say that ads might work sometimes, instead of relying on random anecdotes and 0 data or facts from an extremely small and b

Are ad-hating HN users ever going to say that ads might work sometimes, instead of relying on random anecdotes and 0 data or facts from an extremely small and biased sub-population who is never the target of advertising campaigns anyway? Or are you really arguing that >$500B businesses like Google and FB are complete fraud?

meowface 7y ago
I hate ads, but I agree with you. I hate them because they work. Or at least, all this money wouldn't be flowing into the industry if it really wasn't working. Maybe FB is fraudulent due to the accusations in the article (inflating numbers to advertisers), I don't know; that's unrelated to the issue of giant, innovative tech companies basing their entire business models on advertising things to their non-paying users, and visitors, and also anyone else who ever visits pretty much any other website on the Internet. Advertising isn't fraud. Neither is data collection. It's just unfortunate. I wouldn't even be surprised if many Google and Facebook employees agree it's unfortunate. They're probably thinking: what else exactly can we do to sustain all these non-paying users? It's really not even the data collection that bothers me so much as the fact that it's being used for such a... dumb purpose, I guess. The best minds of our generation are dedicating their life's work and all of their brainpower to thinking about how to get people to see or click more advertisements. What a waste.
_Understated_ 7y ago
I didn't claim that ads don't work... far from it: I've seen how easily people are persuaded to part with money so I believe ads DO work! What I have issues with is using masses of data to persuade someone to buy something having any more significant ability to make them part with their cash than doing it contextually. I realise I said "measureable effect" and I kind of meant that in my original statement but I also mean measurable enough that my privacy is traded for an extra fraction of a percent. By way of example, lets say a contextual banner ad at the top of an article for the new Hyundai i30 Fastback N (I just bought one of those :) with a discount code to buy one might persuade 10% of people to click and 10% of them to buy. (Illustrative figures, don't throw your back out over their accuracy) If adtech companies hoover up data across the web about my buying habits, browsing habits, sexual habits etc. can they legitimately say they can make a measurably larger percentage of people buy that car (or handbag, shoes whatever)? And if so, what kind of numbers? Is it 10.1%? 30%? And is that trade-off worth me allowing them to do that? That's my issue with ad tech.
- bluGill 7y ago
  The issue isn't making a larger percentage of the people buy, it is a larger percentage of the people advertised to buy. Alcohol companies don't want to waste their advertising money on people who belong to a region that doesn't consume alcohol. Car companies don't want to advertise to the poor with bad credit - by contrast scammy used car dealers want to advertise to those with bad credit and not reach the rich. Of course there is a real downside to this: you will miss someone who should be a target because they look like the type of person is not. The person who just left his restrictive religion. The poor person who is starting what will turn out to be a successful business. Thus big companies often to have a component of ad budget that reach everybody without concern for who buys - just to make sure they don't completely miss someone worth targeting.

meowface 7y ago

I hate ads, but I agree with you. I hate them because they work. Or at least, all this money wouldn't be flowing into the industry if it really wasn't working. Maybe FB is fraudulent due to the accusations in the article (inflating numbers to advertisers), I don't know; that's unrelated to the issue of giant, innovative tech companies basing their entire business models on advertising things to their non-paying users, and visitors, and also anyone else who ever visits pretty much any other website on the Internet. Advertising isn't fraud. Neither is data collection. It's just unfortunate. I wouldn't even be surprised if many Google and Facebook employees agree it's unfortunate. They're probably thinking: what else exactly can we do to sustain all these non-paying users? It's really not even the data collection that bothers me so much as the fact that it's being used for such a... dumb purpose, I guess. The best minds of our generation are dedicating their life's work and all of their brainpower to thinking about how to get people to see or click more advertisements. What a waste.

_Understated_ 7y ago

I didn't claim that ads don't work... far from it: I've seen how easily people are persuaded to part with money so I believe ads DO work! What I have issues with is using masses of data to persuade someone to buy something having any more significant ability to make them part with their cash than doing it contextually. I realise I said "measureable effect" and I kind of meant that in my original statement but I also mean measurable enough that my privacy is traded for an extra fraction of a percent. By way of example, lets say a contextual banner ad at the top of an article for the new Hyundai i30 Fastback N (I just bought one of those :) with a discount code to buy one might persuade 10% of people to click and 10% of them to buy. (Illustrative figures, don't throw your back out over their accuracy) If adtech companies hoover up data across the web about my buying habits, browsing habits, sexual habits etc. can they legitimately say they can make a measurably larger percentage of people buy that car (or handbag, shoes whatever)? And if so, what kind of numbers? Is it 10.1%? 30%? And is that trade-off worth me allowing them to do that? That's my issue with ad tech.

bluGill 7y ago
The issue isn't making a larger percentage of the people buy, it is a larger percentage of the people advertised to buy. Alcohol companies don't want to waste their advertising money on people who belong to a region that doesn't consume alcohol. Car companies don't want to advertise to the poor with bad credit - by contrast scammy used car dealers want to advertise to those with bad credit and not reach the rich. Of course there is a real downside to this: you will miss someone who should be a target because they look like the type of person is not. The person who just left his restrictive religion. The poor person who is starting what will turn out to be a successful business. Thus big companies often to have a component of ad budget that reach everybody without concern for who buys - just to make sure they don't completely miss someone worth targeting.