3 ms·

I always like to compare the 'advertising' that we see on the net vs the ones we see in a store. In the first instance, the website can and does monetise you, w

I always like to compare the 'advertising' that we see on the net vs the ones we see in a store. In the first instance, the website can and does monetise you, whereas in a store it's just that: a suggestion. In a store, the advertiser might have paid for a placement, but an individual's metrics are not harvested. So, the real dysfunction is that advertisers aren't paying a website up front for 'space'. I will always applaud the termination of the tracking advertising that we have online. I think there final straw that breaks the advertising model is when browsers finally disallow/ discourage cross site communications. ie, even an image hosted on a different domain will be treated the same way mixed http/https is currently treated. Google, of course will no doubt vehemently oppose such moves. On the flip side, I like how HN keeps blatant advertising away, except for the odd YC announcements: it just shows how sites with something tangible don't need to resort to subversive ads.

joeblubaugh 7y ago
This isn’t as true these days as it used to be. Many stores use WiFi hotspots and Bluetooth beacons (and computer vision on security cameras) to track customers in their stores to build advertising and placement strategies. Target’s particularly fond of this approach.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Indeed. It's not that physical space advertisers are somehow morally superior to on-line ad networks; it's that until recently, they couldn't afford the level of tracking that was possible on-line. With cheap computer vision and advertising technologies like iBeacon support[0] being included in smartphones by default, and with services for processing this data being available on the market, physical space advertisers can now afford to be just as slimy as their on-line counterparts. -- [0] - which didn't start as advertising technology, but ended up being used this way.

joeblubaugh 7y ago

This isn’t as true these days as it used to be. Many stores use WiFi hotspots and Bluetooth beacons (and computer vision on security cameras) to track customers in their stores to build advertising and placement strategies. Target’s particularly fond of this approach.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Indeed. It's not that physical space advertisers are somehow morally superior to on-line ad networks; it's that until recently, they couldn't afford the level of tracking that was possible on-line. With cheap computer vision and advertising technologies like iBeacon support[0] being included in smartphones by default, and with services for processing this data being available on the market, physical space advertisers can now afford to be just as slimy as their on-line counterparts. -- [0] - which didn't start as advertising technology, but ended up being used this way.