4 ms·
The problem is there's a huge trust gap on both sides. The advertisers figure that self-reported data may be faulty. In some cases it could be-- either malici
by hakfoo 7y ago
The problem is there's a huge trust gap on both sides.
The advertisers figure that self-reported data may be faulty. In some cases it could be-- either maliciously ("I'm 92 years old and spend $600 per month on my phone bill!") or by omission ("I hadn't even thought about it, but my lease is up in 3 months and high-yielding car ads might well be useful for me")
Consumers won't be easily convinced they're being taken seriously-- if they have to go out of their way to customize ads, and then see equal or more ads than before, or non-laser-focused ads, their trust goes out the window. It's also going to be difficult to stand out in a sea of banners and say "we're the high quality ad you customized... right next to 32 click-your-state-for-mortgage-broker-lead-arbitrage banners."
I suspect there may also be a third distrust-- between ad networks and advertisers. If you ran ads for a product only on a really targeted audience, the figures may not look compelling to buyers. It might look better to say "This $10k ad campaign landed in front of one million weakly targeted eyeballs... and generated 40 sales" than to say "We spent $10k on a super-premium media blitz that hit 200 hand-selected individuals and sold 45 units."
- arthurcolle 7y agoIf there’s really a trust issue on the offer side (advertisers) then why is YouTube asking survey questions about my demographics and related nonsense? I am a consumer and I don’t want the cognitive pollution associated with having images and sound shoved in my face. Full stop. Separately, worth mentioning, is the fact that the idea of introducing purposeful limitations deliberately to get people to pay more is also evil (I can play YouTube on my desktop and switch tabs, and on iOS for ex. it stops playback so you can buy YouTube Red). EDIT: Offer side/bid side is ambiguous since the model is “inverted” with advertising. I’m leaving my comment as is, but its probably better to say “bid side” in this specific case.
- wutbrodo 7y ago> Separately, worth mentioning, is the fact that the idea of introducing purposeful limitations deliberately to get people to pay more is also evil (I can play YouTube on my desktop and switch tabs, and on iOS for ex. it stops playback so you can buy YouTube Red). This is a fascinating claim to me. Selling access to a service is presumably okay, but having a limited-features version available for free use is "evil"?
- shakna 7y agoIt isn't the access to the service that is evil. Rather, that you get a lesser service on a different platform unless you pay. Consumers expect the same experience regardless of platform. When that experience is free on some platforms but paid on another, it frustrates.
- rusk 7y agoability to use on different platforms = a feature
- TeMPOraL 7y agoFeature or bug, that's ultimately up for the market to decide.
- rusk 7y agoPretty sure the market has adjudicated on YouTube at this stage LOL
- chownie 7y agoIt's weird to me to call this a feature, a few years ago it was a given. YouTube had to go out of their way to break playback on mobile to offer this "feature". I consider it a bug they've added purposefully and they request each user pay for.
- rusk 7y agoIt demands that engineeting resources are set aside and costed i each case. Both for implemtation and maintenance. It is definitely a feature whether youd been getting it for free up to now or not
- dredmorbius 7y agoThat click-away behaviour is easily addressed by using VLC or mpv to play content. Either with video (and in PiP mode if you like), or audio-only (which I generally prefer).
- bluGill 7y agoSales have a long tale. I recently bought a widget I saw advertised 3 years ago but didn't need until now. My parents still buy a sauce because the company ran a great at 25 years ago (the sauce is good, but they haven't tried the competitors).