5 ms·

Why do you say it doesn't add value? I assume the targeting actually works and improves ad performance for advertisers?

by friedman23 7y ago

mattigames 7y ago
I see you omitted "to society" on purpose on your question (after the word "value")
- friedman23 7y ago
  Many things exist that don't add value to "society", I'm going to stick to worrying about the value given to the people actually doing the purchasing thank you.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But if it improves ad performance for the people advertising then it does provide value for society. If nobody knows about your product then nobody's going to use it, which would make your product worthless to society regardless how good it is. Just think about launching a product, but you aren't allowed to advertise it in any way. You can't even expect word of mouth, because somebody would have to actually have known it exists.
  - eropple 7y ago
    You're assuming that marginally-advertised things are worth the attention budget of anyone downrange of it. In the modern era and with the corpus of data available to them, advertisers are psychological attackers and should be treated as such.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Ads are worth it to some people, because products do have customers and some of those customers had to learn about the product from the maker in some way. They're not worth it for everyone that sees them, but that's exactly what these types of ad middle men are trying to improve - to be able to show relevant ads to relevant people. I say trying, because they've pretty much only failed at it. The company you work at creates a product. How would people find out about it without any advertising? Keep in mind that even just having a sign in front of a store is advertising.
      - theamk 7y ago
        We are not talking about general "advertising" concept -- we are talking specifically about System1, which is ad arbitrage and "unlocks consumer intent across channels including social, native, email, search" There is nothing wrong with non-tracking advertizing -- looking solely at the content of the page ad is embedded it, or at the search term for the search engine is enough to let people know about new products, and has no negative social implications.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Hmm, I'm with the GP. I've lived through the transition from mostly restrained and controlled (and often very naive) UK advertising in the sixties and seventies, through to today when advertising ate everything. Available in-yer-face on every surface, tracking every move and psychologically trying to manipulate. We can trust nothing whatsoever. I didn't much mind how it was, I detest how it is now. Probably a very minority view on HN, but I'd like to outlaw and treat as hostile all forms of advertising, except: + Yellow Pages style classified magazines and sites - Like old-school Yellow Pages, or the classifieds in the back of old magazines. When I want a new product, I can open the site or book and look for one. Easy. + Flat, silent and static magazine and newspaper style ads, locally served. + Branding on the packaging. + Shop signage akin to say the sixties or earlier - sign on frontage only. Illumination only whilst store open, and it's after lighting up time. No 20m KFC neon topped poles outside. No floodlights 24/7. Nowt else. I'm fucking sick of the advertising arms race.
        Yetanfou 7y ago
        Hear, hear. Advertising can serve a function to society if and only if it is opt-in, honest, non-obtrusive and informative. That these characteristics happen to be the opposite of what the industry produces nowadays can not be a coincidence. Those around here old enough to remember Computer Shopper [1] and other similar phone-book sized ad catalogues might agree that those were an example of a form of advertising which met at least three of the four mentioned criteria, some even might have met the fourth (being honesty). The model seemed to work back in those days given the 30-year lifespan of the magazine, the advent of the 'net followed by the decline of paper magazines eventually did it in. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    By this line of reasoning, you would be in favor of me sending a drone to follow you around all day telling ads in your ear?
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      How can you jump to such conclusions? There's a middle ground between "no ads ever" and "intrusive ads 24/7". Better targeting actually is an improvement for the receiving party too, but our solutions for better targeting are just really bad.
      - theamk 7y ago
        Who said anything about "no ads ever"? The choice is between "fixed ads, like paper magazines and physical posters" and "tracking ads which follow you across the web, no matter where you go".
  - ecf 7y ago
    It’s our right to live knowing your product DOES NOT exist.
esotericn 7y ago
It'd add value to my bank account if I stole your car.

Why do you say it doesn't add value? I assume the targeting actually works and improves ad performance for advertisers?

mattigames 7y ago

I see you omitted "to society" on purpose on your question (after the word "value")

friedman23 7y ago
Many things exist that don't add value to "society", I'm going to stick to worrying about the value given to the people actually doing the purchasing thank you.
Mirioron 7y ago
But if it improves ad performance for the people advertising then it does provide value for society. If nobody knows about your product then nobody's going to use it, which would make your product worthless to society regardless how good it is. Just think about launching a product, but you aren't allowed to advertise it in any way. You can't even expect word of mouth, because somebody would have to actually have known it exists.
- eropple 7y ago
  You're assuming that marginally-advertised things are worth the attention budget of anyone downrange of it. In the modern era and with the corpus of data available to them, advertisers are psychological attackers and should be treated as such.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Ads are worth it to some people, because products do have customers and some of those customers had to learn about the product from the maker in some way. They're not worth it for everyone that sees them, but that's exactly what these types of ad middle men are trying to improve - to be able to show relevant ads to relevant people. I say trying, because they've pretty much only failed at it. The company you work at creates a product. How would people find out about it without any advertising? Keep in mind that even just having a sign in front of a store is advertising.
    - theamk 7y ago
      We are not talking about general "advertising" concept -- we are talking specifically about System1, which is ad arbitrage and "unlocks consumer intent across channels including social, native, email, search" There is nothing wrong with non-tracking advertizing -- looking solely at the content of the page ad is embedded it, or at the search term for the search engine is enough to let people know about new products, and has no negative social implications.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Hmm, I'm with the GP. I've lived through the transition from mostly restrained and controlled (and often very naive) UK advertising in the sixties and seventies, through to today when advertising ate everything. Available in-yer-face on every surface, tracking every move and psychologically trying to manipulate. We can trust nothing whatsoever. I didn't much mind how it was, I detest how it is now. Probably a very minority view on HN, but I'd like to outlaw and treat as hostile all forms of advertising, except: + Yellow Pages style classified magazines and sites - Like old-school Yellow Pages, or the classifieds in the back of old magazines. When I want a new product, I can open the site or book and look for one. Easy. + Flat, silent and static magazine and newspaper style ads, locally served. + Branding on the packaging. + Shop signage akin to say the sixties or earlier - sign on frontage only. Illumination only whilst store open, and it's after lighting up time. No 20m KFC neon topped poles outside. No floodlights 24/7. Nowt else. I'm fucking sick of the advertising arms race.
      - Yetanfou 7y ago
        Hear, hear. Advertising can serve a function to society if and only if it is opt-in, honest, non-obtrusive and informative. That these characteristics happen to be the opposite of what the industry produces nowadays can not be a coincidence. Those around here old enough to remember Computer Shopper [1] and other similar phone-book sized ad catalogues might agree that those were an example of a form of advertising which met at least three of the four mentioned criteria, some even might have met the fourth (being honesty). The model seemed to work back in those days given the 30-year lifespan of the magazine, the advent of the 'net followed by the decline of paper magazines eventually did it in. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lonelappde 7y ago
  By this line of reasoning, you would be in favor of me sending a drone to follow you around all day telling ads in your ear?
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    How can you jump to such conclusions? There's a middle ground between "no ads ever" and "intrusive ads 24/7". Better targeting actually is an improvement for the receiving party too, but our solutions for better targeting are just really bad.
    - theamk 7y ago
      Who said anything about "no ads ever"? The choice is between "fixed ads, like paper magazines and physical posters" and "tracking ads which follow you across the web, no matter where you go".
- ecf 7y ago
  It’s our right to live knowing your product DOES NOT exist.

esotericn 7y ago

It'd add value to my bank account if I stole your car.