4 ms·

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 u

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)
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        The UK has a regulatory requirement for advertising honesty. Magazines and TV would refuse ads they judged made too outrageous claims. Not perfect, but until those regs became mostly powerless in the face of web ads, it worked pretty much OK. Computer Shopper - the UK version lasted about as long, Autotrader and Exchange and Mart are exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Advertising as a positive, and nicely self-contained - you bought Autotrader when you needed a new car or van. Sure beats retargeting chasing you with the same ad for days because you briefly read a page on some silly product.
  - eropple 7y ago
    Somehow--somehow--companies survived and even thrived off of static advertisements that generally targeted recipients by dint of the estimated (not exact) audience of a given publication and by signage controlled by community policy and with pretty strict requirements around night-time lighting and sound-and-nuisance in general. Somehow, those companies found buyers for their stuff. I know it's shocking, but they did. It was better then. This "oh but what about a sign?!" is some /r/iamverysmart strawman junk and I would hope that you would be better than that.
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.

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)
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The UK has a regulatory requirement for advertising honesty. Magazines and TV would refuse ads they judged made too outrageous claims. Not perfect, but until those regs became mostly powerless in the face of web ads, it worked pretty much OK. Computer Shopper - the UK version lasted about as long, Autotrader and Exchange and Mart are exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Advertising as a positive, and nicely self-contained - you bought Autotrader when you needed a new car or van. Sure beats retargeting chasing you with the same ad for days because you briefly read a page on some silly product.
- eropple 7y ago
  Somehow--somehow--companies survived and even thrived off of static advertisements that generally targeted recipients by dint of the estimated (not exact) audience of a given publication and by signage controlled by community policy and with pretty strict requirements around night-time lighting and sound-and-nuisance in general. Somehow, those companies found buyers for their stuff. I know it's shocking, but they did. It was better then. This "oh but what about a sign?!" is some /r/iamverysmart strawman junk and I would hope that you would be better than that.

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.