3 ms·

There's also a countervailing force, depending on the market. First an example that supports what everyone is talking about: * User X loves cola Pepsi and Cok

There's also a countervailing force, depending on the market. First an example that supports what everyone is talking about: * User X loves cola Pepsi and Coke both bid more to serve their cola subscription services or whatever. Ad price goes up. Now add more data: * User is a Coca Cola fanatic. Even though this is the same user, the ad price goes down, because Pepsi doesn't want to bid. Now add another Pepsi fanatic for symmetry, and you can see how "more data about users for better targetting" can in some cases reduce auction prices (while of course still increasing advertiser value.)

AmericanChopper 7y ago
But if users were trending towards either side then the number of users in the middle would presumably be diminishing, driving up prices to target them even more. Your scenario just seems to single out one particular example where more information can reduce spending on one group, while increasing it on another.
guareber 7y ago
I think this is only on fake-scenario. In a real DMP, the user would be "loves cola","loves coca cola","loves fizzy drinks","drinks sugared drinks", and about 30 other related segments, and one of those would definitely sneak by. Humans create audience segments, and it's in the interest of dataset producers to have each user be a part of the maximum number of members they can be to maximize monetisation.
- repsilat 7y ago
  > Humans create audience segments Eventually there will be machine learning models involved (maybe there are already? I don't know ads.) Those models might move closer to "perfect targeting" where advertisers could compete less over certain users. And no matter the incentives of the data providers, "increase customer value" is probably always a Nash equilibrium. If better targeting leads to less revenue, eventually you'll probably do it anyway.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

But if users were trending towards either side then the number of users in the middle would presumably be diminishing, driving up prices to target them even more. Your scenario just seems to single out one particular example where more information can reduce spending on one group, while increasing it on another.

guareber 7y ago

I think this is only on fake-scenario. In a real DMP, the user would be "loves cola","loves coca cola","loves fizzy drinks","drinks sugared drinks", and about 30 other related segments, and one of those would definitely sneak by. Humans create audience segments, and it's in the interest of dataset producers to have each user be a part of the maximum number of members they can be to maximize monetisation.

repsilat 7y ago
> Humans create audience segments Eventually there will be machine learning models involved (maybe there are already? I don't know ads.) Those models might move closer to "perfect targeting" where advertisers could compete less over certain users. And no matter the incentives of the data providers, "increase customer value" is probably always a Nash equilibrium. If better targeting leads to less revenue, eventually you'll probably do it anyway.