4 ms·

Let's rephrase that > I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting ...because he... > worked in ad tech for half a decade, To continue > It's

Let's rephrase that > I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting ...because he... > worked in ad tech for half a decade, To continue > It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either Then why's it being done? Because it doesn't work, or because it does? > Instead most companies do the bare minimum and try to make a guess that is slightly better than a coin flip Uh huh. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising "In 2016, Internet advertising revenues in the United States surpassed those of cable television and broadcast television. In 2017, Internet advertising revenues in the United States totaled $83.0 billion, a 14% increase over the $72.50 billion in revenues in 2016" That's the bare minimum. Right.

buboard 7y ago
> That's the bare minimum. Right. That's not addressing the argument. Advertising follows eyeballs, so naturally it went online. There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however, despite all the claims about high ad tech.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however If you're right, those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis. And this in an area where doing so is very easy (don't run the ad then do run the ad, then see the immediate and longer-term difference). Also, from the same wiki link I gave "The EU limitations restrict targeting by online advertisers; researchers have estimated online advertising effectiveness decreases on average by around 65% in Europe relative to the rest of the world." Further, by "There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased" are you saying no studies have been done, or studies have been done but show no such evidence? In the latter case please post a few links, thanks.
  - buboard 7y ago
    > those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis i should clarify i meant the effectiveness of ads overall, not just targetting. there is no doubt that online ads work, and that tracking ads perform better than display ads. However despite the shift to online ads, advertising spending overall is similar and it doesnt seem to have increased consumption. So i dont understand if the rise in online ad spending means anything (imho it's purely because online audience is bigger now).
faizanbhat 7y ago
The fact that I worked in ad tech doesn't automatically make an advocate for ad targeting. I don't like being tracked either. As to your question on why it's being done if it isn't effective, I believe there are two reasons for it: 1. A vast % of digital ad spend goes to a few companies that have personally identifiable information and very effective tracking. Google, FB. I did point of this exception in my comment. Frankly, these companies don't need to target you to be effective. They gather their richest data from your usage on their service. 2. As for the rest of ad tech: Media buyers at agencies tend to be fresh out of college grads. They don't fully grasp the capabilities/limitations of ad tech products, targeting effectiveness, etc. Agencies want to spend their digital budgets and not exclusively on FB, Google. They want to show that they're diversifying, innovating, etc. This IMO is how the rest of ad tech stays afloat.

buboard 7y ago

> That's the bare minimum. Right. That's not addressing the argument. Advertising follows eyeballs, so naturally it went online. There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however, despite all the claims about high ad tech.

tempguy9999 7y ago
> There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however If you're right, those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis. And this in an area where doing so is very easy (don't run the ad then do run the ad, then see the immediate and longer-term difference). Also, from the same wiki link I gave "The EU limitations restrict targeting by online advertisers; researchers have estimated online advertising effectiveness decreases on average by around 65% in Europe relative to the rest of the world." Further, by "There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased" are you saying no studies have been done, or studies have been done but show no such evidence? In the latter case please post a few links, thanks.
- buboard 7y ago
  > those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis i should clarify i meant the effectiveness of ads overall, not just targetting. there is no doubt that online ads work, and that tracking ads perform better than display ads. However despite the shift to online ads, advertising spending overall is similar and it doesnt seem to have increased consumption. So i dont understand if the rise in online ad spending means anything (imho it's purely because online audience is bigger now).

faizanbhat 7y ago

The fact that I worked in ad tech doesn't automatically make an advocate for ad targeting. I don't like being tracked either. As to your question on why it's being done if it isn't effective, I believe there are two reasons for it: 1. A vast % of digital ad spend goes to a few companies that have personally identifiable information and very effective tracking. Google, FB. I did point of this exception in my comment. Frankly, these companies don't need to target you to be effective. They gather their richest data from your usage on their service. 2. As for the rest of ad tech: Media buyers at agencies tend to be fresh out of college grads. They don't fully grasp the capabilities/limitations of ad tech products, targeting effectiveness, etc. Agencies want to spend their digital budgets and not exclusively on FB, Google. They want to show that they're diversifying, innovating, etc. This IMO is how the rest of ad tech stays afloat.