5 ms·

From the advertiser's perspective, that's a problem. From my perspective, good. Advertising is toxic even when it's not invading my privacy, and maybe if we ma

From the advertiser's perspective, that's a problem. From my perspective, good. Advertising is toxic even when it's not invading my privacy, and maybe if we make it less effective people will do less of it.

sroussey 7y ago
No, it would simply move even more from impression to action.
waynesonfire 7y ago
why is that good? you're paying for it.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Here are the ways I can pay for it: 1. Find out about content I want. Decide to pay for it. Pay for it. Receive content. A simple, fair transaction where everyone gets what they want with no bullshit. 2. Find out about content I want. Receive content, along with ads that spy on me, distract me from the content I actually cared about, and tell me my girlfriend isn't hot enough, my car isn't fast or luxurious enough, my house isn't big enough, my family isn't safe enough, etc. Under the barrage of this constant psychological attack, I'll occasionally fall for it and end up spending much more money on things that I don't need than I would have spent on the content. And yet the content that I actually cared about and wanted to pay for only receives a fraction of those profits.
lubujackson 7y ago
Reality leans the other way. What eill likely happen is that sites that used to make 100k a year from ads see their revenue drop to 70k then 50k then 30k. To stay afloat they plaster more and worse ads in order to survive. This is exactly what happened during the first dot com crash when we went from $35 CPM banner ads to $1. Suddenly, ads were slathered on every page or websites simply disappeared. What we really need is a deal that works well for all three parties: advertisers, consumers and content providers. Google Adsense was this perfect solution for a while (until it got optimized to max profitability). Maybe online advertising is like social networks and can only enjoy brief moments of relative balance before the cycle starts anew.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > What we really need is a deal that works well for all three parties: advertisers, consumers and content providers. I don't think such a thing actually exists. I mean, there is a way to do advertising that doesn't require spying on everybody -- contextual ads -- but advertisers seem to consider that a bad outcome, and instead are spending a lot of time and energy trying to figure out how to continue to spy on everybody.
- bryan_w 7y ago
  People easily forget the days of punch the monkey and x10 ads
  - stubish 7y ago
    Did those companies go out of business? An ad company in its death throws is going to be annoying right up until someone puts it out of its misery.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  An appropriate free market solution would be to construct an easy way to search only the ad-supported web, or only the non-ad-supported web and let people choose. The problem right now is that it's all mingled together.
lotu 7y ago
There is zero chance that poorer tracking will reduce advertising meaningfully. You can’t track the effectiveness of TV and and radio and newspaper ads, but it’s not like people don’t use them.
- r3dk1ng 7y ago
  > can't track the effectiveness of TV, radio, and newspaper ads Sure you can. "Use check-out code 'newspaper1' to get 5% off any purcahse!" or something.

sroussey 7y ago

No, it would simply move even more from impression to action.

waynesonfire 7y ago

why is that good? you're paying for it.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Here are the ways I can pay for it: 1. Find out about content I want. Decide to pay for it. Pay for it. Receive content. A simple, fair transaction where everyone gets what they want with no bullshit. 2. Find out about content I want. Receive content, along with ads that spy on me, distract me from the content I actually cared about, and tell me my girlfriend isn't hot enough, my car isn't fast or luxurious enough, my house isn't big enough, my family isn't safe enough, etc. Under the barrage of this constant psychological attack, I'll occasionally fall for it and end up spending much more money on things that I don't need than I would have spent on the content. And yet the content that I actually cared about and wanted to pay for only receives a fraction of those profits.

lubujackson 7y ago

Reality leans the other way. What eill likely happen is that sites that used to make 100k a year from ads see their revenue drop to 70k then 50k then 30k. To stay afloat they plaster more and worse ads in order to survive. This is exactly what happened during the first dot com crash when we went from $35 CPM banner ads to $1. Suddenly, ads were slathered on every page or websites simply disappeared. What we really need is a deal that works well for all three parties: advertisers, consumers and content providers. Google Adsense was this perfect solution for a while (until it got optimized to max profitability). Maybe online advertising is like social networks and can only enjoy brief moments of relative balance before the cycle starts anew.

JohnFen 7y ago
> What we really need is a deal that works well for all three parties: advertisers, consumers and content providers. I don't think such a thing actually exists. I mean, there is a way to do advertising that doesn't require spying on everybody -- contextual ads -- but advertisers seem to consider that a bad outcome, and instead are spending a lot of time and energy trying to figure out how to continue to spy on everybody.
bryan_w 7y ago
People easily forget the days of punch the monkey and x10 ads
- stubish 7y ago
  Did those companies go out of business? An ad company in its death throws is going to be annoying right up until someone puts it out of its misery.
perl4ever 7y ago
An appropriate free market solution would be to construct an easy way to search only the ad-supported web, or only the non-ad-supported web and let people choose. The problem right now is that it's all mingled together.

lotu 7y ago

There is zero chance that poorer tracking will reduce advertising meaningfully. You can’t track the effectiveness of TV and and radio and newspaper ads, but it’s not like people don’t use them.

r3dk1ng 7y ago
> can't track the effectiveness of TV, radio, and newspaper ads Sure you can. "Use check-out code 'newspaper1' to get 5% off any purcahse!" or something.