6 ms·

1. Ad tech is a product which ~10 million businesses and people online are willing to pay for (over $100B/year), for several years now. It’s extremely unlikely

1. Ad tech is a product which ~10 million businesses and people online are willing to pay for (over $100B/year), for several years now. It’s extremely unlikely that it provides no positive effect to all these customers. 2. Ad Tech is trying to make advertising experience better (even if it might be failing at the moment). People working on it believe that more relevant ads are a better experience (or less annoying), than completely irrelevant ads (which you can easily find on traditional TV or in print media). 3. AdTech (which GP kinda mentioned) pays for a lot of things that are available for free and likely wouldn’t be otherwise, including open source software development (Angular, React) and technology such as video calling or video publishing.

cbsks 7y ago
Serious question: do you use an ad blocker when browsing the internet? Edit: I ask that because I use an ad blocker, as does everyone that I know. And I can’t think of a way to reconcile blocking ads with truly believing that ads are good for me. I am strongly anti-advertising, but I always like to hear from people with an opposite point of view.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  I work in publishing. Multiple times I have seen developers who were running ad blockers and then had trouble figuring out why their own sites weren’t loading properly.
- xixixao 7y ago
  No, I have never used an ad blocker, and I know plenty of people who aren’t bothered to either. I am pretty UX-focused, but I don’t frequent any sites were I would think: god, this is unusable because of the ads. (I do find sites where UX is bad for other reasons) My current biggest annoyance is that I was trying to hack something on iOS, opened bunch of medium articles and now I am being forced to pay for it, which I’m pretty sure would not be warranted given my usage of it. (I do pay for other services where provided value outweighs cost, like say Spotify). I’d take ad-supported Medium over pay-wall Medium any day (as a customer, maybe as a producer ads would not be a viable model).
andrepd 7y ago
1. Ad tech is a product which people are willing to pay for. It’s extremely unlikely that it provides no positive effect to all these customers. I'm talking about positive effects to "the world" / society / the public at large. Obviously not to the people getting their pockets filled. 2. Ad Tech is trying to make advertising experience better No, they're trying to make more money. Whether they do so by making the advertising "experience" (I loathe that freaking word) better or worse it's irrelevant. 3. AdTech (which GP kinda mentioned) pays for a lot of things that are available for free and likely wouldn’t be otherwise Slavery pays for a lot of cheap or free things as well, so that's not a really good argument in of itself, is it?
- mynameishere 7y ago
  You don't sound like a person capable of being persuaded by anything (using strawman arguments about slavery is a pretty good sign of that) but I have in the past sold non-software products and the simplest option to promote them is stuff like adwords/adsense. The alternative would be dealing with magazine ads and the like which is a whole different profession I would have to learn. Companies have whole departments to deal with that headache. And probably the 1000+ dollar budget involved would be beyond my scale.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    How about lax environmental regulations in developing countries leading to cheaper products paid for by ecological wastelands? That should be enough to get over that particular rhetorical hangup although you don't sound like you're capable of being convinced in this case either because your convenience depends on a barrage of information aimed at everyone unlucky enough to pass by a computer screen (or go outside). Regardless, the GGP's arguments are specious, circular, and delusional. The fact that the GP used slavery as an example doesn't take away from that. (And yes I get the irony of this post, advertising is that hill I chose to die on).
- closeparen 7y ago
  >I'm talking about positive effects to "the world" / society / the public at large. Obviously not to the people getting their pockets filled. People buying stuff from those businesses must at least think they are benefitting from the transactions in some way.
earthboundkid 7y ago
People like all kinds of ads. Super Bowl? People watch for the ads. People cut out clever magazine ads and use them as posters. Instagram “influencer”? That means you’re doing a product placement ad and people love it. Jingles: we sing ‘em. MailChimp podcasts ads. All kinds of ads. You know what kind of ads no one has ever ever ever liked? Web ads. Banner ads. Pop ups, pop unders, takeovers. They’re all shit, consumers hate them, and consumers love ads in general. It’s a failed business model that has never been viable for publishers.
jancsika 7y ago
> 2. Ad Tech is trying to make advertising experience better (even if it might be failing at the moment). Oh my. Youtube's current business model essentially breaks all ad-supported classical music content on the site. It does this by interrupting the music in the middle of a piece to insert an add. That means a long piece like a Wagner opera is littered with tens or perhaps even a hundred tiny adds that cut jarringly into the piece in the middle of acts, sections, and even phrases. It's not possible to concentrate on a piece of classical music that way. Your ad tech industry has destroyed whatever segment of content ad-supported classical music on youtube represents.[1] But that's not my complaint. I'm watching television the other day and I come upon some classic movie that I hadn't seen in awhile. I start to watch for about five minutes; then, in the middle of a scene, the movie switches to a loud, short commercial. In the middle of a scene! I thought maybe the channel got changed by accident. But no-- this was a youtube-sized commercial doing a youtube-sized jump-cut into a television program. I kept watching and sure enough, every subsequent commercial used a jump cut in the very middle of dialogue, and every commercial was as short as the ones on Youtube. Now this movie was almost as unwatchable as youtube classical music is unlistenable. So your ad tech has managed to do something I didn't think was possible-- become a big enough influence on commercial television programming so as to make it even more painful to watch. That's much worse than just "failing at the moment." [1] Sometimes it appears that the ad-placement algo inserts ads at the next available silence. But that still destroys all kinds of music. For example, many long classical pieces are made up of short-- yet related-- variations separated by silence. Inserted loud, obnoxious sounds between every single variation is no more acceptable than blaring an air horn between each move in a chess game. Edit: on the Brahms Paganini variations I listened to the algo seemed to be every other variation. But that hardly matters.
- allenbrunson 7y ago
  > Youtube's current business model essentially breaks all ad-supported classical music content on the site. that strikes me as a bit of a stretch, given that YouTube sells a premium subscription, which gives you a 100 percent ad-free experience. don't like ads? (i don't!) pony up US$12.99 a month to get rid of them. i have had a premium youtube account since the month they were announced, and boy do i ever believe i am getting my money's worth. so much stuff on there, by so many creators.
ineedasername 7y ago
Addressing your number points: 1) An appeal to the popularity of ad tech is not a sufficient argument in this case. First, it is tautological: At issue from my original comment is the sheet volume of talent it has attracted. Implicit within that is popularity. As such, you cannot use popularity to justify the phenomena. 2) Nor is the belief of people working in the field that it is useful a compelling argument. And of course it is trying to make advertising a better experience etc. But that just says "if it has to exist, it might as well be good at its job" and doesn't provide show a prima facie argument for it to begin with. For both 1 & 2, you could easily replace Ad Tech with military equipment and arms dealers. I'm not saying one is as bad as the other. I'm saying the flaws in the arguments become more apparent. 3) This, I think, is where we agree. But I think alternate business models, had they rose to prominence instead, might have been better for society. But counter-factuals are inherently difficult to prove, and it's certainly possible we'd be in a worse state had things worked out differently.

cbsks 7y ago

Serious question: do you use an ad blocker when browsing the internet? Edit: I ask that because I use an ad blocker, as does everyone that I know. And I can’t think of a way to reconcile blocking ads with truly believing that ads are good for me. I am strongly anti-advertising, but I always like to hear from people with an opposite point of view.

earthboundkid 7y ago
I work in publishing. Multiple times I have seen developers who were running ad blockers and then had trouble figuring out why their own sites weren’t loading properly.
xixixao 7y ago
No, I have never used an ad blocker, and I know plenty of people who aren’t bothered to either. I am pretty UX-focused, but I don’t frequent any sites were I would think: god, this is unusable because of the ads. (I do find sites where UX is bad for other reasons) My current biggest annoyance is that I was trying to hack something on iOS, opened bunch of medium articles and now I am being forced to pay for it, which I’m pretty sure would not be warranted given my usage of it. (I do pay for other services where provided value outweighs cost, like say Spotify). I’d take ad-supported Medium over pay-wall Medium any day (as a customer, maybe as a producer ads would not be a viable model).

andrepd 7y ago

1. Ad tech is a product which people are willing to pay for. It’s extremely unlikely that it provides no positive effect to all these customers. I'm talking about positive effects to "the world" / society / the public at large. Obviously not to the people getting their pockets filled. 2. Ad Tech is trying to make advertising experience better No, they're trying to make more money. Whether they do so by making the advertising "experience" (I loathe that freaking word) better or worse it's irrelevant. 3. AdTech (which GP kinda mentioned) pays for a lot of things that are available for free and likely wouldn’t be otherwise Slavery pays for a lot of cheap or free things as well, so that's not a really good argument in of itself, is it?

mynameishere 7y ago
You don't sound like a person capable of being persuaded by anything (using strawman arguments about slavery is a pretty good sign of that) but I have in the past sold non-software products and the simplest option to promote them is stuff like adwords/adsense. The alternative would be dealing with magazine ads and the like which is a whole different profession I would have to learn. Companies have whole departments to deal with that headache. And probably the 1000+ dollar budget involved would be beyond my scale.
- akiselev 7y ago
  How about lax environmental regulations in developing countries leading to cheaper products paid for by ecological wastelands? That should be enough to get over that particular rhetorical hangup although you don't sound like you're capable of being convinced in this case either because your convenience depends on a barrage of information aimed at everyone unlucky enough to pass by a computer screen (or go outside). Regardless, the GGP's arguments are specious, circular, and delusional. The fact that the GP used slavery as an example doesn't take away from that. (And yes I get the irony of this post, advertising is that hill I chose to die on).
closeparen 7y ago
>I'm talking about positive effects to "the world" / society / the public at large. Obviously not to the people getting their pockets filled. People buying stuff from those businesses must at least think they are benefitting from the transactions in some way.

earthboundkid 7y ago

People like all kinds of ads. Super Bowl? People watch for the ads. People cut out clever magazine ads and use them as posters. Instagram “influencer”? That means you’re doing a product placement ad and people love it. Jingles: we sing ‘em. MailChimp podcasts ads. All kinds of ads. You know what kind of ads no one has ever ever ever liked? Web ads. Banner ads. Pop ups, pop unders, takeovers. They’re all shit, consumers hate them, and consumers love ads in general. It’s a failed business model that has never been viable for publishers.

jancsika 7y ago

> 2. Ad Tech is trying to make advertising experience better (even if it might be failing at the moment). Oh my. Youtube's current business model essentially breaks all ad-supported classical music content on the site. It does this by interrupting the music in the middle of a piece to insert an add. That means a long piece like a Wagner opera is littered with tens or perhaps even a hundred tiny adds that cut jarringly into the piece in the middle of acts, sections, and even phrases. It's not possible to concentrate on a piece of classical music that way. Your ad tech industry has destroyed whatever segment of content ad-supported classical music on youtube represents.[1] But that's not my complaint. I'm watching television the other day and I come upon some classic movie that I hadn't seen in awhile. I start to watch for about five minutes; then, in the middle of a scene, the movie switches to a loud, short commercial. In the middle of a scene! I thought maybe the channel got changed by accident. But no-- this was a youtube-sized commercial doing a youtube-sized jump-cut into a television program. I kept watching and sure enough, every subsequent commercial used a jump cut in the very middle of dialogue, and every commercial was as short as the ones on Youtube. Now this movie was almost as unwatchable as youtube classical music is unlistenable. So your ad tech has managed to do something I didn't think was possible-- become a big enough influence on commercial television programming so as to make it even more painful to watch. That's much worse than just "failing at the moment." [1] Sometimes it appears that the ad-placement algo inserts ads at the next available silence. But that still destroys all kinds of music. For example, many long classical pieces are made up of short-- yet related-- variations separated by silence. Inserted loud, obnoxious sounds between every single variation is no more acceptable than blaring an air horn between each move in a chess game. Edit: on the Brahms Paganini variations I listened to the algo seemed to be every other variation. But that hardly matters.

allenbrunson 7y ago
> Youtube's current business model essentially breaks all ad-supported classical music content on the site. that strikes me as a bit of a stretch, given that YouTube sells a premium subscription, which gives you a 100 percent ad-free experience. don't like ads? (i don't!) pony up US$12.99 a month to get rid of them. i have had a premium youtube account since the month they were announced, and boy do i ever believe i am getting my money's worth. so much stuff on there, by so many creators.

ineedasername 7y ago

Addressing your number points: 1) An appeal to the popularity of ad tech is not a sufficient argument in this case. First, it is tautological: At issue from my original comment is the sheet volume of talent it has attracted. Implicit within that is popularity. As such, you cannot use popularity to justify the phenomena. 2) Nor is the belief of people working in the field that it is useful a compelling argument. And of course it is trying to make advertising a better experience etc. But that just says "if it has to exist, it might as well be good at its job" and doesn't provide show a prima facie argument for it to begin with. For both 1 & 2, you could easily replace Ad Tech with military equipment and arms dealers. I'm not saying one is as bad as the other. I'm saying the flaws in the arguments become more apparent. 3) This, I think, is where we agree. But I think alternate business models, had they rose to prominence instead, might have been better for society. But counter-factuals are inherently difficult to prove, and it's certainly possible we'd be in a worse state had things worked out differently.