4 ms·
Because a newspaper does not have enough user targeting data; their ads would not be as valuable since they would not be as well targeted.
by thebean11 7y ago
Because a newspaper does not have enough user targeting data; their ads would not be as valuable since they would not be as well targeted.
- maigret 7y agoThe ads I see on my paper newspaper are often better “targeted” than the ones I see (or block ;) ) on their website. Of course this is not data, but the parent post has an interesting stance.
- eitland 7y agoI'm tired of saying this but either I've been caught in a fluke of some kind or Google really isn't so good at advertising. Or they are optimizing to fleece dumb advertisers or I am extreme outlier. Instagram however, a service that I hardly use, manages to present ads that look interesting again and again.
- earthboundkid 7y agoNewspapers used to be relatively well targeted. You know people reading the Podunk Times are probably in the Podunk region. But now the competition has surged ahead, and you can target on Facebook "people who run as a hobby and are African American and live in a metro with great than >500K population" or whatever. But from a consumer point of view, is it better to be targeted in a loose way by people guessing about your demographics or an exact way by people who know your demos? And as a publisher, how the hell are you supposed to make content if all the money is gobbled up by the platforms? I think we should return to status quo ante by just banning the collection of targeting data. We know that the old ad ecosystem worked because we observed it working, and we know that the new one sucks because we observe publishers going bankrupt and privacy being violated.