6 ms·

The images of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertisin

by spodek 7y ago

The images of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... illustrate the difference in a different space. Personally, I found the difference greater and more lovely than I expected and support reducing advertising. Other cities are doing it. The parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wouldn't want without all the advertising -- Coca-Cola, Gatorade, McDonald's, fast fashion, etc, generally multinationals. I imagine ones that would benefit: local businesses, vegetable and fruit farmers, manufacturers of lasting goods instead of fast fashion.

helsinkiandrew 7y ago
Online, without personalization it's the other way around Local and niche businesses can only advertise on Facebook/Google Ads because their clientele can be defined and targeted. Without targeting we'll be watching ads for Coca-Cola and McDonalds and other brands that have 'mass' appeal.
- vthriller 7y ago
  Why can't they target content instead of visitors? i.e. articles and videos about X instead of people that showed even minimal interest in X in the past month or so.
  - stoev 7y ago
    Exactly. Which is what drives the biggest advertising machine anyway (Google Search). That model could be replicated for the open internet.
  - haste410 7y ago
    How would that work for site like Facebook or Instagram or other sites where there is no clear relevant content to target?
    - cercatrova 7y ago
      Natural language processing for posts and video analysis via machine learning could work.
    - Tarq0n 7y ago
      There's been a lot of work in this area over the last few years, clustering and tagging text and video. Facebook even has an open source library for it called Starspace.
      - helsinkiandrew 7y ago
        But the point is that Facebook is showing you ads based on your surfing behaviour outside Facebook - not the content you view on Facebook. If you use facebook purely for posting and viewing family baby photos, but view websites about tractors, you'll probably see ads on facebook from tractor related companies. Starspace is used by FB to tag the sites that report that you've visited them to facebook. So they can target ads
        Quanttek 7y ago
        I think the point is that FB could change to a contextual model. E.g. after seeing a post of a news article by Tractor Daily you would see an ad for a new John Deere.
      - dwild 7y ago
        Can you be more precise to what you means? That sounds like targetting.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  You can assert that, but where is the evidence? Tracking exists today and I never see ads relevant to my large American city. I see the same gross out earwax scams as everyone in the world.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "You can assert that, but where is the evidence?" It's not a remotely controversial statement. If you take a minute to actually run a marketing campaign for your company you'll learn all sorts of things. Including how targeting works. There are other options such as restricting the type and degree of targetting. The 'big outdoor ads' thing is not related to targeted ads, it's not part of this discussion. I'm fine with banning all outdoor ads but not targetted ads. There we need regulation.
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      Here is what I know. I know if I open a newspaper, I see ads for businesses, both local and national. If I go to the newspaper’s website, I see ads for one weird trick, the same ads on every site and in every city, and essentially no meaningful local content. Yes, things on Facebook are different, but Facebook is not a publisher, it’s a parasite, so who cares?
      - jariel 7y ago
        1) Banner ads on websites are often targeted via networks, often Google. 2) Those 'stupid ads' are often targeted, and they make money, sadly. 3) You're probably not accounting for the majority of ads you see. If you literally tracked/recorded every ad, you might see a different picture. 4) Many ads are not very well targeted, yes, and that's why you see irrelevance. Well-targeted ads are generally more relevant (sometimes not obvious) and this is 100% validated by returns to advertisers. This is not a joke. 5) Facebook and Google represent most of the ad market, so, the people that 'care' are basically everyone who wants to place an ad online.
        7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Mirioron 7y ago
I doubt that Coca-Cola, Gatorade, and McDonald's would he the ones on the losing side of this. Their products are already everywhere. It's hard not to see them in a city, especially Coca-Cola.
ch4s3 7y ago
I think you’re misunderstanding why people like soda and McDonald’s. You’re hardwired to love sugar, fat, and salt which soda and fast food provide in abundance. Advertising these products is about capturing dollars that might otherwise flow to competitors products. This isn’t to say that ads can’t help drive overall consumption, but the lift isn’t huge and the demand has to already be there.
- hrktb 7y ago
  I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. Perhaps removing ads now wouldn't bring a dramatic change in the next months or even years; But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less of an inclination towards soda. It might be a chicken and egg problem, but at least I think there are ways out of the situation.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    > I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. That has nothing to do with your innate preference for sugars and calorie density. People liked sweet foods and dumped heaps of sugar into tea long before modern advertising existed. > But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less of an inclination towards soda. Soda is hugely popular in Asian and Europe. Out of the top 10 per-capita consumers of soda 4 are in Europe, including the Netherlands which has quite a few controls on ads[1]. [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/which-countries-consume-the-most-sugary-drinks/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/which-countries-consu...
    - hrktb 7y ago
      As you point out people putting sugar in coffee or tea might be as old as tea or coffee in the western world. People even add sugar in their fruits when they feel they're no savory enough. I think though that it makes it all the more interesting that soda drinks succeeded in a market with a ton of other traditional alternatives. In my eyes the very fact that all the other standard sugary drinks have been displaced by commercial soda in so many countries is a reflection of the power of advertising. Interestingly from your link, in the last few years Chile has become the #1 soda drinking country...and of course: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coca-cola-to-invest-13-bln-in-chile-over-5-years-2012-11-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coca-cola-to-invest-13-bln... Aside from the health argument, I think advertisement can have deep and long lasting effects on a society. For a completely different take, De Beers decades of campaign to push diamonds on wedding rings is another example of it.
LeifCarrotson 7y ago
I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising - ie. Google and Facebook, and the ad agencies which run ads on those platforms. Regardless, I'm not sure recognizable megacorps would suffer much. A Big Mac is a known quantity, and everyone recognizes the Golden Arches, whether you're in Seattle or Shanghai. It's the local gastropub that would have a hard time promoting themselves to the tiny subset of the population that is 'vacationing foodies' without targeted advertising. At the same time, I don't see them advertising much - perhaps it's the middle of the road regional franchises that have the funds to employ ad agencies for that purpose.
- zepto 7y ago
  Depends on whether you think Yelp is ‘targeted’ advertising.
- dwild 7y ago
  > I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising I don't think they would be hurt that much, they would still provide advertisement, just less. The small niche company is the one that will be hurt... they now will compete in every category which is going to be much more expensive than small niche categories. If anything, it sound like remove targetting will make much more money for Google. The one paying higher CPM will increase the CPM for everyone instead of his niche.
dwild 7y ago
> TThe parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wouldn't want without all the advertising -- Coca-Cola, Gatorade, McDonald's, fast fashion, etc, generally multinationals. The example you give are all global, they can pay advertising in movies, in generic website, everywhere. They won't be hurt, by removing targeted advertisment, or billboard. The one that will be hurt are the one that most person probably want but wouldn't know without advertising. My SO is in the escape room industry, at least 80% of people that come through her door has never done one. It took a long time to take off, because there was no escape room closeby, so not only we had to tell we existed to people, but also tell them WHAT it was. You can't achieve that just by existing.

by spodek 7y ago

helsinkiandrew 7y ago

Online, without personalization it's the other way around Local and niche businesses can only advertise on Facebook/Google Ads because their clientele can be defined and targeted. Without targeting we'll be watching ads for Coca-Cola and McDonalds and other brands that have 'mass' appeal.

vthriller 7y ago
Why can't they target content instead of visitors? i.e. articles and videos about X instead of people that showed even minimal interest in X in the past month or so.
- stoev 7y ago
  Exactly. Which is what drives the biggest advertising machine anyway (Google Search). That model could be replicated for the open internet.
- haste410 7y ago
  How would that work for site like Facebook or Instagram or other sites where there is no clear relevant content to target?
  - cercatrova 7y ago
    Natural language processing for posts and video analysis via machine learning could work.
  - Tarq0n 7y ago
    There's been a lot of work in this area over the last few years, clustering and tagging text and video. Facebook even has an open source library for it called Starspace.
    - helsinkiandrew 7y ago
      But the point is that Facebook is showing you ads based on your surfing behaviour outside Facebook - not the content you view on Facebook. If you use facebook purely for posting and viewing family baby photos, but view websites about tractors, you'll probably see ads on facebook from tractor related companies. Starspace is used by FB to tag the sites that report that you've visited them to facebook. So they can target ads
      - Quanttek 7y ago
        I think the point is that FB could change to a contextual model. E.g. after seeing a post of a news article by Tractor Daily you would see an ad for a new John Deere.
    - dwild 7y ago
      Can you be more precise to what you means? That sounds like targetting.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
earthboundkid 7y ago
You can assert that, but where is the evidence? Tracking exists today and I never see ads relevant to my large American city. I see the same gross out earwax scams as everyone in the world.
- jariel 7y ago
  "You can assert that, but where is the evidence?" It's not a remotely controversial statement. If you take a minute to actually run a marketing campaign for your company you'll learn all sorts of things. Including how targeting works. There are other options such as restricting the type and degree of targetting. The 'big outdoor ads' thing is not related to targeted ads, it's not part of this discussion. I'm fine with banning all outdoor ads but not targetted ads. There we need regulation.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    Here is what I know. I know if I open a newspaper, I see ads for businesses, both local and national. If I go to the newspaper’s website, I see ads for one weird trick, the same ads on every site and in every city, and essentially no meaningful local content. Yes, things on Facebook are different, but Facebook is not a publisher, it’s a parasite, so who cares?
    - jariel 7y ago
      1) Banner ads on websites are often targeted via networks, often Google. 2) Those 'stupid ads' are often targeted, and they make money, sadly. 3) You're probably not accounting for the majority of ads you see. If you literally tracked/recorded every ad, you might see a different picture. 4) Many ads are not very well targeted, yes, and that's why you see irrelevance. Well-targeted ads are generally more relevant (sometimes not obvious) and this is 100% validated by returns to advertisers. This is not a joke. 5) Facebook and Google represent most of the ad market, so, the people that 'care' are basically everyone who wants to place an ad online.
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Mirioron 7y ago

I doubt that Coca-Cola, Gatorade, and McDonald's would he the ones on the losing side of this. Their products are already everywhere. It's hard not to see them in a city, especially Coca-Cola.

ch4s3 7y ago

I think you’re misunderstanding why people like soda and McDonald’s. You’re hardwired to love sugar, fat, and salt which soda and fast food provide in abundance. Advertising these products is about capturing dollars that might otherwise flow to competitors products. This isn’t to say that ads can’t help drive overall consumption, but the lift isn’t huge and the demand has to already be there.

hrktb 7y ago
I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. Perhaps removing ads now wouldn't bring a dramatic change in the next months or even years; But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less of an inclination towards soda. It might be a chicken and egg problem, but at least I think there are ways out of the situation.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  > I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. That has nothing to do with your innate preference for sugars and calorie density. People liked sweet foods and dumped heaps of sugar into tea long before modern advertising existed. > But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less of an inclination towards soda. Soda is hugely popular in Asian and Europe. Out of the top 10 per-capita consumers of soda 4 are in Europe, including the Netherlands which has quite a few controls on ads[1]. [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/which-countries-consume-the-most-sugary-drinks/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/which-countries-consu...
  - hrktb 7y ago
    As you point out people putting sugar in coffee or tea might be as old as tea or coffee in the western world. People even add sugar in their fruits when they feel they're no savory enough. I think though that it makes it all the more interesting that soda drinks succeeded in a market with a ton of other traditional alternatives. In my eyes the very fact that all the other standard sugary drinks have been displaced by commercial soda in so many countries is a reflection of the power of advertising. Interestingly from your link, in the last few years Chile has become the #1 soda drinking country...and of course: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coca-cola-to-invest-13-bln-in-chile-over-5-years-2012-11-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coca-cola-to-invest-13-bln... Aside from the health argument, I think advertisement can have deep and long lasting effects on a society. For a completely different take, De Beers decades of campaign to push diamonds on wedding rings is another example of it.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising - ie. Google and Facebook, and the ad agencies which run ads on those platforms. Regardless, I'm not sure recognizable megacorps would suffer much. A Big Mac is a known quantity, and everyone recognizes the Golden Arches, whether you're in Seattle or Shanghai. It's the local gastropub that would have a hard time promoting themselves to the tiny subset of the population that is 'vacationing foodies' without targeted advertising. At the same time, I don't see them advertising much - perhaps it's the middle of the road regional franchises that have the funds to employ ad agencies for that purpose.

zepto 7y ago
Depends on whether you think Yelp is ‘targeted’ advertising.
dwild 7y ago
> I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising I don't think they would be hurt that much, they would still provide advertisement, just less. The small niche company is the one that will be hurt... they now will compete in every category which is going to be much more expensive than small niche categories. If anything, it sound like remove targetting will make much more money for Google. The one paying higher CPM will increase the CPM for everyone instead of his niche.

dwild 7y ago

> TThe parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wouldn't want without all the advertising -- Coca-Cola, Gatorade, McDonald's, fast fashion, etc, generally multinationals. The example you give are all global, they can pay advertising in movies, in generic website, everywhere. They won't be hurt, by removing targeted advertisment, or billboard. The one that will be hurt are the one that most person probably want but wouldn't know without advertising. My SO is in the escape room industry, at least 80% of people that come through her door has never done one. It took a long time to take off, because there was no escape room closeby, so not only we had to tell we existed to people, but also tell them WHAT it was. You can't achieve that just by existing.