5 ms·

> Did they ever think to just ask me? I've wondered this for years, but I think I know why they don't do this. If they asked me what ads I'd be interested in

> Did they ever think to just ask me? I've wondered this for years, but I think I know why they don't do this. If they asked me what ads I'd be interested in seeing, and were to abide by my exact parameters, that would limit how many ads they can show me and hence how much money they can make. Instead, they spend billions to make guesses on what to show me, not just to show me what I want to see, but to make guesses on what I don't know that I want to see, opening up the door to showing me many more ads and make more money. That and they know that even ads for things I'm not interested in at the moment can persuade me to buy in the future. Of course, I'm not saying that any of their methods are actually very effective. Whenever I've turned uBlock Origin off, or saw ads on Hulu, I don't remember ever seeing something that's even remotely interesting to me or got me to engage. Like a lot of things such as "AI", I believe that modern advertising is a lot of overvalued bunk that mostly has value on the perception that it's necessary. It survives because people in charge don't actually understand the technicalities behind advertising, except that its use seems necessary and correlates with continued cash flow.

Consultant32452 6y ago
If they ask you, you will tend to answer with what you perceive a better version of yourself should want. But they don't care about that imaginary version of yourself. They care about what gets you angry enough to click/share.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  I've looked into this, since I think there's a massive amount of value being left on the table due to this disconnect. The standard answer is essentially what you're saying, combined with the fact that some advertisers are willing to pay more. A business that sells ad space is going to sell it as expensively as possible, so they don't want the highest bidder to know they're not on my 'approved subjects' list. A trick I think they're missing though is that I'm a lot more likely to pay for things a better version of myself should want, even more so if I've essentially asked my advertisers to nag me about it. The potential conversion rates are so much higher that I think any network which gets this right is set to blow the competition out of the water.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    A thought occurred to me that those companies are actively fighting against your attempts to improve yourself.
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      Given that a 'better me' would probably spend less money on frivolities, that's probably the case. Really though, it's a wasted opportunity. I have childhood ambitions that I'd follow up almost any realistic lead to achieve. I refuse to believe that out of six billion people, not one has created a product that would help me. But nobody in the ad space is even asking for my input.
  - btilly 6y ago
    If the potential conversion rates are indeed higher, then that would have shown up on A/B tests. The basic advertising infrastructure has been A/B tested to death. And one of the biggest takeaways that is that what people think that they respond to is not what they actually will respond to. One of the next biggest is that people who actually have responded are often completely unaware of what it is that they are responding to. The underlying reason is simple. A/B testing is very good at teasing out what we respond to before we consciously notice that we are responding. But since that happens before we are conscious of it, we lack awareness of what caused that. But the simple fact remains. If you think that advertising would work better if they just did things the way that you think that they should, you are almost certainly wrong.
- bootlooped 6y ago
  Wouldn't it follow then that you would also buy things that you think that better version of yourself would want? Or is it that people want to be that better version without actually doing anything about it.
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, if you've got uBlock Origin on most of the time there's no information on you. Obviously you get the untargeted ad. Essentially no one but the broad audience guys are buying your attention.
- dorgo 6y ago
  I don't know. Amazon knows exactly what I bought over the years (ublock or no ublock) and still tries to sell the same or weird stuff to me, or recomends the same books I already bought. I think advertisers just don't care.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Amazon's "also bought" recommendations are usually pretty good in my experience. e.g. "people who bought replacement roomba filters also bought replacement roomba brushes" Usually I find these recommendations fairly sensible.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  They didn't seem to target me well before I started blocking ads, or when I used Facebook where uBlock Origin doesn't work and where I pretty much voluntarily told them everything about me before I wised up. But your point is well taken.
WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
> that mostly has value on the perception that it's necessary This is known as the Amazon vacuum problem. Try buying a vacuum and your suggestions will be about vacuums forever!
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The best time to show you vacuum ads is right after you buy a vacuum because: * You have concrete intent * At a 5% return rate (pretty low), that's 5% you're going to buy the alternative
  - dorgo 6y ago
    That's the problem with advertisement. It's ok to annoy 95% to sell to 5%.
  - eitland 6y ago
    I hear that that explanation a lot. I'm not sure I buy it. As for why: 1. I don't have much data except myself but I can't remember buying from those ads. I can remember smiling at them a lot though. 2. That wouldn't explain why I get ads for the exact same product I bought. Here's another argument I remember from marketing at engineering school: Some marketing is justified even after the customer has bought -especially with expensive items - to make them feel like they did the right thing (which in turn should make them less likely to return it.)
Barrin92 6y ago
>I've wondered this for years, but I think I know why they don't do this. In similar vein, why not just advertise based on the content the person is currently consuming? Put fishing ads into an article about fishing, the same way people put gun ads into gun magazines. Given how abysmal targetted advertising is I don't see this being much worse.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Because people spend lots of time on things they won't buy. Contextual advertising is available. It's just not as high-performing, in general. Works for search, for instance. Ask your marketing team.
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> In similar vein, why not just advertise based on the content the person is currently consuming? Why not advertise based on what they consumed last week too? And once you start down that path it's like the Netflix recommendation problem. Also, at scale one Hope's they refine the algorithms based on actual CTR feedback.
  - mhb 6y ago
    the Netflix recommendation problem Maybe you're thinking of how it is now, but when Netflix had its sophisticated Cinematch, its recommendations were much, much better.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >Why not advertise based on what they consumed last week too? And once you start down that path it's like the Netflix recommendation problem from my personal experience because it takes a way too static view of my consumption habits. Echoing some other replies here I find these personal recommender systems to be completely awful. They constantly recommend me stuff I've already bought or have no interest in any more, and Netflix constantly overfits what I like, vastly underestimating genres I haven't seen yet while recommending me awful shows presumably just because they fall into some sort of similar buckets to higher quality shows I've watched. Case in point, the NYT already got rid of behavioural targetting in Europe last year and actually saw ad-revenue go up. (https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/dont-be-creepy/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/dont-be-creepy/)
brianpan 6y ago
Just look at polling and you'll see why "just ask me" is not as simple as it seems.

Consultant32452 6y ago

If they ask you, you will tend to answer with what you perceive a better version of yourself should want. But they don't care about that imaginary version of yourself. They care about what gets you angry enough to click/share.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
I've looked into this, since I think there's a massive amount of value being left on the table due to this disconnect. The standard answer is essentially what you're saying, combined with the fact that some advertisers are willing to pay more. A business that sells ad space is going to sell it as expensively as possible, so they don't want the highest bidder to know they're not on my 'approved subjects' list. A trick I think they're missing though is that I'm a lot more likely to pay for things a better version of myself should want, even more so if I've essentially asked my advertisers to nag me about it. The potential conversion rates are so much higher that I think any network which gets this right is set to blow the competition out of the water.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  A thought occurred to me that those companies are actively fighting against your attempts to improve yourself.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    Given that a 'better me' would probably spend less money on frivolities, that's probably the case. Really though, it's a wasted opportunity. I have childhood ambitions that I'd follow up almost any realistic lead to achieve. I refuse to believe that out of six billion people, not one has created a product that would help me. But nobody in the ad space is even asking for my input.
- btilly 6y ago
  If the potential conversion rates are indeed higher, then that would have shown up on A/B tests. The basic advertising infrastructure has been A/B tested to death. And one of the biggest takeaways that is that what people think that they respond to is not what they actually will respond to. One of the next biggest is that people who actually have responded are often completely unaware of what it is that they are responding to. The underlying reason is simple. A/B testing is very good at teasing out what we respond to before we consciously notice that we are responding. But since that happens before we are conscious of it, we lack awareness of what caused that. But the simple fact remains. If you think that advertising would work better if they just did things the way that you think that they should, you are almost certainly wrong.
bootlooped 6y ago
Wouldn't it follow then that you would also buy things that you think that better version of yourself would want? Or is it that people want to be that better version without actually doing anything about it.

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, if you've got uBlock Origin on most of the time there's no information on you. Obviously you get the untargeted ad. Essentially no one but the broad audience guys are buying your attention.

dorgo 6y ago
I don't know. Amazon knows exactly what I bought over the years (ublock or no ublock) and still tries to sell the same or weird stuff to me, or recomends the same books I already bought. I think advertisers just don't care.
- catalogia 6y ago
  Amazon's "also bought" recommendations are usually pretty good in my experience. e.g. "people who bought replacement roomba filters also bought replacement roomba brushes" Usually I find these recommendations fairly sensible.
ravenstine 6y ago
They didn't seem to target me well before I started blocking ads, or when I used Facebook where uBlock Origin doesn't work and where I pretty much voluntarily told them everything about me before I wised up. But your point is well taken.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago

> that mostly has value on the perception that it's necessary This is known as the Amazon vacuum problem. Try buying a vacuum and your suggestions will be about vacuums forever!

renewiltord 6y ago
The best time to show you vacuum ads is right after you buy a vacuum because: * You have concrete intent * At a 5% return rate (pretty low), that's 5% you're going to buy the alternative
- dorgo 6y ago
  That's the problem with advertisement. It's ok to annoy 95% to sell to 5%.
- eitland 6y ago
  I hear that that explanation a lot. I'm not sure I buy it. As for why: 1. I don't have much data except myself but I can't remember buying from those ads. I can remember smiling at them a lot though. 2. That wouldn't explain why I get ads for the exact same product I bought. Here's another argument I remember from marketing at engineering school: Some marketing is justified even after the customer has bought -especially with expensive items - to make them feel like they did the right thing (which in turn should make them less likely to return it.)

Barrin92 6y ago

>I've wondered this for years, but I think I know why they don't do this. In similar vein, why not just advertise based on the content the person is currently consuming? Put fishing ads into an article about fishing, the same way people put gun ads into gun magazines. Given how abysmal targetted advertising is I don't see this being much worse.

renewiltord 6y ago
Because people spend lots of time on things they won't buy. Contextual advertising is available. It's just not as high-performing, in general. Works for search, for instance. Ask your marketing team.
phkahler 6y ago
>> In similar vein, why not just advertise based on the content the person is currently consuming? Why not advertise based on what they consumed last week too? And once you start down that path it's like the Netflix recommendation problem. Also, at scale one Hope's they refine the algorithms based on actual CTR feedback.
- mhb 6y ago
  the Netflix recommendation problem Maybe you're thinking of how it is now, but when Netflix had its sophisticated Cinematch, its recommendations were much, much better.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >Why not advertise based on what they consumed last week too? And once you start down that path it's like the Netflix recommendation problem from my personal experience because it takes a way too static view of my consumption habits. Echoing some other replies here I find these personal recommender systems to be completely awful. They constantly recommend me stuff I've already bought or have no interest in any more, and Netflix constantly overfits what I like, vastly underestimating genres I haven't seen yet while recommending me awful shows presumably just because they fall into some sort of similar buckets to higher quality shows I've watched. Case in point, the NYT already got rid of behavioural targetting in Europe last year and actually saw ad-revenue go up. (https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/dont-be-creepy/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/dont-be-creepy/)

brianpan 6y ago

Just look at polling and you'll see why "just ask me" is not as simple as it seems.