3 ms·

How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? And how many ads for hearing ads have you seen online? The honest answer is a lot, and none.

by soared 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago
> How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? When I watch Redbull TV I see zero hearing aid adverts. That's about the only commercial TV I watch. Likewise when I more frequently watched commercial TV 15 years ago, I didn't see a ton. In the years since, the demographics of network TV viewership have shifted massively and the over 65 crowd is massively over-represented. As demographics switched advertising switched. I suppose when I occasionally go to CNN or CNBC for news, I see hearing aid advertising, but the sites I generally frequent (should) know their readership better than blast us with that sort of advertising. Which is ultimately the point context based advertising delivers 90% of the benefits of target/ tracking based advertising without the performance degradation, risks, and other nonsense.
- soared 6y ago
  That all makes sense, but your missing the monetary aspect. If I know NYT readers are my target market, I want to advertise on the NYT. Except thats absurdly expensive so I can just reach users I know read the NYT, but are currently on other websites. Same audience, much cheaper. There are a lot of caveats like this where price and business reasons play a role. If it weren't a $20B industry then your logic would probably ring more true.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Making something less expensive to advertisers is not my problem. People sucking up piles of personal information about me is my concern. What you are missing here is by giving people the ability to advertise to New York Times users offsite takes income from the Times. If you read the NYT or you are the New York Time, this should be concerning. As a reader, you want the the value of their brand to flow back to them so they can continue doing better work.
    - aleppe7766 6y ago
      TL:DR If you want to do any good to a newspaper, buy a subscription. Advertising hasn’t been enough since the late 2000s. More monetization options arised and were rapidly adopted because news venues were hungry for them, when they figured that reservation (buying ads on a specific website with no control on delivery and performance) was declining. The creepiness of all this, and the sense of entitlement of a large part of the audience, fueled the rise of Adblock, which required even more creepiness and gave birth to the present cat&mouse game.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        > If you want to do any good to a newspaper, buy a subscription. My point wasn't that you shouldn't subscribe to the content you want—you should. It was that I have zero interest in sacrificing anything to lower advertising costs for some random company. Nor do I care to increase Google/ Facebook's earnings potential because they spy on me.

How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? And how many ads for hearing ads have you seen online? The honest answer is a lot, and none.

by soared 6y ago

How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? And how many ads for hearing ads have you seen online? The honest answer is a lot, and none.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? When I watch Redbull TV I see zero hearing aid adverts. That's about the only commercial TV I watch. Likewise when I more frequently watched commercial TV 15 years ago, I didn't see a ton. In the years since, the demographics of network TV viewership have shifted massively and the over 65 crowd is massively over-represented. As demographics switched advertising switched. I suppose when I occasionally go to CNN or CNBC for news, I see hearing aid advertising, but the sites I generally frequent (should) know their readership better than blast us with that sort of advertising. Which is ultimately the point context based advertising delivers 90% of the benefits of target/ tracking based advertising without the performance degradation, risks, and other nonsense.

soared 6y ago
That all makes sense, but your missing the monetary aspect. If I know NYT readers are my target market, I want to advertise on the NYT. Except thats absurdly expensive so I can just reach users I know read the NYT, but are currently on other websites. Same audience, much cheaper. There are a lot of caveats like this where price and business reasons play a role. If it weren't a $20B industry then your logic would probably ring more true.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Making something less expensive to advertisers is not my problem. People sucking up piles of personal information about me is my concern. What you are missing here is by giving people the ability to advertise to New York Times users offsite takes income from the Times. If you read the NYT or you are the New York Time, this should be concerning. As a reader, you want the the value of their brand to flow back to them so they can continue doing better work.
  - aleppe7766 6y ago
    TL:DR If you want to do any good to a newspaper, buy a subscription. Advertising hasn’t been enough since the late 2000s. More monetization options arised and were rapidly adopted because news venues were hungry for them, when they figured that reservation (buying ads on a specific website with no control on delivery and performance) was declining. The creepiness of all this, and the sense of entitlement of a large part of the audience, fueled the rise of Adblock, which required even more creepiness and gave birth to the present cat&mouse game.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > If you want to do any good to a newspaper, buy a subscription. My point wasn't that you shouldn't subscribe to the content you want—you should. It was that I have zero interest in sacrificing anything to lower advertising costs for some random company. Nor do I care to increase Google/ Facebook's earnings potential because they spy on me.