4 ms·

> Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both s

> Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both sides. There's a huge market for products and services out there and it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail. This is an optimistic viewpoint. It absolutely can happen like this, but it's not always the case. Ad targeting can decrease relevance as you get chased around the web by ads for something you looked at once, market efficiencies go directly to the seller, so it's their choice to pass on to the customer or not. Customers don't inherently need to buy things with a few notable exceptions, so advertising is getting them to pay for things they may not need or may not want. And lastly, with the complex market for advertising, it's only large and/or technically savvy companies that can navigate the complexity, so they raise ad prices and mean that your average small provider neither understands the market nor can afford it. This is the pessimistic case. Obviously it's also not all like this either, but I think there's truth to both and we need to find ways to get the best of both sides.

jariel 6y ago
'Ads following you around' is actually necessarily a form of inefficiency, just the opposite. There may be a very good reason for you to see that specific ad, instead of and ad for some random for a pickup truck. Consumer wariness does not translate to lack of surplus on their side. Products that truly provide no value tend to not find the light of day for long. It's actually the very last phase of 'demo/trial' or even 'trial post purchase' where customers really find out if they're going to like it, and most cases, the surplus goes to the consumer. We live in a very different world than 100 years ago. The value people get out of stuff they buy is immense - we live in a 'total surplus economy'. We get clean, cold/hot, drinkable water, in any volume - literally coming out of the wall. This is basically a 'magical product' to anyone in history. How much would people may monthly for potable water if we really wanted to increase the price? A lot. Possibly 10x more than they are paying now. That means all of the surplus of water has been socialised. For many other products, it's the same thing, the question for consumers boils down to 'where do we want to spend it'?

jariel 6y ago

'Ads following you around' is actually necessarily a form of inefficiency, just the opposite. There may be a very good reason for you to see that specific ad, instead of and ad for some random for a pickup truck. Consumer wariness does not translate to lack of surplus on their side. Products that truly provide no value tend to not find the light of day for long. It's actually the very last phase of 'demo/trial' or even 'trial post purchase' where customers really find out if they're going to like it, and most cases, the surplus goes to the consumer. We live in a very different world than 100 years ago. The value people get out of stuff they buy is immense - we live in a 'total surplus economy'. We get clean, cold/hot, drinkable water, in any volume - literally coming out of the wall. This is basically a 'magical product' to anyone in history. How much would people may monthly for potable water if we really wanted to increase the price? A lot. Possibly 10x more than they are paying now. That means all of the surplus of water has been socialised. For many other products, it's the same thing, the question for consumers boils down to 'where do we want to spend it'?