3 ms·

It's easy to draw comparisons between online/digital units and outdoor, they share a lot, but the fundamental difference is that digital/online is one-to-one (o

It's easy to draw comparisons between online/digital units and outdoor, they share a lot, but the fundamental difference is that digital/online is one-to-one (one ad, one user, can be personalised) and outdoor is one to many. Right now, there's no technology available that will change that. Some people think if AR becomes ubiquitous it might, but that's still fantasyland. Because of that, again right now, it's a misnomer that outdoor want to do the Bladerunner style microtargeting of large outdoor display (the Bugatti example you gave) simply because you make MUCH less money showing an ad to 100's of people to target one person than showing a _better_ ad to the 100's. This is because the outdoor market is still fundamentally based on CPM not CPA; that _might_ change, but in my experience it's not likely.

sandworm101 6y ago
I'm not so sure about those numbers. Putting something directly in Bill Gate's eyeline is worth more than a thousand pleb eyeballs. If a billboard company can say "For the next three seconds, Whale#3 is staring at billboard#67" they can sell those seconds for many hundreds of dollars. But I wouldn't limit it to the wealthy. Advertisers know that at particular points in life everyone become susceptible to ads. The young couple who just discovered they are pregnant: big spending on new products asap. The junior executive who just got a big promotion: new car time. The soldier who just got leave: hotels. The guy who just inherited a house from a dead relative: estate agents. I think most advertisers would forgo the attention of the regular commuters if they can target the one individual on the train who is primed to react to a specific type of ad. My nightmare is the rise of so-called anti-ads, individually-targeted ads so horrible that users will pay to make them not appear. There are ads on television that cause people to change the channel. (The crying puppy ads, the borderline-obscene erectile dysfunction stuff.) Now imagine you cannot escape. That ad follows you around all day. How bad must it become before you will pay to make it stop? Bladerunner wasn't that bad.

sandworm101 6y ago

I'm not so sure about those numbers. Putting something directly in Bill Gate's eyeline is worth more than a thousand pleb eyeballs. If a billboard company can say "For the next three seconds, Whale#3 is staring at billboard#67" they can sell those seconds for many hundreds of dollars. But I wouldn't limit it to the wealthy. Advertisers know that at particular points in life everyone become susceptible to ads. The young couple who just discovered they are pregnant: big spending on new products asap. The junior executive who just got a big promotion: new car time. The soldier who just got leave: hotels. The guy who just inherited a house from a dead relative: estate agents. I think most advertisers would forgo the attention of the regular commuters if they can target the one individual on the train who is primed to react to a specific type of ad. My nightmare is the rise of so-called anti-ads, individually-targeted ads so horrible that users will pay to make them not appear. There are ads on television that cause people to change the channel. (The crying puppy ads, the borderline-obscene erectile dysfunction stuff.) Now imagine you cannot escape. That ad follows you around all day. How bad must it become before you will pay to make it stop? Bladerunner wasn't that bad.