5 ms·

"... And nothing of value was lost." This is definitely not true. There is considerable value in advertising, it's just not apparent to you. In fact - adverti

by jariel 6y ago

"... And nothing of value was lost." This is definitely not true. There is considerable value in advertising, it's just not apparent to you. In fact - advertising that is 'well targeted' is considerably less annoying than ads that are poorly targetted. The economic value of a well targeted ad is probably 10x otherwise. Ergo - unless you are willing to pay for apps - you might now see 10x more ads appearing on pages than otherwise. The moment you build something, and have to get the word out - your perspective will turn right upside down. As a creator you don't want to bother people who are not interested, but you definitely want to put up ads for those who may be. A lot of ads are just a waste of time, but there is a lot of efficiency in the communication there and that has value. The better we are able to connect people with the things they want, the better we all are. Of course, privacy matters as well, and this presents with a great paradox, in that, losing privacy may not be worth it for some people, but it's surprisingly hard to be objective when we've only been on one side of the fence.

snazz 6y ago
I agree that relevant ads are better than completely random ones for everyone involved. But there is a significant middle ground between “show this user a random ad” and “show this user an ad based on data collected through tracking”. There’s also “show this user an ad similar to what they’re currently looking at”, like the search ads on DuckDuckGo. I find that these kinds of ads are just as relevant as targeted ads. The big disadvantage compared to using tracking is the inability for advertisers to select demographics directly (instead, they would have to choose pages or search terms to appear near).
- wolco 6y ago
  A random ad would be strange. An ad based on the content of the page or type of site would actually fit in better.
johnday 6y ago
> The economic value of a well targeted ad is probably 10x otherwise. > Ergo - unless you are willing to pay for apps - you might now see 10x more ads appearing on pages than otherwise. I'm afraid that this is nonsense. If the economic value of selling bread went down by 10x, do you think people would start offering you 10x as much bread?
- jariel 6y ago
  Only someone with absolutely no understanding of advertising would say this, because the effectiveness of targeting is a given, it's not controversial. I would urge you to consider the real economics of the situation instead of propagating bad information, and embarrassing yourself. Ironically, the evidence for the relative value of ads is right on Facebook Ad Platform itself! You can run an experiment today, right now. Create a Facebook ad, and send people to your web site, with some kind of intended action. Send 'Ad 1' to a completely untargtted audience. Send 'Ad 2' to a crudely targeted audience (say, nation and demographic) Send 'Ad 3' to an interest based demographic. You will right there, plain as day, in a single day, see that ads 1, 2 and 3 will each have an order of magnitude of a different conversion rate. Most public commentary on ads is based on ignorance, which is somewhat understandable because it's domain specific knowledge, but because it's a 'personal issue' to some, they have an opinion about it. Targeted ads are unambiguously better for everyone: sellers, marketers, exchanges, buyers. The issue is privacy.
  - johnday 6y ago
    I know that targeted advertising is more effective and I am not disputing that. I did not dispute it in my comment. I am disputing your random assertion that, if advertising became less effective (say by removing targeting), the quantity of advertising that people see would go up significantly. The amount of adverts that people see currently is not based solely on their economic value - it is based on their value relative to how much people are willing to put up with being advertised to. If advertising becomes less valuable, that doesn't mean people will suddenly put up with more of it. Indeed, if the value of adverts went down, I would expect to see fewer advertisements, not more, since the value of showing them to people is now less relative to their willingness to put up with them.
FridgeSeal 6y ago
> In fact - advertising that is 'well targeted' is considerably less annoying than ads that are poorly targetted. And better than targeted ads are ads that only need contextual information to work. If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there. > unless you are willing to pay for apps - you might now see 10x more ads appearing on pages than otherwise. I do in fact pay for apps, and I'd very interested in seeing the data collection + sale markets collapse, so that apps are not tempted to double-dip and sell my data anyway. > The better we are able to connect people with the things they want, the better we all are. I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better. Advertising exists to sell you a product, totally regardless of whether it's the actual best product for your needs. > Of course, privacy matters as well If advertising can be done even 50-60% as well without scooping every piece of user data it can get its hands on, then it should be.
- jariel 6y ago
  "If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there." Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. The value of a vistor to a 'sports site' may be considerably more for some other product or service. The fact is - most content is placed on sites for which there is no obvious context: Facebook, Twitter, news - none of it provides much information. "I do in fact pay for apps" - it doesn't matter what you or I do - it matters what people do. The fact is, people are considerably more likely to opt for ad-based products than pay-based products, and for some kinds of products, it has a strategic consideration (i.e. those with network effects). Ads are not going away. "I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better." People never knew they needed a smartphone, did they? Nobody was thinking 'hey I really want a 'big screen phone'. So I agree 'search for stuff' should be better, but advertising is not going away. The 'ill effects' of privacy are negligible. Nobody is harmed because of what FB is able to discern 'out of network' vs. what it already knows from what you do 'on network'. There are definitely considerations, but in reality, no harm. Can you think of examples where you, or someone you know has been harmed by FB out of network data collection? Ads are not going away, better ads are better for everyone, we need to figure out how to deal with privacy.
austhrow743 6y ago
It seems obvious to me that they didn't mean economic value. Clearly ads make money. People don't pay for them recreationally. As for 10x more ads if they get less effective, that doesn't make any sense. Advertising supported media isn't showing the minimum amount of ads needed to cover their costs out of some sort of altruism. They show the profit maximising amount. Any more ads will cost them more eyeballs/clicks than they currently get.

by jariel 6y ago

snazz 6y ago

I agree that relevant ads are better than completely random ones for everyone involved. But there is a significant middle ground between “show this user a random ad” and “show this user an ad based on data collected through tracking”. There’s also “show this user an ad similar to what they’re currently looking at”, like the search ads on DuckDuckGo. I find that these kinds of ads are just as relevant as targeted ads. The big disadvantage compared to using tracking is the inability for advertisers to select demographics directly (instead, they would have to choose pages or search terms to appear near).

wolco 6y ago
A random ad would be strange. An ad based on the content of the page or type of site would actually fit in better.

johnday 6y ago

> The economic value of a well targeted ad is probably 10x otherwise. > Ergo - unless you are willing to pay for apps - you might now see 10x more ads appearing on pages than otherwise. I'm afraid that this is nonsense. If the economic value of selling bread went down by 10x, do you think people would start offering you 10x as much bread?

jariel 6y ago
Only someone with absolutely no understanding of advertising would say this, because the effectiveness of targeting is a given, it's not controversial. I would urge you to consider the real economics of the situation instead of propagating bad information, and embarrassing yourself. Ironically, the evidence for the relative value of ads is right on Facebook Ad Platform itself! You can run an experiment today, right now. Create a Facebook ad, and send people to your web site, with some kind of intended action. Send 'Ad 1' to a completely untargtted audience. Send 'Ad 2' to a crudely targeted audience (say, nation and demographic) Send 'Ad 3' to an interest based demographic. You will right there, plain as day, in a single day, see that ads 1, 2 and 3 will each have an order of magnitude of a different conversion rate. Most public commentary on ads is based on ignorance, which is somewhat understandable because it's domain specific knowledge, but because it's a 'personal issue' to some, they have an opinion about it. Targeted ads are unambiguously better for everyone: sellers, marketers, exchanges, buyers. The issue is privacy.
- johnday 6y ago
  I know that targeted advertising is more effective and I am not disputing that. I did not dispute it in my comment. I am disputing your random assertion that, if advertising became less effective (say by removing targeting), the quantity of advertising that people see would go up significantly. The amount of adverts that people see currently is not based solely on their economic value - it is based on their value relative to how much people are willing to put up with being advertised to. If advertising becomes less valuable, that doesn't mean people will suddenly put up with more of it. Indeed, if the value of adverts went down, I would expect to see fewer advertisements, not more, since the value of showing them to people is now less relative to their willingness to put up with them.

FridgeSeal 6y ago

> In fact - advertising that is 'well targeted' is considerably less annoying than ads that are poorly targetted. And better than targeted ads are ads that only need contextual information to work. If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there. > unless you are willing to pay for apps - you might now see 10x more ads appearing on pages than otherwise. I do in fact pay for apps, and I'd very interested in seeing the data collection + sale markets collapse, so that apps are not tempted to double-dip and sell my data anyway. > The better we are able to connect people with the things they want, the better we all are. I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better. Advertising exists to sell you a product, totally regardless of whether it's the actual best product for your needs. > Of course, privacy matters as well If advertising can be done even 50-60% as well without scooping every piece of user data it can get its hands on, then it should be.

jariel 6y ago
"If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there." Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. The value of a vistor to a 'sports site' may be considerably more for some other product or service. The fact is - most content is placed on sites for which there is no obvious context: Facebook, Twitter, news - none of it provides much information. "I do in fact pay for apps" - it doesn't matter what you or I do - it matters what people do. The fact is, people are considerably more likely to opt for ad-based products than pay-based products, and for some kinds of products, it has a strategic consideration (i.e. those with network effects). Ads are not going away. "I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better." People never knew they needed a smartphone, did they? Nobody was thinking 'hey I really want a 'big screen phone'. So I agree 'search for stuff' should be better, but advertising is not going away. The 'ill effects' of privacy are negligible. Nobody is harmed because of what FB is able to discern 'out of network' vs. what it already knows from what you do 'on network'. There are definitely considerations, but in reality, no harm. Can you think of examples where you, or someone you know has been harmed by FB out of network data collection? Ads are not going away, better ads are better for everyone, we need to figure out how to deal with privacy.

austhrow743 6y ago

It seems obvious to me that they didn't mean economic value. Clearly ads make money. People don't pay for them recreationally. As for 10x more ads if they get less effective, that doesn't make any sense. Advertising supported media isn't showing the minimum amount of ads needed to cover their costs out of some sort of altruism. They show the profit maximising amount. Any more ads will cost them more eyeballs/clicks than they currently get.