4 ms·

The App Store, Play Store, and Ad Market don't really work that way: They're just rent-collectors on a market between developers and users. It would cost more t

The App Store, Play Store, and Ad Market don't really work that way: They're just rent-collectors on a market between developers and users. It would cost more to provide separate products than in other countries. They're just pure profit rent-seeking entities.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
I agree with you on the stores, but neither Google nor Facebook ads are rent-collectors in the traditional sense. To illustrate, consider a new ad network, which miraculously has access to all Google and Facebook users. Assuming that all is necessary is the market then this network should take 1/3rd of their revenue. However, this wouldn't happen as what people actually pay for is the optimisation of advertising, i.e. sending the ads to the "right" users such that costs can be controlled. Like, both of the companies are almost monopolies in terms of their consumer products, but they do in fact provide a very useful service to advertisers, and indeed have created a whole host of businesses that wouldn't have been possible without this optimisation.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Both Google and Facebook want you to believe this. But while a Google-operated study found a 52% revenue benefit to targeted advertising, an independent academic study found a 4% benefit.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Look, this stuff is not easy to measure, at all. It's even harder when the two largest platforms (i.e Goog and FB) won't co-operate (for potentially legitimate privacy reasons). On the other hand, I can assure you that for most niche brands/services (i.e. the ones that spend money on digital advertising), spending $1m dollars on CPM ads on everyone in your audience, versus spending $1mn dollars on optimised advertising will have wildly different impacts on your bottom line. Source: did a lot of ads measurement analysis over the past few years.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

I agree with you on the stores, but neither Google nor Facebook ads are rent-collectors in the traditional sense. To illustrate, consider a new ad network, which miraculously has access to all Google and Facebook users. Assuming that all is necessary is the market then this network should take 1/3rd of their revenue. However, this wouldn't happen as what people actually pay for is the optimisation of advertising, i.e. sending the ads to the "right" users such that costs can be controlled. Like, both of the companies are almost monopolies in terms of their consumer products, but they do in fact provide a very useful service to advertisers, and indeed have created a whole host of businesses that wouldn't have been possible without this optimisation.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Both Google and Facebook want you to believe this. But while a Google-operated study found a 52% revenue benefit to targeted advertising, an independent academic study found a 4% benefit.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Look, this stuff is not easy to measure, at all. It's even harder when the two largest platforms (i.e Goog and FB) won't co-operate (for potentially legitimate privacy reasons). On the other hand, I can assure you that for most niche brands/services (i.e. the ones that spend money on digital advertising), spending $1m dollars on CPM ads on everyone in your audience, versus spending $1mn dollars on optimised advertising will have wildly different impacts on your bottom line. Source: did a lot of ads measurement analysis over the past few years.