4 ms·
They are right though. Those Vacuum and First Aid ads are probably 10x more effective than random ads. Randomly showing ads for people is actually not economi
by jariel 6y ago
They are right though.
Those Vacuum and First Aid ads are probably 10x more effective than random ads.
Randomly showing ads for people is actually not economical in most ways.
Showing ads for stuff that people have randomly bought, probably is.
It 'feels' annoying because totally random ads don't jump out at you, while the targeted ads do - you notice them.
Ironically, it's the very fact that you notice them gives hints as to why they are powerful.
- ratww 6y agoI think the point is that there is a middle ground between showing completely random ads and showing what someone already bought. If I bought a vaccum maybe I want vacuum accessories, or vacuum bags (if it's not a reusable), or maybe I want more appliances for the house, and so on.
- jariel 6y agoYes, but the 'accessories' is actually not a 'middle ground' - that's actually very advanced thing to do. We may get there. The 'middle ground' is literally 'bought vacuum -> show vacuum' - and it works. People are emotional about this stuff and aren't thinking about it in terms of behaviour, response etc.. Some things are negative, toxic, this one is just innocuous: you only notice the vacuum ad because you bought one. Otherwise, it would be a completely random ad for something you truly don't care about and you wouldn't notice it. It's actually technically more efficient to show you stuff 'you might want to buy' than stuff you 'don't even care about a tiny bit'. Edit: I should add - you see ads for generic products all day long - in fact probably the least value-creating ads are those for really well established brands. Crest toothpaste, laundry detergent etc it has not improved materially in decades (small things maybe) and yet they spend billions on packaging, positioning, huge ads etc.. And yet for some reason it doesn't quite bother us.