4 ms·

What is the price differential between contextual ads (you searched for "running shoe" have a nike advert) and personalised ads (you are Paul, we know you have

What is the price differential between contextual ads (you searched for "running shoe" have a nike advert) and personalised ads (you are Paul, we know you have a heart condition and low income and are going through a divorce - have an ad for this dating site while you search for running shoes) Duck Duck Go clearly think there is profit in contextual ads - and I would love to find out if there is any hard evidence out there either way? (other than the obvious Google and FB do personalised because it is more profitable. I know that and at FB scale a 1% profit improvement is worthwhile pursuit - but from society's POV that 1% diff may as well be irrelevant- it won't improve the mom and pop store bottom line enough for the damage it does.

zpeti 6y ago
This is the million (or trillion) dollar question. I doubt its 1%. In fact I think its more like 2-3-4x revenue from personalised ads. Just a hunch. (side question - how do you do context ads for FB news feed? Because I can see it working well for youtube, if you know the topic of the video. Or google search, where you know the search. But I don't see how you can't NOT use personal ads in a newsfeed, whether on FB or twitter. There is no real context in a stream of random information)
- messutied 6y ago
  Can't you just use the context of the information? like put a technology related Ad right below a post related to technology, granted is not nearly as relevant, I think that's kind of like what Reddit does.
- jon-wood 6y ago
  I feel like whether particular data can be used for targeting should come down to whether there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the context of a Facebook news feed it seems reasonable to me that Facebook should have data on which news sources or groups I'm following, and so it's entirely reasonable for them to use that data for ad targeting. I don't feel like it's reasonable to expect that Facebook should have access to the history of all the websites I've visited, and data on the content of those websites, so it doesn't seem reasonable that they should be using that data to target ads at me. Similarly for Google, targeting ads based on things I've searched for on Google is entirely reasonable. Targeting them based on the fact Google Maps has picked up a BLE beacon saying I was in a particular shop seems a lot less reasonable - Google frankly have no business knowing that I was in that shop, especially given there's unlikely to be any signs up notifying me that my visit to that store is being tracked. I guess my underlying issue isn't in companies doing personalised ad targeting, its in the massive pools of seemingly unrelated data they're collecting to do that targeting. I've been immersed in the world of technology and aware of privacy issues around it for decades, and even I'm surprised by some of the things that are being correlated for the sake of a 0.25% increase in conversion rate. The average person doesn't have a hope of keeping track of what's being done, and changes like bringing that data collection front and centre when installed apps is a really positive move.
dannyw 6y ago
Safari visitors are 30% cheaper to advertise to than Chrome visitors. Make what you will.
- dismalpedigree 6y ago
  Because Chrome users are more likely to be duped into spending money?
  - kingo55 6y ago
    Because Safari users don't have ads personalised to them. I.e. cheaper, less relevant, less likely to convert.
  - legolas2412 6y ago
    Uhh, given that safari users are using apple devices, I'm going to argue the opposite, that safari users are more likely to spend money.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  oh - where did you get that from please?
ogre_codes 6y ago
> (you are Paul, we know you have a heart condition and low income and are going through a divorce - have an ad for this dating site while you search for running shoes) IMO this is fundamentally what's wrong with the entire concept of personalized advertising. Fundamentally the system is advertised as being designed to show you relevant advertising. The reality is the system is designed to allow advertisers super-precise targets to send their advertising to. You don't get advertising relevant to you. You get advertising from the people most interested in targeting you. This is often not what you want to see and is often not in your best interest.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  Agreed. Which is also why I would love to know the cost to "society" if we ban it? How much more are advertisers prepared to pay for effectively choosing which people to show ads to versus having to run a marketing campaign that then causes me to search or seek out their goods. I can see it either way - perhaps having vast costly adverts / PR pieces is ruining the media landscape - I mean how many column inches cover films, Tesla vs GM. Would we be better off as a society if we paid for journalism and just accepted there would be a banner ad at the top that only middle aged men with bad backs like me see?

zpeti 6y ago

This is the million (or trillion) dollar question. I doubt its 1%. In fact I think its more like 2-3-4x revenue from personalised ads. Just a hunch. (side question - how do you do context ads for FB news feed? Because I can see it working well for youtube, if you know the topic of the video. Or google search, where you know the search. But I don't see how you can't NOT use personal ads in a newsfeed, whether on FB or twitter. There is no real context in a stream of random information)

messutied 6y ago
Can't you just use the context of the information? like put a technology related Ad right below a post related to technology, granted is not nearly as relevant, I think that's kind of like what Reddit does.
jon-wood 6y ago
I feel like whether particular data can be used for targeting should come down to whether there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the context of a Facebook news feed it seems reasonable to me that Facebook should have data on which news sources or groups I'm following, and so it's entirely reasonable for them to use that data for ad targeting. I don't feel like it's reasonable to expect that Facebook should have access to the history of all the websites I've visited, and data on the content of those websites, so it doesn't seem reasonable that they should be using that data to target ads at me. Similarly for Google, targeting ads based on things I've searched for on Google is entirely reasonable. Targeting them based on the fact Google Maps has picked up a BLE beacon saying I was in a particular shop seems a lot less reasonable - Google frankly have no business knowing that I was in that shop, especially given there's unlikely to be any signs up notifying me that my visit to that store is being tracked. I guess my underlying issue isn't in companies doing personalised ad targeting, its in the massive pools of seemingly unrelated data they're collecting to do that targeting. I've been immersed in the world of technology and aware of privacy issues around it for decades, and even I'm surprised by some of the things that are being correlated for the sake of a 0.25% increase in conversion rate. The average person doesn't have a hope of keeping track of what's being done, and changes like bringing that data collection front and centre when installed apps is a really positive move.

dannyw 6y ago

Safari visitors are 30% cheaper to advertise to than Chrome visitors. Make what you will.

dismalpedigree 6y ago
Because Chrome users are more likely to be duped into spending money?
- kingo55 6y ago
  Because Safari users don't have ads personalised to them. I.e. cheaper, less relevant, less likely to convert.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  Uhh, given that safari users are using apple devices, I'm going to argue the opposite, that safari users are more likely to spend money.
lifeisstillgood 6y ago
oh - where did you get that from please?

ogre_codes 6y ago

> (you are Paul, we know you have a heart condition and low income and are going through a divorce - have an ad for this dating site while you search for running shoes) IMO this is fundamentally what's wrong with the entire concept of personalized advertising. Fundamentally the system is advertised as being designed to show you relevant advertising. The reality is the system is designed to allow advertisers super-precise targets to send their advertising to. You don't get advertising relevant to you. You get advertising from the people most interested in targeting you. This is often not what you want to see and is often not in your best interest.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago
Agreed. Which is also why I would love to know the cost to "society" if we ban it? How much more are advertisers prepared to pay for effectively choosing which people to show ads to versus having to run a marketing campaign that then causes me to search or seek out their goods. I can see it either way - perhaps having vast costly adverts / PR pieces is ruining the media landscape - I mean how many column inches cover films, Tesla vs GM. Would we be better off as a society if we paid for journalism and just accepted there would be a banner ad at the top that only middle aged men with bad backs like me see?