3 ms·
Is there any research how much benefit "hyper targeting" actually gives? Not just "it helps" but quantitatively (e.g. more effect than 30 just mildly target add
by diffeomorphism 6y ago
Is there any research how much benefit "hyper targeting" actually gives? Not just "it helps" but quantitatively (e.g. more effect than 30 just mildly target adds? Or just more effect than 2?)
In particular, how does it compare to somewhat targeted offline ads like (local shop advertising in local newspaper) or (car stuff advertised in car enthusiast magazine)?
Also, the question is about having a level playing field. If your competition has access to highly effective advertising, you can't afford to not use it as well. So right now you need it.
However, if hyper targeting were forbidden (because the spying and stalking is prohibited by law or because browsers make it infeasible) then you don't need it.
- treeman79 6y agoIt’s really hard to prove as sales channels are messy. Done right, it’s worth a lot.
- diffeomorphism 6y agoSome vague numbers from facebook: > https://twitter.com/DaveStangis/status/1339183289349918721 https://twitter.com/DaveStangis/status/1339183289349918721 "cut of 60% per advertising dollar." So between 2 and 3. That is incredibly little for all the surveillance it brings with it. And I don't think fb would understate here. If "hyper targeting" is that useless, why are even still discussing allowing it?