4 ms·

Contextual ads don’t need cookies. The sooner publishers realize that, the better for them.

AznHisoka 6y ago
If I'm reading an article about the pandemic, I probably don't want to see ads selling me face masks. If I'm reading an article about the inauguration, I probably don't want ads selling me inauguration t-shirts. I am however more likely to click on ads selling me home renovation stuff because they know I've recently bought something in Home Depot. Even though I'm not currently on a home renovation website.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  I have never clicked on an ad and bought something.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Neither did anyone watching an ad on television, it's not just about click-through rate.
  - AznHisoka 6y ago
    Ok you are extrapolating your experience to millions of others in the world. Nothing wrong with that but it isn’t going to give you universal insights since you’re a special case.
    - cratermoon 6y ago
      Almost nobody clicks on an ad and buys something based on that. Conversion is a pipe dream, and ad rates are never based on actual click-throughs.
- thaeli 6y ago
  The most effective ads on me, in terms of intentional click through rate (not going to count predatory clicks) are contextual ads on specialized sites. This doesn't work well for general stuff like news sites, but webcomics that do their own ads, or a super focused forum like candlepower or head-fi? Contextual ads are ideal there. Second most effective are platform-specicic hypertargeted ads, such as Facebook ads. Lot of misses there too, but their first party targeting is good to the point of actually giving me some interesting content. In practice the third party "contextual" ads mostly are misses for me. Wow, another ad for the home improvement thing I either researched and bought last month, or that I was looking up on a whim and don't have any intention of actually purchasing.
- mcbits 6y ago
  Maybe some articles just shouldn't have ads at all. That would be refreshing. Sites publishing ad-supported content obviously need to put the ads somewhere, but that doesn't mean every single article needs its own revenue stream to justify its existence.
  - AznHisoka 6y ago
    I agree - that’s a whole separate argument though. If the argument is contextual vs personalized, personalized wins imo
- ubercow13 6y ago
  You've just given two bad examples, contrasted with one good example, to prove your point. Pick a good example of a contextual ad and a bad example of a personalised ad (there are many) and the proof is reversed.
  - AznHisoka 6y ago
    Except that my example is more the more popular scenario. Pageviews of general news site surpass pageviews of niche websites about a specific topic. Just go look at the top visited websites.
    - ubercow13 6y ago
      Right but your example is still intentionally bad, no one is going to put an inaugration t-shirt ad as the contextual ad for a news article. An ad on a general news site can be related to the preferences of the readership of that paper, like how it always worked in print. Or it can even be targeted based on information about you that is gathered first-party, from the patterns in your use of the news website.
      - AznHisoka 6y ago
        I totally agree. But that probably won’t involve programmatic/traditional advertising. It will probably involve first party ads. Which I am definitely in favor of!
cblconfederate 6y ago
They do. You can turn off personalized ads in adsense, but it still requires cookie consent
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  There is nothing your client can do (other than blocking ads entirely) that would stop a company from serving you car ads on a car site - that's contextual ads. Personalized ads are the opposite - you're browsing a fashion site, but you'll get car commercials because you've been visiting car commercials lately.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    > (other than blocking ads entirely) Easily avoidable in such case. You just need to do two things: 1. Serve them from your own domain where the URL pattern isn't obvious (so not something like example.com/ads/ad1). 2. Randomise HTML elements (div names, classes, a random amount of empty divs in between). Voila, ad-blocks are useless now.
    - userbinator 6y ago
      Randomise HTML elements (div names, classes, a random amount of empty divs in between). That can be countered by adaptive element-matching algorithms. Just like with cracking software, it's a cat-and-mouse game, and there are far more mice out there... mice who are willing to work completely for free just to fight back against you.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  That’s an implementation issue. There’s no technical reason why a non-targeted ad needs tracking other than Google still trying to stalk people.
soared 6y ago
Targeting is a piece of the puzzle. As an advertiser I need frequency capping, brand safety, page quality, geo, etc. Ignoring all that.. I still need to measure results.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Yet somehow advertising existed for decades without being able to completely track the full path from viewed ad to purchase. Seriously, the completely f'd up view of advertisers ("Ads won't work unless I can basically track everything about you!!") shows how bonkers the world has become. If your job can't exist without in-depth tracking of how a shown ad influences purchasing behavior, maybe your job shouldn't exist. Seriously, ads would work plenty well enough by just showing the same ads to all users based on the contents of the page (or search query). Honestly, I'd be all for a legal framework that completely outlaws any "personalization" on the internet unless a user clearly and optionally opts in.
  - soared 6y ago
    I mean.. so did medicine, buying stuff from the store, and social interaction. That doesn’t mean we stopped innovation when it went slightly awry. Medicine works well enough with leeches, why would improve that. There is a path to achieving similar adtech outcomes that are privacy focused, and that is what google is trying to accomplish. Why hate something that is trying to achieve what you want?
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      Lol, "innovation". How about this: Every user, when setting up a new device, gets a clearly displayed option as to whether or not they want to be shown personalized ads based on the tracking of their browser history. Basically, a clearly displayed "Yes, I want to be tracked for the purposes of showing me ads" option. How many people do you think with want to opt in if they really had the choice? Heck, why do you think Facebook is going so bananas over Apple just asking people to opt-in to tracking? The only 'innovation' going on is making the tracking difficult for your average, non-technical person to (a) know what is going on and (b) how to opt-out.

If I'm reading an article about the pandemic, I probably don't want to see ads selling me face masks. If I'm reading an article about the inauguration, I probably don't want ads selling me inauguration t-shirts. I am however more likely to click on ads selling me home renovation stuff because they know I've recently bought something in Home Depot. Even though I'm not currently on a home renovation website.

dkdk8283 6y ago
I have never clicked on an ad and bought something.
- tux1968 6y ago
  Neither did anyone watching an ad on television, it's not just about click-through rate.
- AznHisoka 6y ago
  Ok you are extrapolating your experience to millions of others in the world. Nothing wrong with that but it isn’t going to give you universal insights since you’re a special case.
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    Almost nobody clicks on an ad and buys something based on that. Conversion is a pipe dream, and ad rates are never based on actual click-throughs.
thaeli 6y ago
The most effective ads on me, in terms of intentional click through rate (not going to count predatory clicks) are contextual ads on specialized sites. This doesn't work well for general stuff like news sites, but webcomics that do their own ads, or a super focused forum like candlepower or head-fi? Contextual ads are ideal there. Second most effective are platform-specicic hypertargeted ads, such as Facebook ads. Lot of misses there too, but their first party targeting is good to the point of actually giving me some interesting content. In practice the third party "contextual" ads mostly are misses for me. Wow, another ad for the home improvement thing I either researched and bought last month, or that I was looking up on a whim and don't have any intention of actually purchasing.
mcbits 6y ago
Maybe some articles just shouldn't have ads at all. That would be refreshing. Sites publishing ad-supported content obviously need to put the ads somewhere, but that doesn't mean every single article needs its own revenue stream to justify its existence.
- AznHisoka 6y ago
  I agree - that’s a whole separate argument though. If the argument is contextual vs personalized, personalized wins imo
ubercow13 6y ago
You've just given two bad examples, contrasted with one good example, to prove your point. Pick a good example of a contextual ad and a bad example of a personalised ad (there are many) and the proof is reversed.
- AznHisoka 6y ago
  Except that my example is more the more popular scenario. Pageviews of general news site surpass pageviews of niche websites about a specific topic. Just go look at the top visited websites.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    Right but your example is still intentionally bad, no one is going to put an inaugration t-shirt ad as the contextual ad for a news article. An ad on a general news site can be related to the preferences of the readership of that paper, like how it always worked in print. Or it can even be targeted based on information about you that is gathered first-party, from the patterns in your use of the news website.
    - AznHisoka 6y ago
      I totally agree. But that probably won’t involve programmatic/traditional advertising. It will probably involve first party ads. Which I am definitely in favor of!

cblconfederate 6y ago

They do. You can turn off personalized ads in adsense, but it still requires cookie consent

tsimionescu 6y ago
There is nothing your client can do (other than blocking ads entirely) that would stop a company from serving you car ads on a car site - that's contextual ads. Personalized ads are the opposite - you're browsing a fashion site, but you'll get car commercials because you've been visiting car commercials lately.
- input_sh 6y ago
  > (other than blocking ads entirely) Easily avoidable in such case. You just need to do two things: 1. Serve them from your own domain where the URL pattern isn't obvious (so not something like example.com/ads/ad1). 2. Randomise HTML elements (div names, classes, a random amount of empty divs in between). Voila, ad-blocks are useless now.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    Randomise HTML elements (div names, classes, a random amount of empty divs in between). That can be countered by adaptive element-matching algorithms. Just like with cracking software, it's a cat-and-mouse game, and there are far more mice out there... mice who are willing to work completely for free just to fight back against you.
Nextgrid 6y ago
That’s an implementation issue. There’s no technical reason why a non-targeted ad needs tracking other than Google still trying to stalk people.

soared 6y ago

Targeting is a piece of the puzzle. As an advertiser I need frequency capping, brand safety, page quality, geo, etc. Ignoring all that.. I still need to measure results.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Yet somehow advertising existed for decades without being able to completely track the full path from viewed ad to purchase. Seriously, the completely f'd up view of advertisers ("Ads won't work unless I can basically track everything about you!!") shows how bonkers the world has become. If your job can't exist without in-depth tracking of how a shown ad influences purchasing behavior, maybe your job shouldn't exist. Seriously, ads would work plenty well enough by just showing the same ads to all users based on the contents of the page (or search query). Honestly, I'd be all for a legal framework that completely outlaws any "personalization" on the internet unless a user clearly and optionally opts in.
- soared 6y ago
  I mean.. so did medicine, buying stuff from the store, and social interaction. That doesn’t mean we stopped innovation when it went slightly awry. Medicine works well enough with leeches, why would improve that. There is a path to achieving similar adtech outcomes that are privacy focused, and that is what google is trying to accomplish. Why hate something that is trying to achieve what you want?
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Lol, "innovation". How about this: Every user, when setting up a new device, gets a clearly displayed option as to whether or not they want to be shown personalized ads based on the tracking of their browser history. Basically, a clearly displayed "Yes, I want to be tracked for the purposes of showing me ads" option. How many people do you think with want to opt in if they really had the choice? Heck, why do you think Facebook is going so bananas over Apple just asking people to opt-in to tracking? The only 'innovation' going on is making the tracking difficult for your average, non-technical person to (a) know what is going on and (b) how to opt-out.