3 ms·

> User data will not be used to target ads. I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. And they generate

> User data will not be used to target ads. I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. And they generate more revenue so they would need fewer ads. I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them? By tossing out personalized ads we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And there are so many truly nasty things going on on the Internet, how has killing personalized ads become one of the defining battles of our times? Heck, even just looking at my ISP the list of nasty things they are doing without much push back or notice is scary.

eptcyka 6y ago
Most of the nasty things around the internet can be traced back to personalized ads.
- tomComb 6y ago
  But again you are conflating the irresponsible handling of my personal data - eg. my ISP collects and sells my personal data without my authorization - with personalized ads. There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore more) ads, versus, say, stopping my ISP from its obviously irresponsible practices?
  - eptcyka 6y ago
    Both of Apple and Google are leaking my data into prism. I don't care about ad personalization as much as I hate tracking. These are related, but not one and the same. I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story about adwords.
    - tomComb 6y ago
      Not sure I follow you. Tons of companies make money from digital advertising - most from ad networks (it's pretty hard for a startup to run their own). Much as most consumer startups would like to abandon advertising and just charge for their product/service, it is extremely hard to get people to pay for things.
    - mvzvm 6y ago
      And why are you against PRISM?
cwhiz 6y ago
>I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them? If it were so obvious that targeted ads increase revenue, you’d think that the advertising industry would be able to prove it. They can’t.
- nomel 6y ago
  I find this unlikely. If I had a random sampling of ads shown to me, 50% would be for women, and the majority wouldn't even be in English. I definitely exist in some relatively small demographic, where the majority of any non targeted scatter shot would be annoying noise.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    You're mixing up relevance and efficacy. Just because an ad is relevant doesn’t mean you’re more likely to buy. And it’s that second part, efficacy, that the ad industry can’t prove. To you, it’s obviously superior. But if it were obviously generating more revenue, the ad industry would easily be able to prove it. They can’t. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/
    - nomel 6y ago
      > doesn’t mean you’re more likely to buy. I know the chances goes to 0% if it's for authentic, period correct, women's laderhozen. If it's a book about data science, then there's a good chance I'll click through. Of course, this is all anecdotal, especially since I always had ad block on back in the days before targeted ads, and have never really been subjected to ads that's weren't somehow related to me or the immediate context. If you've ever been around a child, you know how much targeted ads can work. They want the toys that they see. Showing them ads of Bentleys won't result in any sales. I would recommend talking to someone that does A/B testing.
ComodoHacker 6y ago
>I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. Can you name an ad company you personally would trust?

eptcyka 6y ago

Most of the nasty things around the internet can be traced back to personalized ads.

tomComb 6y ago
But again you are conflating the irresponsible handling of my personal data - eg. my ISP collects and sells my personal data without my authorization - with personalized ads. There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore more) ads, versus, say, stopping my ISP from its obviously irresponsible practices?
- eptcyka 6y ago
  Both of Apple and Google are leaking my data into prism. I don't care about ad personalization as much as I hate tracking. These are related, but not one and the same. I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story about adwords.
  - tomComb 6y ago
    Not sure I follow you. Tons of companies make money from digital advertising - most from ad networks (it's pretty hard for a startup to run their own). Much as most consumer startups would like to abandon advertising and just charge for their product/service, it is extremely hard to get people to pay for things.
  - mvzvm 6y ago
    And why are you against PRISM?

cwhiz 6y ago

>I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them? If it were so obvious that targeted ads increase revenue, you’d think that the advertising industry would be able to prove it. They can’t.

nomel 6y ago
I find this unlikely. If I had a random sampling of ads shown to me, 50% would be for women, and the majority wouldn't even be in English. I definitely exist in some relatively small demographic, where the majority of any non targeted scatter shot would be annoying noise.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  You're mixing up relevance and efficacy. Just because an ad is relevant doesn’t mean you’re more likely to buy. And it’s that second part, efficacy, that the ad industry can’t prove. To you, it’s obviously superior. But if it were obviously generating more revenue, the ad industry would easily be able to prove it. They can’t. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/
  - nomel 6y ago
    > doesn’t mean you’re more likely to buy. I know the chances goes to 0% if it's for authentic, period correct, women's laderhozen. If it's a book about data science, then there's a good chance I'll click through. Of course, this is all anecdotal, especially since I always had ad block on back in the days before targeted ads, and have never really been subjected to ads that's weren't somehow related to me or the immediate context. If you've ever been around a child, you know how much targeted ads can work. They want the toys that they see. Showing them ads of Bentleys won't result in any sales. I would recommend talking to someone that does A/B testing.

ComodoHacker 6y ago

>I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. Can you name an ad company you personally would trust?