3 ms·

>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

• 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.