7 ms·

Tangentially related but getting on my nerves a lot recently: Ad targeting for stuff that I've just bought. Worst offender: Remarkable - really good product, l

Tangentially related but getting on my nerves a lot recently: Ad targeting for stuff that I've just bought. Worst offender: Remarkable - really good product, love mine, but I'm still seeing their ads everywhere. I'm not going to buy a second one. It's almost confidence-inspiring. Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right?

dazc 5y ago
Ironically, I didn't know what 'Remarkable' was so had to search for it.
- new_guy 5y ago
  Strangely enough I only heard about them the other day, and now I'm constantly getting ads for them on FB and seeing them mentioned everywhere.
kgwxd 5y ago
They just got you to advertise for them.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  hehe, true. I'm OK with that for this case.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  At least is not targeted with user data.
marcinzm 5y ago
>I'm not going to buy a second one. I suspect the % of people who buy a second one for themselves, their spouse, kids, friends, etc. (or recommend someone else to buy one) is higher than the % of other people who buy one for the first time. Neither number is large but as long as the former one is slightly larger it makes sense to pay money for that advertising.
- danShumway 5y ago
  I strongly suspect you're correct, but I still think it's terrible targeting. The "sell to people who already bought one" approach is only better when compared against awful targeting techniques. And it kind of misses the point anyway. For a niche product, a market that already knows about you is pretty much always going to be more likely to buy from you than a market that has never heard of you. But part of the job of an advertiser is to expand the market that has heard of you, not just wallow in it. Think of it this way: if I'm building a video recommendation system, I guarantee I can get much better click rates over random recommendations if instead I recommend you random videos only from your watch history. Heck, honestly I can probably boost click rates over almost any existing recommendation system by taking that system and filtering it so it only shows suggestions from channels in your watch history. People are repetitive. But is that system good? Is it innovative or useful for a recommendation be constantly asking you to re-watch videos from your history? Is that actually fulfilling any of the promises that the recommendation system was sold on? No, not really. I definitely wouldn't call that a 'smart' system. And if I had a company that had invested years of research into building an ad targeting system, and the result was just "sometimes people repeat themselves" -- that seems like a ton of wasted effort in order to get a pretty underwhelming result. Targeted ads are sold to consumers as an unobtrusive way to learn about new products (whether that's an honest representation of the system is a separate question). So targeting of this nature is still a pretty big failure, even if it does increase clicks.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    >But part of the job of an advertiser is to expand the market that has heard of you, not just wallow in it. Why do you assume so strongly that they're not doing both. Advertising isn't a zero sum game or something you can only do a limited quantity of. You advertise on all channels that bring you a positive ROI. The ROI is based on the cost of advertising, effort of advertising (ie: $ spent on human labor) and the generated profit from advertising. Assuming that number is positive you should advertise with that channel on top of everything else you do.
    - danShumway 5y ago
ajb 5y ago
3% is a good conversion rate for a selling page. So 97%+ of people who looked at the buying page were interested but didn't buy. Getting those people to come back is a major target and most companies don't care about the 3% loss in re-targeting those who actually bought. So re-advertising to people who already bought is not evidence that they aren't "evil-overlord". Evil overlords only care about what benefits them.
larrik 5y ago
This was explicitly covered in the article, actually.
xenonite 5y ago
On the contrary: Actually I guess they get it absolutely right. This way, they address buyer's remorse. To ensure you really like the product and spread the word, don't return it, and ensure that after few years time you do buy the followup product.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  How is rubbing the decision in someone's face with retargeted ads a way to address buyer's remorse?
nerdponx 5y ago
Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? The problem is not that the data is being used for ads, but that it exists at all. Google isn't what makes it scary that Google collects data. The scary part is hackers, state governments, and malicious authorized Google personnel.
ashtonkem 5y ago
I get the same thing, but for the engagement ring I bought my (now) wife. I feel like this signals one of two things: either the advertisers are incompetent (most likely), or they have very low confidence in my marriage (less likely, but funnier).
- soared 5y ago
  Or if you shop for a ring on two sites, but purchase from one, the other site doesn’t get data about your purchase on the other site. So the site you shopped at but didn’t buy from doesn’t know you made a purchase.
- CodesInChaos 5y ago
  You should buy another diamond ring at every 10 year anniversary, to show that you still love her. -- This comment was totally not sponsored by De Beers
  - handrous 5y ago
    The idea that you should upgrade your "wedding set" periodically is, in fact, fairly common. Which is pretty sharply at-odds with diamonds being forever, but then none of this makes much sense to me, so what do I know.
    - CodesInChaos 5y ago
      Diamonds being forever only means that you shouldn't sell yours. Can't have a flourishing market for used diamonds if we want to sell many overpriced new ones, can we?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    https://mattguzzardo23.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/debeers.jpg https://mattguzzardo23.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/debeers.j... Checkerboard Nightmare seems to have vanished off the face of the internet, despite the author maintaining an active presence, but this gem lives on in random corners.
andy_ppp 5y ago
You’re forgetting the incentives here, of course it’s in the ad companies interest to keep showing you ads even if they can discern a signal that you’ve probably already made the purchase…
jklinger410 5y ago
I always exclude purchasers from my ads, but ironically, privacy protections make this harder to do.
nemo1618 5y ago
> It's almost confidence-inspiring. Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? In the same vein, consider that ad agencies have spent millions of man-hours and many billions of dollars essentially trying to control your brain, and this (the status quo) is the best they've come up with. All of that effort, and they can't even get me to buy a 12-pack of Coke when I shop for groceries, even though I like Coke!
- zo1 5y ago
  Meta-take on it: Maybe you as the consumer aren't their target. Maybe it's the businesses that they've successfully "tricked" into thinking that advertising works. For that to work, they need lots of "metrics", "knobs and dials", graphs, "conversion funnels" and a myriad of other doo-dads that can be used to give the impression that they're doing something useful. Hence the focus on tracking, I'd argue.
053227420 5y ago
> Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? Imagine living with schizophrenia in this era. It's a nightmare. You're primed to see connections (and threats), even when there is no plausible mechanism to create the connection. In earlier years you could reason yourself out of it by saying "that is not technologically possible" or "that is not cost effective". Nowadays you can end up with insane ideas like, "my forum posts are being de-anonymized via stylometry and someone is broadcasting threatening messages using language that mirrors my recent post." It's insane and unrealistic, but technologically possible. That makes it harder for a schizophrenic to dismiss. When websites adapt to your behavior, it just gets worse. A/B testing isn't just annoying, it feels threatening. That's why HN is great. Using anonymizing tools is one way to cope. It helps you avoid feeling "targeted".
- lmkg 5y ago
  While the trope is "relevant XKCD," sometimes SMBC is the webcomic with the on-point reference. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/right https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/right
- bilekas 5y ago
  This seems quite intense and you've described it really well.. I wonder does the current online climate nurture schizophrenia a bit more than would naturally.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > "my forum posts are being de-anonymized via stylometry and someone is broadcasting threatening messages using language that mirrors my recent post I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually happened to someone, given how intense forum wars and stalkers can get. Especially if it's a group targeting an individual. There is however the effect that people who leap straight to extraordinary claims for which they get publicity are almost certainly wrong, while the stalking victim to which this stuff has actually happened cannot get anyone to listen.
  - 053227420 5y ago
    > while the stalking victim to which this stuff has actually happened cannot get anyone to listen. Which creates a rare and dangerous situation where a high functioning schizophrenic (someone who has developed coping mechanisms, such as reality testing) will actively dismiss the warning signs of stalking. Possibly for years. As will the people in the schizophrenic's support system, people accustomed to helping them through paranoia. I have no doubt this has occurred in the past. Tech puts concentrations of neuro-atypical people in close proximity to groups of ruthless status seekers (who I suppose are more likely to participate in the group activities you mention). The long term consequences must be absolutely devastating.
Jenk 5y ago
BMW (or maybe a design/ad agency at their behest I think) once said that the BMW car adverts are not for people who don't yet own a BMW, they are to reassure the people who have just bought a BMW that they have made the right choice. In reality I suspect there is a whole spectrum of audience coverage in the results from those who don't have one and never thought about getting one before seeing the ad, to encouraging existing owners to promote the brand to others, but I thought it was a poignant point at the time.
dheera 5y ago
> Ad targeting for stuff that I've just bought. Worst offender: Remarkable In all honesty Remarkable isn't at fault for your ad targeting, Google and Facebook are. If you stop buying Remarkable and start buying farm fresh produce online you'll start getting ads for local produce.
- singlow 5y ago
  No - Remarkable has a lot of control over how Google and Facebook target you. Maybe they could offer better tools, but those tools already let Remarkable remove you from audience lists after purchase, if they chose to do so.
  - dheera 5y ago
    I mean, to be fair, maybe they aren't using those tools to remove you individually and that's a good thing. FWIW I get tons of Remarkable ads as well and I don't own a Remarkable, so it just means they're NOT differentiating between you and me. If they did differentiate on the basis that you have a Remarkable then that is a step in the direction of violating privacy.
    - singlow 5y ago
      I don't really know what Remarkable is. I might google them now just to find out. I don't think I am on their audience list yet, because I haven't seen many ads. But if they ever add me to an audience list based on some action I take online, I would not view it as more/less egregious for them to then remove me after I am a customer. In fact, if I were to voluntarily associate myself as a customer, I would expect a more customized experience, depending on the nature of their product, whatever it is.
      - singlow 5y ago
        I googled (incognito) and see that I do remember them now. Surprised I am not in their audience list as I have read several articles about them and gone to their website a few times, in addition to having researched similar products.
reaperducer 5y ago
Not the same, but equally stupid: Amazon asking me to subscribe to every single thing I put in my cart. No, Amazon, nobody needs another bird feeder every month. We're not feeding pterodactyls.
WalterBright 5y ago
> get this basic stuff right? I bought the cheaper Kindle with the ads enabled. They were supposed to be targeted ads, but were usually for feminine hygiene products. I have no idea how any reasonable targeting algorithm would have decided to pitch that stuff to me. I also enabled for a time context sensitive Amazon ads on my programming web site. What did I get? Endless ads for the Batman movie. Google would do slightly better, they'd show the same ad for a C++ training course over and over and over and over. I abandoned both of them. I also have a site on the American Revolution. Google's context sensitive ads showed ads for travel agencies. Context sensitive ads are so pathetically bad. I can't recall ever seeing one that I even wanted to click on, let alone buy. There is a simple fix, that nobody does. Allow me, the website designer, to list the categories for the ads. I know my audience far better than Google/Amazon, why don't they allow a little human guidance? Geez, maybe I should patent this idea.
willis936 5y ago
>how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? The same style of speculation works the other way too. If the advertisee thinks the advertiser is incompetent then they will lower their guard and be more influenced by ads. Perhaps they are maximum evil-overlord and projecting incompetence is a minimum-energy state.
wintermutestwin 5y ago
>Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? I'd recommend a read of some Kafka to get a picture of how it could turn out...
mbrodersen 5y ago
Agree. I have never seen a “targeted” ad that actually hit bullseye. Showing me random ads would probably be more efficient (hitting 0.1% of the time instead of 0% of the time).
sureglymop 5y ago
Pretty unrelated but.. if you have a remarkable, check out "rmfuse". It lets you mount your remarkable cloud as a folder and access all the documents and so on.

dazc 5y ago

Ironically, I didn't know what 'Remarkable' was so had to search for it.

new_guy 5y ago
Strangely enough I only heard about them the other day, and now I'm constantly getting ads for them on FB and seeing them mentioned everywhere.

kgwxd 5y ago

They just got you to advertise for them.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
hehe, true. I'm OK with that for this case.
marcosdumay 5y ago
At least is not targeted with user data.

marcinzm 5y ago

>I'm not going to buy a second one. I suspect the % of people who buy a second one for themselves, their spouse, kids, friends, etc. (or recommend someone else to buy one) is higher than the % of other people who buy one for the first time. Neither number is large but as long as the former one is slightly larger it makes sense to pay money for that advertising.

danShumway 5y ago
I strongly suspect you're correct, but I still think it's terrible targeting. The "sell to people who already bought one" approach is only better when compared against awful targeting techniques. And it kind of misses the point anyway. For a niche product, a market that already knows about you is pretty much always going to be more likely to buy from you than a market that has never heard of you. But part of the job of an advertiser is to expand the market that has heard of you, not just wallow in it. Think of it this way: if I'm building a video recommendation system, I guarantee I can get much better click rates over random recommendations if instead I recommend you random videos only from your watch history. Heck, honestly I can probably boost click rates over almost any existing recommendation system by taking that system and filtering it so it only shows suggestions from channels in your watch history. People are repetitive. But is that system good? Is it innovative or useful for a recommendation be constantly asking you to re-watch videos from your history? Is that actually fulfilling any of the promises that the recommendation system was sold on? No, not really. I definitely wouldn't call that a 'smart' system. And if I had a company that had invested years of research into building an ad targeting system, and the result was just "sometimes people repeat themselves" -- that seems like a ton of wasted effort in order to get a pretty underwhelming result. Targeted ads are sold to consumers as an unobtrusive way to learn about new products (whether that's an honest representation of the system is a separate question). So targeting of this nature is still a pretty big failure, even if it does increase clicks.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  >But part of the job of an advertiser is to expand the market that has heard of you, not just wallow in it. Why do you assume so strongly that they're not doing both. Advertising isn't a zero sum game or something you can only do a limited quantity of. You advertise on all channels that bring you a positive ROI. The ROI is based on the cost of advertising, effort of advertising (ie: $ spent on human labor) and the generated profit from advertising. Assuming that number is positive you should advertise with that channel on top of everything else you do.
  - danShumway 5y ago

ajb 5y ago

3% is a good conversion rate for a selling page. So 97%+ of people who looked at the buying page were interested but didn't buy. Getting those people to come back is a major target and most companies don't care about the 3% loss in re-targeting those who actually bought. So re-advertising to people who already bought is not evidence that they aren't "evil-overlord". Evil overlords only care about what benefits them.

larrik 5y ago

This was explicitly covered in the article, actually.

xenonite 5y ago

On the contrary: Actually I guess they get it absolutely right. This way, they address buyer's remorse. To ensure you really like the product and spread the word, don't return it, and ensure that after few years time you do buy the followup product.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
How is rubbing the decision in someone's face with retargeted ads a way to address buyer's remorse?

nerdponx 5y ago

Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? The problem is not that the data is being used for ads, but that it exists at all. Google isn't what makes it scary that Google collects data. The scary part is hackers, state governments, and malicious authorized Google personnel.

ashtonkem 5y ago

I get the same thing, but for the engagement ring I bought my (now) wife. I feel like this signals one of two things: either the advertisers are incompetent (most likely), or they have very low confidence in my marriage (less likely, but funnier).

soared 5y ago
Or if you shop for a ring on two sites, but purchase from one, the other site doesn’t get data about your purchase on the other site. So the site you shopped at but didn’t buy from doesn’t know you made a purchase.
CodesInChaos 5y ago
You should buy another diamond ring at every 10 year anniversary, to show that you still love her. -- This comment was totally not sponsored by De Beers
- handrous 5y ago
  The idea that you should upgrade your "wedding set" periodically is, in fact, fairly common. Which is pretty sharply at-odds with diamonds being forever, but then none of this makes much sense to me, so what do I know.
  - CodesInChaos 5y ago
    Diamonds being forever only means that you shouldn't sell yours. Can't have a flourishing market for used diamonds if we want to sell many overpriced new ones, can we?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  https://mattguzzardo23.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/debeers.jpg https://mattguzzardo23.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/debeers.j... Checkerboard Nightmare seems to have vanished off the face of the internet, despite the author maintaining an active presence, but this gem lives on in random corners.

andy_ppp 5y ago

You’re forgetting the incentives here, of course it’s in the ad companies interest to keep showing you ads even if they can discern a signal that you’ve probably already made the purchase…

jklinger410 5y ago

I always exclude purchasers from my ads, but ironically, privacy protections make this harder to do.

nemo1618 5y ago

> It's almost confidence-inspiring. Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? In the same vein, consider that ad agencies have spent millions of man-hours and many billions of dollars essentially trying to control your brain, and this (the status quo) is the best they've come up with. All of that effort, and they can't even get me to buy a 12-pack of Coke when I shop for groceries, even though I like Coke!

zo1 5y ago
Meta-take on it: Maybe you as the consumer aren't their target. Maybe it's the businesses that they've successfully "tricked" into thinking that advertising works. For that to work, they need lots of "metrics", "knobs and dials", graphs, "conversion funnels" and a myriad of other doo-dads that can be used to give the impression that they're doing something useful. Hence the focus on tracking, I'd argue.

053227420 5y ago

> Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? Imagine living with schizophrenia in this era. It's a nightmare. You're primed to see connections (and threats), even when there is no plausible mechanism to create the connection. In earlier years you could reason yourself out of it by saying "that is not technologically possible" or "that is not cost effective". Nowadays you can end up with insane ideas like, "my forum posts are being de-anonymized via stylometry and someone is broadcasting threatening messages using language that mirrors my recent post." It's insane and unrealistic, but technologically possible. That makes it harder for a schizophrenic to dismiss. When websites adapt to your behavior, it just gets worse. A/B testing isn't just annoying, it feels threatening. That's why HN is great. Using anonymizing tools is one way to cope. It helps you avoid feeling "targeted".

lmkg 5y ago
While the trope is "relevant XKCD," sometimes SMBC is the webcomic with the on-point reference. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/right https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/right
bilekas 5y ago
This seems quite intense and you've described it really well.. I wonder does the current online climate nurture schizophrenia a bit more than would naturally.
pjc50 5y ago
> "my forum posts are being de-anonymized via stylometry and someone is broadcasting threatening messages using language that mirrors my recent post I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually happened to someone, given how intense forum wars and stalkers can get. Especially if it's a group targeting an individual. There is however the effect that people who leap straight to extraordinary claims for which they get publicity are almost certainly wrong, while the stalking victim to which this stuff has actually happened cannot get anyone to listen.
- 053227420 5y ago
  > while the stalking victim to which this stuff has actually happened cannot get anyone to listen. Which creates a rare and dangerous situation where a high functioning schizophrenic (someone who has developed coping mechanisms, such as reality testing) will actively dismiss the warning signs of stalking. Possibly for years. As will the people in the schizophrenic's support system, people accustomed to helping them through paranoia. I have no doubt this has occurred in the past. Tech puts concentrations of neuro-atypical people in close proximity to groups of ruthless status seekers (who I suppose are more likely to participate in the group activities you mention). The long term consequences must be absolutely devastating.

Jenk 5y ago

BMW (or maybe a design/ad agency at their behest I think) once said that the BMW car adverts are not for people who don't yet own a BMW, they are to reassure the people who have just bought a BMW that they have made the right choice. In reality I suspect there is a whole spectrum of audience coverage in the results from those who don't have one and never thought about getting one before seeing the ad, to encouraging existing owners to promote the brand to others, but I thought it was a poignant point at the time.

dheera 5y ago

> Ad targeting for stuff that I've just bought. Worst offender: Remarkable In all honesty Remarkable isn't at fault for your ad targeting, Google and Facebook are. If you stop buying Remarkable and start buying farm fresh produce online you'll start getting ads for local produce.

singlow 5y ago
No - Remarkable has a lot of control over how Google and Facebook target you. Maybe they could offer better tools, but those tools already let Remarkable remove you from audience lists after purchase, if they chose to do so.
- dheera 5y ago
  I mean, to be fair, maybe they aren't using those tools to remove you individually and that's a good thing. FWIW I get tons of Remarkable ads as well and I don't own a Remarkable, so it just means they're NOT differentiating between you and me. If they did differentiate on the basis that you have a Remarkable then that is a step in the direction of violating privacy.
  - singlow 5y ago
    I don't really know what Remarkable is. I might google them now just to find out. I don't think I am on their audience list yet, because I haven't seen many ads. But if they ever add me to an audience list based on some action I take online, I would not view it as more/less egregious for them to then remove me after I am a customer. In fact, if I were to voluntarily associate myself as a customer, I would expect a more customized experience, depending on the nature of their product, whatever it is.
    - singlow 5y ago
      I googled (incognito) and see that I do remember them now. Surprised I am not in their audience list as I have read several articles about them and gone to their website a few times, in addition to having researched similar products.

reaperducer 5y ago

Not the same, but equally stupid: Amazon asking me to subscribe to every single thing I put in my cart. No, Amazon, nobody needs another bird feeder every month. We're not feeding pterodactyls.

WalterBright 5y ago

> get this basic stuff right? I bought the cheaper Kindle with the ads enabled. They were supposed to be targeted ads, but were usually for feminine hygiene products. I have no idea how any reasonable targeting algorithm would have decided to pitch that stuff to me. I also enabled for a time context sensitive Amazon ads on my programming web site. What did I get? Endless ads for the Batman movie. Google would do slightly better, they'd show the same ad for a C++ training course over and over and over and over. I abandoned both of them. I also have a site on the American Revolution. Google's context sensitive ads showed ads for travel agencies. Context sensitive ads are so pathetically bad. I can't recall ever seeing one that I even wanted to click on, let alone buy. There is a simple fix, that nobody does. Allow me, the website designer, to list the categories for the ads. I know my audience far better than Google/Amazon, why don't they allow a little human guidance? Geez, maybe I should patent this idea.

willis936 5y ago

>how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? The same style of speculation works the other way too. If the advertisee thinks the advertiser is incompetent then they will lower their guard and be more influenced by ads. Perhaps they are maximum evil-overlord and projecting incompetence is a minimum-energy state.

wintermutestwin 5y ago

>Like how evil-overlord can this be if they can't even get this basic stuff right? I'd recommend a read of some Kafka to get a picture of how it could turn out...

mbrodersen 5y ago

Agree. I have never seen a “targeted” ad that actually hit bullseye. Showing me random ads would probably be more efficient (hitting 0.1% of the time instead of 0% of the time).

sureglymop 5y ago

Pretty unrelated but.. if you have a remarkable, check out "rmfuse". It lets you mount your remarkable cloud as a folder and access all the documents and so on.