4 ms·

Subprime Attention Crisis

35 points by kome 5y ago

vanderZwan 5y ago
This is a page for ordering a book. The summary suggests it is an interesting book, but does not in and of itself reveal any new insights. Can anyone here comment on the actual contents of the book?
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  I thought it was a bit meandering and never really delivered an "aha!" moment, but it does have a few key points which were interesting to read about: * The author asserts substantial portions of internet ad sales are fraudulent. Some ads are never displayed, some are displayed to click-farms, etc. * The author asserts that, over time, the effectiveness of online advertising is decreasing significantly. People use blockers, learn to scroll past them, etc. * The author asserts that the qualities that makes online advertising attractive, attribution and transparency, are false premises and that the market is exceedingly opaque and orgs like Google want to keep it that way. * The author asserts that much of the internet advertising market was built by finance experts from big banks that brought much of the advances of the stock market to the industry, but many of the problems as well. The author takes those assertions and suggests that online advertising is not as valuable as we currently believe it to be (and its value may be approaching $0), and that companies which make money off our attention are ticking time bombs. He compares the situation to the subprime housing crisis across a couple of different area, particularly the illusion of having a transparent and trustworthy market and suggests that it could completely wipe out the current model for internet economics as we know it. While I think the author makes too big of a leap, it was one of the first books that made me consider the probability that the existing internet economy may have cracks in it just like any other economy and it is certainly possible there's a domino waiting to fall somewhere.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > The author takes those assertions and suggests that online advertising is not as valuable as we currently believe it to be (and its value may be approaching $0), This is probably true for ad-networks (pure ad arbitrage) but keywords (Colleges), sponsored products like AMZ/Walmart, and other verticals will always have a market value because the returns are decisively measurable.
  - weq 5y ago
    We are in an age of FOMO. In the crypto world, FOMO is a reason to invest in a coin or nft. Advertisers are getting the same thing they always did, the same people, just in different ways. Advertising in this form has very little effect on people long term. Thats why product placement in the hands of celebs is so important. FOMO or consumer confidence? Do people fear they are misisng out, or are they comfortable with what they have? FOMO is the bubble.
rexreed 5y ago
From the first review I see on the Amazon page (I'm not linking, so I don't to pass traffic but it's very easy to find via search). Top review on the page that I see is 2 stars: > I don't buy it Reviewed in the United States on December 28, 2020 Verified Purchase The basic premise of this book: - digital advertising markets are like financial markets - since advertising is way overpriced there will be a bust soon - the bust will bring the internet down because that’s how the internet is financed Well I don’t buy it. For a start, Direct Marketers do know the value of what they’re buying. Their advertising sends people to dedicated landing pages where they can be tracked through the site and measured if they convert. Thats getting harder to do, but despite whatever amount of fraud or manipulation may be going on in the ad space, it’s still roughly possible. Direct Marketers these days are not just web shop owners but many other kinds of data-driven business. I’ve personally run profitable websites with digital ads as the exclusive source of customers. And don't tell me that Booking.com (one of Google's biggest advertisers) or others like them don’t have a very detailed idea of what their advertising is achieving. Then there are indeed Brand Advertisers. Mostly, they don’t have more than a vague idea what they get from their advertising, and nor have they ever. They pay way above the worth because they can’t deduce the proper value. There’s the biggest problem in advertising, but it’s not a new one and if this book had asked the more fundamental question, “does brand advertising even work?”, it could have made more of a contribution. Oh, and it’s a mistake to conflate display advertising with search advertising. It’s faulty reasoning to criticise display advertising by showing a problem with search advertising (page 79) and then to rubbish search advertising by picking only search BRAND advertising, a small and special case. For sure there are things that need to be fixed in the digital advertising arena. Right now there are major government investigations into Facebook and Google and if there is anything to be done about their monopolies (there is) then the internet will stumble on somehow and businesses will continue to advertise, as they must, in whatever outlets bring them the eyeballs they seek.
- rexreed 5y ago
  Another top review says (after giving it 1 star): > Meandering, confused, and overall a waste of time, 'Subprime Attention Crisis' kicks up a big fuss but never lands the knockout blow it thinks it does. Comparisons with the 2008 financial crisis are overblown. This is essentially a personal blog post blown up in size, and reveals nothing that isn't already widely appreciated. In the midst of this, Hwang also manages to demonize paywalls without offering an alternative to, well, pay for the internet. And no, 1930's law simply doesn't apply. As an insider, I take issue with the gloss applied over the many people who are working to improve the ad industry. There are many companies that work for the betterment of ad tech. Citing 'explosive' blog posts on Ad Age or Digiday to the opposite effect is misleading — these reports are frequently created by competing companies shilling their own products. Overall, the adage "nothing is as good or bad as it seems," is relevant to this. But the sweaty, Hawaiian-shirt wearing author got a little ahead of himself. Still, the cover is well done...
ZetaZero 5y ago
I would be happy to pay for the services I want, if I could stop all advertising and data mining. Imagine how much better FB could be if they were not trying to trap your eyeballs.
- weq 5y ago
  Im trying too... But in reality, anything thats popular will be seized on by capialists looking for a quick buck. Thats how the world works, right? Sport does not exist on TVs unless it has sponsorship. No matter how fast that runner is, unless running was a way to sell products, you wouldnt see it on prime time.

35 points by kome 5y ago

This is a page for ordering a book. The summary suggests it is an interesting book, but does not in and of itself reveal any new insights. Can anyone here comment on the actual contents of the book?

eightysixfour 5y ago
I thought it was a bit meandering and never really delivered an "aha!" moment, but it does have a few key points which were interesting to read about: * The author asserts substantial portions of internet ad sales are fraudulent. Some ads are never displayed, some are displayed to click-farms, etc. * The author asserts that, over time, the effectiveness of online advertising is decreasing significantly. People use blockers, learn to scroll past them, etc. * The author asserts that the qualities that makes online advertising attractive, attribution and transparency, are false premises and that the market is exceedingly opaque and orgs like Google want to keep it that way. * The author asserts that much of the internet advertising market was built by finance experts from big banks that brought much of the advances of the stock market to the industry, but many of the problems as well. The author takes those assertions and suggests that online advertising is not as valuable as we currently believe it to be (and its value may be approaching $0), and that companies which make money off our attention are ticking time bombs. He compares the situation to the subprime housing crisis across a couple of different area, particularly the illusion of having a transparent and trustworthy market and suggests that it could completely wipe out the current model for internet economics as we know it. While I think the author makes too big of a leap, it was one of the first books that made me consider the probability that the existing internet economy may have cracks in it just like any other economy and it is certainly possible there's a domino waiting to fall somewhere.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > The author takes those assertions and suggests that online advertising is not as valuable as we currently believe it to be (and its value may be approaching $0), This is probably true for ad-networks (pure ad arbitrage) but keywords (Colleges), sponsored products like AMZ/Walmart, and other verticals will always have a market value because the returns are decisively measurable.
- weq 5y ago
  We are in an age of FOMO. In the crypto world, FOMO is a reason to invest in a coin or nft. Advertisers are getting the same thing they always did, the same people, just in different ways. Advertising in this form has very little effect on people long term. Thats why product placement in the hands of celebs is so important. FOMO or consumer confidence? Do people fear they are misisng out, or are they comfortable with what they have? FOMO is the bubble.

rexreed 5y ago

From the first review I see on the Amazon page (I'm not linking, so I don't to pass traffic but it's very easy to find via search). Top review on the page that I see is 2 stars: > I don't buy it Reviewed in the United States on December 28, 2020 Verified Purchase The basic premise of this book: - digital advertising markets are like financial markets - since advertising is way overpriced there will be a bust soon - the bust will bring the internet down because that’s how the internet is financed Well I don’t buy it. For a start, Direct Marketers do know the value of what they’re buying. Their advertising sends people to dedicated landing pages where they can be tracked through the site and measured if they convert. Thats getting harder to do, but despite whatever amount of fraud or manipulation may be going on in the ad space, it’s still roughly possible. Direct Marketers these days are not just web shop owners but many other kinds of data-driven business. I’ve personally run profitable websites with digital ads as the exclusive source of customers. And don't tell me that Booking.com (one of Google's biggest advertisers) or others like them don’t have a very detailed idea of what their advertising is achieving. Then there are indeed Brand Advertisers. Mostly, they don’t have more than a vague idea what they get from their advertising, and nor have they ever. They pay way above the worth because they can’t deduce the proper value. There’s the biggest problem in advertising, but it’s not a new one and if this book had asked the more fundamental question, “does brand advertising even work?”, it could have made more of a contribution. Oh, and it’s a mistake to conflate display advertising with search advertising. It’s faulty reasoning to criticise display advertising by showing a problem with search advertising (page 79) and then to rubbish search advertising by picking only search BRAND advertising, a small and special case. For sure there are things that need to be fixed in the digital advertising arena. Right now there are major government investigations into Facebook and Google and if there is anything to be done about their monopolies (there is) then the internet will stumble on somehow and businesses will continue to advertise, as they must, in whatever outlets bring them the eyeballs they seek.

rexreed 5y ago
Another top review says (after giving it 1 star): > Meandering, confused, and overall a waste of time, 'Subprime Attention Crisis' kicks up a big fuss but never lands the knockout blow it thinks it does. Comparisons with the 2008 financial crisis are overblown. This is essentially a personal blog post blown up in size, and reveals nothing that isn't already widely appreciated. In the midst of this, Hwang also manages to demonize paywalls without offering an alternative to, well, pay for the internet. And no, 1930's law simply doesn't apply. As an insider, I take issue with the gloss applied over the many people who are working to improve the ad industry. There are many companies that work for the betterment of ad tech. Citing 'explosive' blog posts on Ad Age or Digiday to the opposite effect is misleading — these reports are frequently created by competing companies shilling their own products. Overall, the adage "nothing is as good or bad as it seems," is relevant to this. But the sweaty, Hawaiian-shirt wearing author got a little ahead of himself. Still, the cover is well done...

ZetaZero 5y ago

I would be happy to pay for the services I want, if I could stop all advertising and data mining. Imagine how much better FB could be if they were not trying to trap your eyeballs.

weq 5y ago
Im trying too... But in reality, anything thats popular will be seized on by capialists looking for a quick buck. Thats how the world works, right? Sport does not exist on TVs unless it has sponsorship. No matter how fast that runner is, unless running was a way to sell products, you wouldnt see it on prime time.