4 ms·

The tricky bit here is that advertisers don't need their ads to work, they just need to convince their customers they do. Even if there are reasons to question

The tricky bit here is that advertisers don't need their ads to work, they just need to convince their customers they do. Even if there are reasons to question the metrics used to measure effectiveness (see e.g. [1]) this is all meaningless if ad companies still succeed in convincing people they are selling something of value. Which ironically does mean that one way or another advertising companies are good at advertising something it just might not be the thing they're getting paid for. [1]: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-here-its-called-online-advertising https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h... [1, hn]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465873

bookofjoe 5y ago
I am reminded of Keynes' remark: "The secret of success in the stock market is not predicting which stocks will increase in value, but rather identifying stocks a majority of people think will increase in value."
Radim 5y ago
This is a good point, and thanks for the links. Sometimes it does feel like gimmicks all the way down. So much of the "digital market economy" is about generating demand, as opposed to answering demand. Conservatively, I'm in favour of serving people's existing needs rather than making them anxious of FOMO something new. But I can see how demand-generation is more profitable: if you get to define what "useful" or "desirable" means, you're gold. "Competition is for losers." But I see the solution as essentially the same: education and mental resilience. To move the needle back to personal agency, do the "malicious packet blocking" internally, rather than ex-post with technology.