> There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. Ignoring the "invasive" (being a matter of definition) there i

> There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. Ignoring the "invasive" (being a matter of definition) there is an absolute mountain of irrefutable evidence for google-type digital advertising being "effective", in the sense that an advertiser can spend 1$ to make 2$, measurably. > When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? The answer is: It doesn't matter. Ads being clicked and thus stuff being sold is not a matter of personal opinion or observation. Spending and tracking online ad money works. Of course, on an individual level you can still lose money while advertising for a myriad of reasons. By the way, this is by no means an argument for advertisements (online/offline, "invasive" or otherwise). Advertisement as an industry does not create value. It's steering attention while sucking up money and there is also no reason to assume that it provides an inherent bias towards better products (the opposite likely being true). Also Google/FB could be defrauding their ad customers to an absolutely mind boggling degree. Being the deliverer, and also reporting on deliveries, it's insane that they can operate basically unregulated.