3 ms·

> Since ads can run arbitrary JS it's hard to enforce policy programmatically. It's not that hard, at least not at my end. I just don't run ads. Why on earth

> Since ads can run arbitrary JS it's hard to enforce policy programmatically. It's not that hard, at least not at my end. I just don't run ads. Why on earth does goo think that running arbitrary JS on their visitors' computers is OK? I mean, I know this is the policy, and I assume the policy of other ad networks is at least as "liberal". So I'm sorry, chaps, but no ads run on this screen. I wonder if this is a race to the bottom? I've noticed that TV ads these days are all for animal charities, equity release schemes, and incontinence pads. I don't know what they're running in web ads, but I'm pretty sure that the TV ads are so dire because everyone but old fogeys and poor people skip the ads. I'd assume the same old/poor people are the ones that have to see web ads. Advertising to poor people has traditionally been a pretty bad pitch. So why isn't the online/TV ad industry crumbling? And how do I bet against their shares?

javajosh 5y ago
>Advertising to poor people has traditionally been a pretty bad pitch Is that true? It seems like poor people spend, in aggregate, more than rich people and they tend to buy the cheaper, more mass-produced stuff. The grocery business alone must be build on the commerce of poor people, right?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > The grocery business alone must be build on the commerce of poor people, right? How often do you see grocers advertising own-brand baked beans? If you see baked beans advertised at all, they're drawing attention to the fact that their Heinz beans are 1p cheaper than $COMPETITOR's Heinz beans. I'm not convinced that advertisers spend much money on pitching to poor people. Most of the ad pitches that I see are for high-end products like cars, holidays, and household appliances. There's not much point in advertising to people whose weekly budget doesn't stretch to luxuries. They will buy only what they need; they don't have choices.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    If placement is considered a kind of advertising spend (and I think it is) then impulse buys are going to be an ad spend in general. Gambling, porn, junk food, that kind of thing.

javajosh 5y ago

>Advertising to poor people has traditionally been a pretty bad pitch Is that true? It seems like poor people spend, in aggregate, more than rich people and they tend to buy the cheaper, more mass-produced stuff. The grocery business alone must be build on the commerce of poor people, right?

denton-scratch 5y ago
> The grocery business alone must be build on the commerce of poor people, right? How often do you see grocers advertising own-brand baked beans? If you see baked beans advertised at all, they're drawing attention to the fact that their Heinz beans are 1p cheaper than $COMPETITOR's Heinz beans. I'm not convinced that advertisers spend much money on pitching to poor people. Most of the ad pitches that I see are for high-end products like cars, holidays, and household appliances. There's not much point in advertising to people whose weekly budget doesn't stretch to luxuries. They will buy only what they need; they don't have choices.
- javajosh 5y ago
  If placement is considered a kind of advertising spend (and I think it is) then impulse buys are going to be an ad spend in general. Gambling, porn, junk food, that kind of thing.