5 ms·

Yikes. Good lesson learned for them there I hope.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
The philosophical lesson is that certain businesses just can’t exist without targeted advertisements, and that society might decide that is a price they are willing to pay.
- blululu 4y ago
  This feels like a cheap take. Consider any number of small businesses just starting out (a local juice bar, a fitness service, a mobile app, a game...). They have a good product that makes their customers happy. The problem is they only have 5 customers and that won't pay the bills. They could hope that they just get lucky and people just discover them (it happens but its rare), or they can go out and promote their product. So they invest in marketing and sometimes this means buying ads. Can this business exist without targeted ads? Of course it can, but the odds are stacked against them. Saying they can't exist is an exaggeration.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    If it’s not targeted but only 1/10000 people would be interested, general advertising could be too expensive.
  - rubidium 4y ago
    For local businesses, direct mail, signage, and door to door is still totally an option.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Not if you cnc manufacture obscure custom bike mods or the like.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    I'm sorry but personal privacy trumps someone's business. People may hate apple but we're continuing down an advertising hellscape. I feel bad for the small business owners. But that's life.
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      I really don't understand this. Like, Facebook and Google don't have teams sitting down examining each user to assess what ads they like. They just shove vast amounts of data into towers of ML models and a prediction comes out. They use that prediction to rank ads. In this scenario, how was your privacy violated? This isn't a troll, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
smoldesu 4y ago
The lesson: "Always pay tribute to the bigger company"
- jiscariot 4y ago
  The lesson is you want to own the platform. Because then you get to brand the META/GOOG ad opt-in "tracking" and yours "enhanced digital experience".
dnissley 4y ago
What do you think the lesson is?
- nerdix 4y ago
  That they should go directly to Apple for targeted advertising when iAd 2.0 launches.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Except that Apple has no plans to compete with Facebook or Google. It is just first-party advertising for App Store, News+ etc. The sort of channels small businesses were never going to use anyway.
    - bryan_w 4y ago
      > just first-party advertising for App Store, News+ And stocks and weather. They also have a video platform they could expand into, and music oh don't forget books. Don't they also make a web browser? Hmmm.... Yeah, i guess it's no big deal that it's only apple's first party apps.
      - threeseed 4y ago
        They are all first party and combined represent ~0% of the advertising market share compared to Meta and Google. Apple is irrelevant and until one of those channels gets billions of users looking at it every day it will remain irrelevant.
      - hyuuu 4y ago
        of all the brands, apple cult brand is the strongest, it's hard to argue when it's already spelled out word per word in their leak internal memos that their intention to stop tracking was because they wanted a cut of FB's ad revenue. Their execution under the guise of caring for user privacy is a master class though, it's impeccably done, there should be a case study done about this.
whywhywhydude 4y ago
Yeah, great lesson that unless you are a billionaire who is ready to spend millions on superbowl ads, you have no business starting a new brand.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  How about, unless you can pay someone to spy on prospective customers, you have no business starting a new brand?
- ericmay 4y ago
  I’m not sure where that tangent came from but that certainly wouldn’t be the lesson learned. The lesson learned is that these small “brands” that can only exist due to adware (fake demand) will eventually be culled by increases in prices or de-amplification of their products. If your “brand” is one of these then you should be learning that you need to actually make a good product at a good price that doesn’t rely on advertising to succeed in your marketplace. Otherwise you are always at risk of being squeezed and potentially shut down. Many (certainly not all) of these companies are parasites in that the rely on Meta to utilize algorithms to get you addicted and alter your purchasing habits. They don’t actually offer a good product at a good price, they offer copies of other products with different labels, or in some cases outright, disposable junk.
  - wtetzner 4y ago
    > you need to actually make a good product at a good price that doesn’t rely on advertising to succeed in your marketplace. How do you create a product that doesn’t need advertising? People need to find out about it somehow.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Get creative I guess
      - mensetmanusman 4y ago

The philosophical lesson is that certain businesses just can’t exist without targeted advertisements, and that society might decide that is a price they are willing to pay.

blululu 4y ago
This feels like a cheap take. Consider any number of small businesses just starting out (a local juice bar, a fitness service, a mobile app, a game...). They have a good product that makes their customers happy. The problem is they only have 5 customers and that won't pay the bills. They could hope that they just get lucky and people just discover them (it happens but its rare), or they can go out and promote their product. So they invest in marketing and sometimes this means buying ads. Can this business exist without targeted ads? Of course it can, but the odds are stacked against them. Saying they can't exist is an exaggeration.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  If it’s not targeted but only 1/10000 people would be interested, general advertising could be too expensive.
- rubidium 4y ago
  For local businesses, direct mail, signage, and door to door is still totally an option.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Not if you cnc manufacture obscure custom bike mods or the like.
- juve1996 4y ago
  I'm sorry but personal privacy trumps someone's business. People may hate apple but we're continuing down an advertising hellscape. I feel bad for the small business owners. But that's life.
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    I really don't understand this. Like, Facebook and Google don't have teams sitting down examining each user to assess what ads they like. They just shove vast amounts of data into towers of ML models and a prediction comes out. They use that prediction to rank ads. In this scenario, how was your privacy violated? This isn't a troll, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

smoldesu 4y ago

The lesson: "Always pay tribute to the bigger company"

jiscariot 4y ago
The lesson is you want to own the platform. Because then you get to brand the META/GOOG ad opt-in "tracking" and yours "enhanced digital experience".

dnissley 4y ago

What do you think the lesson is?

nerdix 4y ago
That they should go directly to Apple for targeted advertising when iAd 2.0 launches.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Except that Apple has no plans to compete with Facebook or Google. It is just first-party advertising for App Store, News+ etc. The sort of channels small businesses were never going to use anyway.
  - bryan_w 4y ago
    > just first-party advertising for App Store, News+ And stocks and weather. They also have a video platform they could expand into, and music oh don't forget books. Don't they also make a web browser? Hmmm.... Yeah, i guess it's no big deal that it's only apple's first party apps.
    - threeseed 4y ago
      They are all first party and combined represent ~0% of the advertising market share compared to Meta and Google. Apple is irrelevant and until one of those channels gets billions of users looking at it every day it will remain irrelevant.
    - hyuuu 4y ago
      of all the brands, apple cult brand is the strongest, it's hard to argue when it's already spelled out word per word in their leak internal memos that their intention to stop tracking was because they wanted a cut of FB's ad revenue. Their execution under the guise of caring for user privacy is a master class though, it's impeccably done, there should be a case study done about this.

whywhywhydude 4y ago

Yeah, great lesson that unless you are a billionaire who is ready to spend millions on superbowl ads, you have no business starting a new brand.

rightbyte 4y ago
How about, unless you can pay someone to spy on prospective customers, you have no business starting a new brand?
ericmay 4y ago
I’m not sure where that tangent came from but that certainly wouldn’t be the lesson learned. The lesson learned is that these small “brands” that can only exist due to adware (fake demand) will eventually be culled by increases in prices or de-amplification of their products. If your “brand” is one of these then you should be learning that you need to actually make a good product at a good price that doesn’t rely on advertising to succeed in your marketplace. Otherwise you are always at risk of being squeezed and potentially shut down. Many (certainly not all) of these companies are parasites in that the rely on Meta to utilize algorithms to get you addicted and alter your purchasing habits. They don’t actually offer a good product at a good price, they offer copies of other products with different labels, or in some cases outright, disposable junk.
- wtetzner 4y ago
  > you need to actually make a good product at a good price that doesn’t rely on advertising to succeed in your marketplace. How do you create a product that doesn’t need advertising? People need to find out about it somehow.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Get creative I guess
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago