4 ms·

This entire essay is just full of ideas I disagree with. First is the old chestnut: Why does company keep advertising product to me after I've already bought i

This entire essay is just full of ideas I disagree with. First is the old chestnut: Why does company keep advertising product to me after I've already bought it!? This is one of those child-like criticisms that keeps rearing it's ignorant head. Literally, you are ignorant as to why they are doing it. Your ignorance as to why doesn't imply their stupidity. Amazon does it. Google does it. I'm sure Facebook does it. So either three of the biggest companies in the world are full of stupid idiots or perhaps you are just ignorant to the reason they are doing it. > Their ethos is that if a human can do a task, a machine can do that task better, and not cost them anything such as salary, pensions or or a basic level of respect No, their ethos is - we can't possibly have any reasonable number of humans do the task. In what universe could we imagine hiring a sufficient number of humans to sift through the data Google has collected? They have immense data on literal billions of humans. How much time would it take any person to understand you as a person sufficiently by painstakingly reviewing your data so that Google could send you perfect ads? The very premise of this is ridiculous beyond reason. So the conclusion is based on the premise that having humans do the task is impossible. We have no other option than to use machines and algorithms to attempt the task because it is the only viable alternative. > Advertisers, then, are getting served a steaming turd on a plate rather than the medium-rare filet mignon they were promised. Advertisers are making a value judgement based on the options they have available to them. They can advertise on TV, radio, or magazines. They can advertise on podcasts, YouTube channels or Instagram feeds by directly contacting the creators and doing sponsored content. They can put up billboards and wrap public buses. They can put people in public squares and hand out flyers, do personal demos and offer prizes. I couldn't even scratch the surface of what is available to modern companies for promotional purposes. The fact that Facebook, Amazon and Google are as large as they are suggest there is some value being derived by companies given that they have plenty of alternate options available to them. > There isn’t any evidence to suggest that an ad targeted to 35 year old men with children with an interest in football is any more likely to result in sales of Football Dad socks than a poster for Football Dad socks at a bus stop. But an entire industry is based on pretending that this is the case. I really don't think they are. But let's compare the idea to the other advertising avenues I listed. TV ads are broadly targeted based on the time of day the show runs at as well as the content of the show. Magazine ads are broadly targeted based on the content of the magazine. Junk mail and flyers are broadly targeted to people living in a particular geographic area. But I guess this MSc in marketing knows more than the entire industry they claim to be from.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> Amazon does it. Google does it. I'm sure Facebook does it. So either three of the biggest companies in the world are full of stupid idiots This fallacy is called appeal to authority, and its the worst kind at that - its based on wealth rather than competence.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  > This fallacy is called appeal to authority I think of it as an appeal to consensus but if you want to dismiss an argument based on some debate bro tactics then at least be more substantive than naming some so-called fallacy and leaving it at that. The organizations that have the data and that are using that data to sell advertising to the largest number of buyers are doing a particular thing. Traditional media, as I point out, is doing a softer form of targeting as well. So who is right, the person who flashes their MSc in Psychology as if that grants them authority? Or do we instead look at the overwhelming evidence based on the behavior of the entire industry?
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    The Global Homeopathic Medicine Market size was estimated at USD 25.85 billion in 2022, USD 30.95 billion in 2023, and is projected to grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 19.89% to reach USD 110.41 billion by 2030. We have absolute proof that homeopathy is grift. But by your logic, You ask people engaging in grift whether they have consensus
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      The argument against homeopathy (if there is one, I admit I have no interest in the subject and have no direct knowledge) is that there is significant contradictory evidence that shows there is no correlation between the treatment and the outcomes. It isn't: "I thought about it and don't see why it should work so I think it mustn't" I would love, just once, for yet another commentator on the advertising practices of Google, Amazon, Facebook, et al to provide a shred of evidence for their baseless conjectures. But of course, there is no evidence. There is, in fact, no correlation based in fact or reality between homeopathy and the advertising practice of said companies. Just an attempt to use rhetoric to smear them based on personal agendas. You can hate the companies and their practices. You can hate advertising in general. But I see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the techniques on rational principles alone. I have no doubt that there is a clear signal in their data that shows their practices achieve outcomes aligned with the needs and desires of their customers: the advertisers. You don't understand why because you lack of access to the data and are therefore unable to independently see that signal with your own eyes. To conclude that the companies are stupid or deceitful based on your own lack of independent confirmation is a kind of hubris that is outstanding.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> Amazon does it. Google does it. I'm sure Facebook does it. So either three of the biggest companies in the world are full of stupid idiots This fallacy is called appeal to authority, and its the worst kind at that - its based on wealth rather than competence.

zoogeny 3y ago
> This fallacy is called appeal to authority I think of it as an appeal to consensus but if you want to dismiss an argument based on some debate bro tactics then at least be more substantive than naming some so-called fallacy and leaving it at that. The organizations that have the data and that are using that data to sell advertising to the largest number of buyers are doing a particular thing. Traditional media, as I point out, is doing a softer form of targeting as well. So who is right, the person who flashes their MSc in Psychology as if that grants them authority? Or do we instead look at the overwhelming evidence based on the behavior of the entire industry?
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  The Global Homeopathic Medicine Market size was estimated at USD 25.85 billion in 2022, USD 30.95 billion in 2023, and is projected to grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 19.89% to reach USD 110.41 billion by 2030. We have absolute proof that homeopathy is grift. But by your logic, You ask people engaging in grift whether they have consensus
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    The argument against homeopathy (if there is one, I admit I have no interest in the subject and have no direct knowledge) is that there is significant contradictory evidence that shows there is no correlation between the treatment and the outcomes. It isn't: "I thought about it and don't see why it should work so I think it mustn't" I would love, just once, for yet another commentator on the advertising practices of Google, Amazon, Facebook, et al to provide a shred of evidence for their baseless conjectures. But of course, there is no evidence. There is, in fact, no correlation based in fact or reality between homeopathy and the advertising practice of said companies. Just an attempt to use rhetoric to smear them based on personal agendas. You can hate the companies and their practices. You can hate advertising in general. But I see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the techniques on rational principles alone. I have no doubt that there is a clear signal in their data that shows their practices achieve outcomes aligned with the needs and desires of their customers: the advertisers. You don't understand why because you lack of access to the data and are therefore unable to independently see that signal with your own eyes. To conclude that the companies are stupid or deceitful based on your own lack of independent confirmation is a kind of hubris that is outstanding.