6 ms·

> I've never been convinced that it even adds that much value for advertisers It does, particularly for small businesses. I own a small ecommerce company, and

> I've never been convinced that it even adds that much value for advertisers It does, particularly for small businesses. I own a small ecommerce company, and there's just no way I could profitably advertise in the way you're describing. Current digital advertising is far superior on multiple levels: - Scale: I started with a few bucks a day and can run very small tests. Neither possible with the kind of ads you're describing. - Targeting: The current digital advertising is simply much better at targeting, which means my returns are much higher because a much higher percent of people who click on it convert. As a point of comparison, I've done newsletters (and very targeted ones - I run a dog treat company, so there are some good magazines/newsletters for my audience) and they're much worse than Meta ads. - Feedback: At this point, I just won't do anything if I can't track the results. If you're investing in TV/radio/magazines, you're just guessing what works and burning a bunch of money on the stuff that doesn't.

balder1991 3y ago
This is a perspective that’s not usually talked.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Small, incredibly niche businesses come up often when we talk about ads. Probably because they are one of the few sympathetic business models that benefit from hyper-targeted ads. It is nice that people can start these incredibly niche businesses, but we have to weigh that against the fact they we’ve built a massive surveillance apparatus and also the misinformation ecosystem that grew out of Facebook is screwing up politics around the world. But ya know, dog treats, I guess it is a hard choice.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > we’ve built a massive surveillance apparatus and also the misinformation ecosystem that grew out of Facebook is screwing up politics around the world. I'm also concerned about the misinformation ecosystem, but why is the surveillance apparatus a primary cause? I'd say the primary causes are a lack of content moderation and the incentives that the platform creates by putting likes as the main way that ideas spread.
dublinben 3y ago
How was anyone able to sell dog treats before pervasive digital surveillance? Must not have been possible.
- w0m 3y ago
  because The Old Way is universally better.
  - 93po 3y ago
    in this case it clearly is? i don't care about capitalism's ability to unethically try to manipulate me into giving it money. if it sucks for business owners then that's too bad - maybe they should do something different with their time.
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      Yeah, well, that's where we differ. I think giving small business owners access to tools to show up in front of an audience that is interested in them is worthwhile while you believe almost all consumer products should be sold only by megaconglomerates who can afford large blocks of advertising. That's a pretty big difference in our viewpoints and while HN currently tends towards yours, I have no doubt that my objectives lead to a better world for consumers (and actually, non-consumers as well) than yours.
      - bigbillheck 3y ago
        How about the option in which there's still at most limited ads and we also break up all those big corporations into lots of little ones?
        renewiltord 3y ago
        I don't think active management of company size works successfully. The enforcement division of any nation would be a significant portion of GDP. And what happens to products like the iPhone? After the ten thousandth iPhone, you're a $10 mm revenue company and someone else sells the next iPhone? I'm not convinced that's better for consumers and non-consumers.
wdawson4 3y ago
What you are describing is targeted advertising, not behavioral advertising. The article discusses a ban on behavioral advertising. Behavioral is targeting advertising based on how a user interacts with content on the internet, instead of basing it on their personally stated interests, which they have control over. In your case, instead of targeting advertising at users that scroll past cat videos and choose to watch dog videos, you could target advertising to users in a dog owners FB group.
bryan_w 3y ago
> because a much higher percent of people who click on it convert. And even better (for the consumer), a higher percentage of people who _see_ the ad are likely to actually be interested in the topic. This compared to the annoying ShaneCo ads that have been plauging radio stations for years.
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  > the annoying ShaneCo ads On the corner of State St and 7200 South. Open Monday through Fridays til 8, Saturdays til 5. Closed Sundays.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  Totally - the most positive ad experience I've ever had was when I was looking for a gift for my then-girlfriend and was served an ad for a company that offered private tours of the SF Zoo where you got to meet the red pandas. I got a great experience that I otherwise would never have known about, and the company + zoo both made money. This is good!
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > And even better (for the consumer), a higher percentage of people who _see_ the ad are likely to actually be interested in the topic. Which inadvertently means the consumer is forced to see less ads, since each ad is capable of generating more revenue and therefore there doesn't need to be as many of them. So, you've sacrificed some privacy, and in exchange you get less ads and better targeted ads. Was this a good trade-off for the consumer? I don't know. It probably doesn't make a big difference to our lives one way or the other.
dspillett 3y ago
It seems obvious to me that there is genuine benefit: otherwise it is a giant scam against the advertisers as well as an invasion of individual privacy, and there would be lobbing from larger commercial entities affected to make the scam illegal if it were one. Though that there is a benefit to businesses, however small, does not make me inclined to be happy that I am stalked throughout my personal life online by a great many advertising firms, and information about me gleaned from that stalking bought and sold between them, in order for those businesses to experience said benefit. If it were banned globally, the “but how do I run my business otherwise?” question is a problem for the businesses, not me. The “most people don't mind, you are just being contrary” argument that I've seen once or twice is bunkum. If that were the case it would not be so often be made such a faf to opt-opt. One thing where I feel current privacy laws are a little off, is disallowing blocking for people who don't opt in. I've quite happy to be given a choice of “let this list of hundreds of third parties track you, or go away” (in case you haven't guessed, I'll go away) as long as no tracking is initiated between my arrival and going away without opting-in.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  If it weren't banned globally, the “but how do I protect my privacy?” question is a problem for the consumers, not me.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    “I don’t consume stuff”, says paragon of austerity.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  I don't particularly care if advertisers build a profile of me for the purpose of advertising. I use ad blockers and I rarely if ever see ads when doing anything online. My concern is that all this profile data is being slurped up by people who can really do harm: governments and their TLAs. People don't get sent to re-education camps (or worse) by companies trying to sell dog treats.
  - 3y ago
uneoneuno 3y ago
What digital advertising platform do you use? I am looking for methods to promote my small business and have an idea of my audience but want to understand the most efficient way to reach them.
paulddraper 3y ago
People are terrible at judging their own thoughts. Pound for pound, people prefer ads that are relevant to ads that are irrelevant. What they are annoyed by is the volume (in multiple senses) of the ads. That's it. They just take it out on other things.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  So you're asserting that marketing companies know people better than they know themselves? If that's true, that's incredibly damning of marketing companies and is a great argument for why they should have access to less individualized data about people.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    > marketing companies know people better than they know themselves Yes. I'm saying it's a low bar because people don't know themselves.
mbgerring 3y ago
You’re conflating several different things here. Facebook et al could easily change the targeting criteria to match the content your ads are being displayed next to, rather than the audience that is looking at it. Especially with AI content description and summarization tools. The fast feedback and targeting you can get from digital advertising could still be available without mass surveillance.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  No, what you're suggesting misunderstands why these ads work well. I don't care what content you're looking at. I care who are you. Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Whether you're looking at something related to dogs or a post by someone in your family about a wedding last weekend doesn't matter. Displaying my ad next to dog-related content would be much, much worse from a targeting perspective. Instead of targeting the people who are likely to buy my product, it'd end up targeting people watching dog videos. The set of people who watch dog videos is much broader than my target audience - my mom watches dog videos sometimes, and she's a cat person!
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Thing is, that is non of your god damned business. You can show your ads next to dog videos or whatever other content you like. You don't get to spy on me just because you think you'll learn better ways to try to manipulate me. If targeted advertising were really about helping get the information to interested people who want that information, then content based advertising would accomplish that.
  - p0pcult 3y ago
    [dead]
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >I don't care what content you're looking at. I care who are you. Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Whether you're looking at something related to dogs or a post by someone in your family about a wedding last weekend doesn't matter. I think you have it backwards. You don't care who someone is. Rather, you care about "people most likely to buy my product," and much, much more about people who actually buy your product. Their name, family history, life story and other information is irrelevant. Having the money to pay and the will to buy are the only important things. As such, which was alluded to by others, instead of spying on/tracking people to hazard a guess (perhaps even a good guess, but not necessarily) what they're likely to purchase, let's just ask them up front to list the things they are interested in, with the ability to modify such a list whenever they like. And make that list opt-in, of course. Then use the database of those lists to target ads. People see ads for stuff they're interested in, those who aren't interested don't see them. Which is a win-win for consumers and advertisers. Consumers only see relevant ads and advertisers know their ad impressions are among folks who are actually interested. Sure, there are lots of reasons to argue against a voluntary database like that, not least of which ad-supported sites would suffer. But if you (like me) don't earn a living via ad-tech, even such a flawed idea seems like paradise compared to the current levels of spying/tracking which would make a Stasi[0] wet dream look decidedly soft-core. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

balder1991 3y ago

This is a perspective that’s not usually talked.

bee_rider 3y ago
Small, incredibly niche businesses come up often when we talk about ads. Probably because they are one of the few sympathetic business models that benefit from hyper-targeted ads. It is nice that people can start these incredibly niche businesses, but we have to weigh that against the fact they we’ve built a massive surveillance apparatus and also the misinformation ecosystem that grew out of Facebook is screwing up politics around the world. But ya know, dog treats, I guess it is a hard choice.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > we’ve built a massive surveillance apparatus and also the misinformation ecosystem that grew out of Facebook is screwing up politics around the world. I'm also concerned about the misinformation ecosystem, but why is the surveillance apparatus a primary cause? I'd say the primary causes are a lack of content moderation and the incentives that the platform creates by putting likes as the main way that ideas spread.

dublinben 3y ago

How was anyone able to sell dog treats before pervasive digital surveillance? Must not have been possible.

w0m 3y ago
because The Old Way is universally better.
- 93po 3y ago
  in this case it clearly is? i don't care about capitalism's ability to unethically try to manipulate me into giving it money. if it sucks for business owners then that's too bad - maybe they should do something different with their time.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Yeah, well, that's where we differ. I think giving small business owners access to tools to show up in front of an audience that is interested in them is worthwhile while you believe almost all consumer products should be sold only by megaconglomerates who can afford large blocks of advertising. That's a pretty big difference in our viewpoints and while HN currently tends towards yours, I have no doubt that my objectives lead to a better world for consumers (and actually, non-consumers as well) than yours.
    - bigbillheck 3y ago
      How about the option in which there's still at most limited ads and we also break up all those big corporations into lots of little ones?
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        I don't think active management of company size works successfully. The enforcement division of any nation would be a significant portion of GDP. And what happens to products like the iPhone? After the ten thousandth iPhone, you're a $10 mm revenue company and someone else sells the next iPhone? I'm not convinced that's better for consumers and non-consumers.

wdawson4 3y ago

What you are describing is targeted advertising, not behavioral advertising. The article discusses a ban on behavioral advertising. Behavioral is targeting advertising based on how a user interacts with content on the internet, instead of basing it on their personally stated interests, which they have control over. In your case, instead of targeting advertising at users that scroll past cat videos and choose to watch dog videos, you could target advertising to users in a dog owners FB group.

bryan_w 3y ago

> because a much higher percent of people who click on it convert. And even better (for the consumer), a higher percentage of people who _see_ the ad are likely to actually be interested in the topic. This compared to the annoying ShaneCo ads that have been plauging radio stations for years.

seattle_spring 3y ago
> the annoying ShaneCo ads On the corner of State St and 7200 South. Open Monday through Fridays til 8, Saturdays til 5. Closed Sundays.
idopmstuff 3y ago
Totally - the most positive ad experience I've ever had was when I was looking for a gift for my then-girlfriend and was served an ad for a company that offered private tours of the SF Zoo where you got to meet the red pandas. I got a great experience that I otherwise would never have known about, and the company + zoo both made money. This is good!
hackerlight 3y ago
> And even better (for the consumer), a higher percentage of people who _see_ the ad are likely to actually be interested in the topic. Which inadvertently means the consumer is forced to see less ads, since each ad is capable of generating more revenue and therefore there doesn't need to be as many of them. So, you've sacrificed some privacy, and in exchange you get less ads and better targeted ads. Was this a good trade-off for the consumer? I don't know. It probably doesn't make a big difference to our lives one way or the other.

dspillett 3y ago

It seems obvious to me that there is genuine benefit: otherwise it is a giant scam against the advertisers as well as an invasion of individual privacy, and there would be lobbing from larger commercial entities affected to make the scam illegal if it were one. Though that there is a benefit to businesses, however small, does not make me inclined to be happy that I am stalked throughout my personal life online by a great many advertising firms, and information about me gleaned from that stalking bought and sold between them, in order for those businesses to experience said benefit. If it were banned globally, the “but how do I run my business otherwise?” question is a problem for the businesses, not me. The “most people don't mind, you are just being contrary” argument that I've seen once or twice is bunkum. If that were the case it would not be so often be made such a faf to opt-opt. One thing where I feel current privacy laws are a little off, is disallowing blocking for people who don't opt in. I've quite happy to be given a choice of “let this list of hundreds of third parties track you, or go away” (in case you haven't guessed, I'll go away) as long as no tracking is initiated between my arrival and going away without opting-in.

paulddraper 3y ago
If it weren't banned globally, the “but how do I protect my privacy?” question is a problem for the consumers, not me.
- pksebben 3y ago
  “I don’t consume stuff”, says paragon of austerity.
SoftTalker 3y ago
I don't particularly care if advertisers build a profile of me for the purpose of advertising. I use ad blockers and I rarely if ever see ads when doing anything online. My concern is that all this profile data is being slurped up by people who can really do harm: governments and their TLAs. People don't get sent to re-education camps (or worse) by companies trying to sell dog treats.
- 3y ago

uneoneuno 3y ago

What digital advertising platform do you use? I am looking for methods to promote my small business and have an idea of my audience but want to understand the most efficient way to reach them.

paulddraper 3y ago

People are terrible at judging their own thoughts. Pound for pound, people prefer ads that are relevant to ads that are irrelevant. What they are annoyed by is the volume (in multiple senses) of the ads. That's it. They just take it out on other things.

JohnFen 3y ago
So you're asserting that marketing companies know people better than they know themselves? If that's true, that's incredibly damning of marketing companies and is a great argument for why they should have access to less individualized data about people.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > marketing companies know people better than they know themselves Yes. I'm saying it's a low bar because people don't know themselves.

mbgerring 3y ago

You’re conflating several different things here. Facebook et al could easily change the targeting criteria to match the content your ads are being displayed next to, rather than the audience that is looking at it. Especially with AI content description and summarization tools. The fast feedback and targeting you can get from digital advertising could still be available without mass surveillance.

idopmstuff 3y ago
No, what you're suggesting misunderstands why these ads work well. I don't care what content you're looking at. I care who are you. Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Whether you're looking at something related to dogs or a post by someone in your family about a wedding last weekend doesn't matter. Displaying my ad next to dog-related content would be much, much worse from a targeting perspective. Instead of targeting the people who are likely to buy my product, it'd end up targeting people watching dog videos. The set of people who watch dog videos is much broader than my target audience - my mom watches dog videos sometimes, and she's a cat person!
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Thing is, that is non of your god damned business. You can show your ads next to dog videos or whatever other content you like. You don't get to spy on me just because you think you'll learn better ways to try to manipulate me. If targeted advertising were really about helping get the information to interested people who want that information, then content based advertising would accomplish that.
- p0pcult 3y ago
  [dead]
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >I don't care what content you're looking at. I care who are you. Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Whether you're looking at something related to dogs or a post by someone in your family about a wedding last weekend doesn't matter. I think you have it backwards. You don't care who someone is. Rather, you care about "people most likely to buy my product," and much, much more about people who actually buy your product. Their name, family history, life story and other information is irrelevant. Having the money to pay and the will to buy are the only important things. As such, which was alluded to by others, instead of spying on/tracking people to hazard a guess (perhaps even a good guess, but not necessarily) what they're likely to purchase, let's just ask them up front to list the things they are interested in, with the ability to modify such a list whenever they like. And make that list opt-in, of course. Then use the database of those lists to target ads. People see ads for stuff they're interested in, those who aren't interested don't see them. Which is a win-win for consumers and advertisers. Consumers only see relevant ads and advertisers know their ad impressions are among folks who are actually interested. Sure, there are lots of reasons to argue against a voluntary database like that, not least of which ad-supported sites would suffer. But if you (like me) don't earn a living via ad-tech, even such a flawed idea seems like paradise compared to the current levels of spying/tracking which would make a Stasi[0] wet dream look decidedly soft-core. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi