3 ms·
> then I'd love to see an A/B test that suggested that a broader campaign isn't cheaper and equally effective Do you think no one has done this?
by jklinger410 3y ago
> then I'd love to see an A/B test that suggested that a broader campaign isn't cheaper and equally effective
Do you think no one has done this?
- mrweasel 3y agoI think a few large companies, say Coca Cola, have done it. What I doubt is if anyone has done it for small / medium sized companies, or for highly localized companies. My thinking is that any positive results they've seen from targeted ads are just a result of them running any time of advertising campaign and not specifically a targeted one. The targeted ads might also have been proved to be more effective, in at least some cases, for some companies, but are they significantly better, like 20, 50 or 100%? They might be 5% better, but is that enough to justify the amount of data collection?
- jklinger410 3y ago> They might be 5% better, but is that enough to justify the amount of data collection? Now this is a nuanced take I am here for. I think if we put a value on personal data, much like a carbon tax, personalized ads would instantly become less profitable than contextual. In a heartbeat. No, the increase in efficiency is not worth the data collected. However with improvements in machine learning, behavioral ads will get even better (this is happening as I write this). And that value comparison may flip yet again.