5 ms·
> * Identity providers who have lists of user IDs that belong to "high CTR" audiences (users more likely to click ads) > * Geo providers who tell the bidders w
by tmtvl 2y ago
> * Identity providers who have lists of user IDs that belong to "high CTR" audiences (users more likely to click ads)
> * Geo providers who tell the bidders where the User's location is so that they can target locally-focused advertisements to them
> * User intent plugins, "abandoned cart" retargeting, product recommendation providers, etc. who look at user interaction events and build profiles of people who can be retargeted
That's horrible! In a better world such practices would be made illegal and those involved would be hung, drawn, and quartered.
- tlb 2y agoGeotargeting of ads is essential for local businesses. Banning it would make advertising only practical for national brands. It would be bad for the world if only national brands could advertise.
- prepend 2y agoI live in a unique town name in the US, pretend it’s “Foo.” I tried to buy ads for “Foo photography” as people in my town literally type that in. And my budget wasn’t enough to buy all instances of that search. I didn’t need geotargeting for my local business. Comically google kept trying to geotarget. Every time it did this I would get people all over the place who searched “photography” and a large percentage was burned. I kept trying to turn off geotargeting.
- cornel_io 2y agoNone of that seems at all user-hostile to me, it's literally all aimed at making sure what the user is shown is more likely to actually be useful to them. I guess this is a big and probably unbridgeable divide, some people think this sort of thing is obviously evil and others, like me, actually prefer it very strongly over a world where all advertising is untargeted but there is massively more of it because it's so much less valuable...
- porridgeraisin 2y agoI'm on the other side of the divide from you. However, mine and many other folks' position is not preferring untargeted intrusive annoying ads over targeted intrusive annoying ads. It's preferring almost zero ads with maybe the rare, non intrusive easily avoidable ad on certain appropriate websites[1]. That is why we aggressively use ad blockers and go to great lengths to avoid the status quo. [1] a shopping website having a _single_ banner on the home page announcing an ongoing sale for HP laptops is OK. However, if I search for lenovo laptops and I see a HP laptop as the first "sponsored" result....(Looking at you amazon). And about tracking, I absolutely don't want my librarian running to my travel agent telling him I recently looked up france travel guides. The digital equivalent of this happens daily to everybody. It's simply a no-no for me, there can never be a justification for it. The fact is that if you ban these two classes of practices, the whole of ad tech comes crashing down. I hope everyday for this to happen.
- LunaSea 2y ago> That is why we aggressively use ad blockers and go to great lengths to avoid the status quo. And so you're paying for the content you're reading as well?
- porridgeraisin 2y agoNope, if they are so unscrupulously willing to employ dark patterns, I can get pretty competitive :-)
- LunaSea 2y ago[flagged]
- porridgeraisin 2y ago??? im not talking about piracy here - I pay for multiple streaming services and yt music provided the resulting experience is ad free. But ads on your news/shopping website? Regardless of if I pay or not I'm gonna get upsells and ads. That simply does not fly. In any case, intrusive ads are a no-no. If your platform utilizes intrusive ads, I have no remorse for any loss incurred on your part.