3 ms·

> What’s wrong with context-based ads? What ad is relevant to a Taylor Swift song? A news article about a shooting (a naive algorithm will say "guns")? A Youtu

> What’s wrong with context-based ads? What ad is relevant to a Taylor Swift song? A news article about a shooting (a naive algorithm will say "guns")? A Youtube video explaining the Fourier series? What about a TV Show review... that is watched by people around the world, and where the show in question is on different platforms in different countries? Does displaying Hulu ads to readers in countries without Hulu access make sense? Non-personalized advertising favors big brands, because most content isn't contextual, and only brands with extremely broad appeal advertise on such content. This is why so much TV advertising is cars, banks, medications, detergent, shaving cream and so on.

briandear 1y ago
> What ad is relevant to a Taylor Swift song? How did radio handle this for 90+ years? > This is why so much TV advertising is cars, banks, medications… No, that’s because national TV advertising is super expensive. > Does displaying Hulu ads to readers in countries without Hulu access make sense? Yeah, perhaps it’ll generate interest in Hulu expanding to that country. You’d be reaching an audience that are ostensibly TV enthusiasts, so it’s a perfect idea for Hulu to gauge and develop interest among audiences that matter. > A YouTube video explaining the Fourier series? I don’t know: what kinds of products, services, or events might be interesting for someone who was interested in the Fourier series? This isn’t a hard problem at all. Advertising worked in the 1950s just fine. There is zero reason for a company to have my personal buying and interest habits in their database. It doesn’t benefit me. Is the advertising landscape better in 2025 than it was in 1964? Not at all. Here’s a prime example: my friend is an author, he reads blogs and websites on all matter of topics, but somehow if he’s researching a character, he’ll be followed around the web forever advertising products he’ll never buy. In the real world, if I go into a perfume shop one time and buy something, that doesn’t mean I’m a perfume enthusiast — so all of those CPM ads from the perfume companies: completely wasted. Just because I view, visit, or even buy something, that doesn’t mean I’m interested. Am I in a feminine products affinity group because I occasionally have purchased those products for my wife? Why not have everyone give a DNA sample to Google so they can tailor advertising based on my genetics? Where does it stop, and to what levels of absurdity shall it reach before we push back — both as consumers and well as tech people building all of this shit? Want to sell boats? Advertise in boat content. Want to sell subscriptions to your “innovative accounting platform,” the advertise in accounting or business related content. Again, this isn’t hard. I don’t want “personalized” advertising because the internet doesn’t know me or what I’m interested in at a particular moment. The data on me is very noisy, my interests frequently are fleeting or change, and my “buying habits” are very much contextual and situational. Not to mention I don’t want Google and potentially governments to know what I’m interested in — it’s literally none of their business. Privacy is a human right and we should be pushing for that. If that makes it harder to monetize Taylor Swift — tough shit. Not my problem. And I don’t think Taylor Swift cares either way.
CuriousSkeptic 1y ago
> A Youtube video explaining the Fourier series? We know this one! Apparently subscription services to learn STEM. (Coincidentally I actually were shopping for such a service the other day, and checked out the one promoted most. Turns out they seem to have spent the entire budget on marketing add had very little content, so could not solve my problem anyways)
troupo 1y ago
Let's put it another way: which advertising needs, exactly, are being served by keeping my precise geolocation data, device identifiers and IP addresses for 12 years? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 Which advertisement needs, exactly, are being served by sharing all that data with 1498 "partners" each of which will store similar data for similar periods of time? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1733421877119324609 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1733421877119324609 Which advertisement needs are not being served by showing contextual ads? BTW, personalised ads favour huge brands on huge advertisement platforms. Because https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811623000502 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162... --- start quote --- Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments ... require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. Approximately half of the audience segments on Spotify require a higher increase in CTR0 for the advertiser, suggesting they might be less profitable than no-targeting. --- end quote ---

briandear 1y ago

> What ad is relevant to a Taylor Swift song? How did radio handle this for 90+ years? > This is why so much TV advertising is cars, banks, medications… No, that’s because national TV advertising is super expensive. > Does displaying Hulu ads to readers in countries without Hulu access make sense? Yeah, perhaps it’ll generate interest in Hulu expanding to that country. You’d be reaching an audience that are ostensibly TV enthusiasts, so it’s a perfect idea for Hulu to gauge and develop interest among audiences that matter. > A YouTube video explaining the Fourier series? I don’t know: what kinds of products, services, or events might be interesting for someone who was interested in the Fourier series? This isn’t a hard problem at all. Advertising worked in the 1950s just fine. There is zero reason for a company to have my personal buying and interest habits in their database. It doesn’t benefit me. Is the advertising landscape better in 2025 than it was in 1964? Not at all. Here’s a prime example: my friend is an author, he reads blogs and websites on all matter of topics, but somehow if he’s researching a character, he’ll be followed around the web forever advertising products he’ll never buy. In the real world, if I go into a perfume shop one time and buy something, that doesn’t mean I’m a perfume enthusiast — so all of those CPM ads from the perfume companies: completely wasted. Just because I view, visit, or even buy something, that doesn’t mean I’m interested. Am I in a feminine products affinity group because I occasionally have purchased those products for my wife? Why not have everyone give a DNA sample to Google so they can tailor advertising based on my genetics? Where does it stop, and to what levels of absurdity shall it reach before we push back — both as consumers and well as tech people building all of this shit? Want to sell boats? Advertise in boat content. Want to sell subscriptions to your “innovative accounting platform,” the advertise in accounting or business related content. Again, this isn’t hard. I don’t want “personalized” advertising because the internet doesn’t know me or what I’m interested in at a particular moment. The data on me is very noisy, my interests frequently are fleeting or change, and my “buying habits” are very much contextual and situational. Not to mention I don’t want Google and potentially governments to know what I’m interested in — it’s literally none of their business. Privacy is a human right and we should be pushing for that. If that makes it harder to monetize Taylor Swift — tough shit. Not my problem. And I don’t think Taylor Swift cares either way.

CuriousSkeptic 1y ago

> A Youtube video explaining the Fourier series? We know this one! Apparently subscription services to learn STEM. (Coincidentally I actually were shopping for such a service the other day, and checked out the one promoted most. Turns out they seem to have spent the entire budget on marketing add had very little content, so could not solve my problem anyways)

troupo 1y ago

Let's put it another way: which advertising needs, exactly, are being served by keeping my precise geolocation data, device identifiers and IP addresses for 12 years? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 Which advertisement needs, exactly, are being served by sharing all that data with 1498 "partners" each of which will store similar data for similar periods of time? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1733421877119324609 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1733421877119324609 Which advertisement needs are not being served by showing contextual ads? BTW, personalised ads favour huge brands on huge advertisement platforms. Because https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811623000502 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162... --- start quote --- Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments ... require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. Approximately half of the audience segments on Spotify require a higher increase in CTR0 for the advertiser, suggesting they might be less profitable than no-targeting. --- end quote ---