5 ms·

IMO your data is actually worth much less than $10 because most of what advertisers are paying for is eyeballs / your attention, not your data. Data is a small

IMO your data is actually worth much less than $10 because most of what advertisers are paying for is eyeballs / your attention, not your data. Data is a small value add. Facebook ads are not worth more (I think it's actually less) than traditional ads where no data is sold.

chime 12y ago
> IMO your data is actually worth much less than $10 because most of what advertisers are paying for is eyeballs / your attention, not your data. The data tells them which eyeballs to target.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Conversation I had with a Google engineer is that the personal data portfolio adds little value. The current query and your location data are the most relevant. Given that Google's personal data tracking has creeped me out and onto another search provider who doesn't do that (DDG), it's cost them, net net.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  This is true for Google because they run search advertising, which gives a clear intent signal to which the algorithms can react. User searches for "laptop"? Show the laptop ads. Personal data is more important to Facebook because they do not have search intent to advertise against. Personal data are really the only criteria for targeting ads there. Twitter is somewhere in between. You can target ads to "look alike" personal data criteria, or to hashtags (which are essentially a keyword search).
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Look at the current online majors: Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Google has search intentionality. They benefit from the fact that they're aware of when you're likely to be looking specifically for something. Plus tremendous marketshare in search -- on the order of 80% or so. Amazon has purchase intentionality. Fewer transactions, but where they are, Amazon has disintermediated advertising because they're fulfilling the transaction. Also tremendous marketshare in commerce. Their margins on sales however are low. Apple is a slightly different beast: hardware, plus some software/information goods (largely entertainment sales). And no, I haven't peeked at their financials. Profits on the hardware side are tremendous, though marketshare is relatively low. Marketshare on their software/information sales (software, music, video, books, games) is higher, margins tend to be low. Facebook is in the ads space, and lacks for intentionality though its' got a lot of loiter time. People spend hours on the site (or can). The focus should be less on transactions per page, as on opportunities per user. Focus on detecting when someone's in a purchase state and utilize that, as well, perhaps, as the relationships between users and vendors which can be provided. Of all the majors, I'd say FB's position is the weakest, and the degree to which the user experience seems to be deteriorating under increased conversion pressure seems to support this. Of possible breakouts: Google going into direct retail or direct retail partnerships, which seems to be happening with Google Shopping Express, could be a net win. Google's disadvantage is increasingly negative response to its data profiling. Abandoning this for other bases on which to generate revenues would be an interesting move. Amazon is a latent player in the hardware space. To date I've found its tablet and e-Reader products unappealing because the're too ostentatiously shopping malls thrust before the user. A much, much softer touch would be more successful for me. Jeff Bezos's personality may be the company's Achilles heel. Amazon also have an interactive an online component through their forums (and product ratings) which might be leveragable into social space, though I consider that a very long shot. Apple could branch into either retail or search. It's risk is getting out-competed in hardware, particularly in the iPhone/iPod space where Android is now eating its lunch. On the other hand, there's an opportunity in that Apple doesn't rely on the intrusive surveillance that Android is predicated on. That pivot is complicated by iOS being a closed rather than open operating system. I see the opportunity being frustrated by Apple's preference to keep its software platforms closed. Its laptop and desktop market could grow at the cost of further decline of Microsoft, though challenged by Chrome devices. Facebook has the most difficult transition of any of the four. It's not in retail, pushing advertising reduces the appeal of its other offerings, and it doesn't have a hardware offering. Yet. That last could be a breakout, though again, I see this as a long shot. Of the four, FB is the most likely to fail or decline. Google is probably well-poised to retain king-of-the-hill status. Apple is likely to remain as a center of the personal-electronics / entertainment market, though pinched by Android in small devices. Amazon could be vulnerable to an open-platform based retail system based around or promoted by Google, though it would take a lot to topple it. Expansion into devices would be useful but not a major game changer. Other disruptive elements: a decentralization of social networking space through open-protocol networks (e.g., Diaspora, Friendica), and self-hosting systems (e.g., FreedomBox). A federation of search, whether through meta-providers (e.g., DDG) or truly federated search (YaCy). An open handset or open hardware spec. All of low to modest probability, but not impossible.
lmm 12y ago
Last time I worked on this we could sell an ad spot for a specific demographic (just gender + age range) for 5x what we could sell one with an unknown demographic for.

chime 12y ago

> IMO your data is actually worth much less than $10 because most of what advertisers are paying for is eyeballs / your attention, not your data. The data tells them which eyeballs to target.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Conversation I had with a Google engineer is that the personal data portfolio adds little value. The current query and your location data are the most relevant. Given that Google's personal data tracking has creeped me out and onto another search provider who doesn't do that (DDG), it's cost them, net net.

snowwrestler 12y ago
This is true for Google because they run search advertising, which gives a clear intent signal to which the algorithms can react. User searches for "laptop"? Show the laptop ads. Personal data is more important to Facebook because they do not have search intent to advertise against. Personal data are really the only criteria for targeting ads there. Twitter is somewhere in between. You can target ads to "look alike" personal data criteria, or to hashtags (which are essentially a keyword search).
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Look at the current online majors: Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Google has search intentionality. They benefit from the fact that they're aware of when you're likely to be looking specifically for something. Plus tremendous marketshare in search -- on the order of 80% or so. Amazon has purchase intentionality. Fewer transactions, but where they are, Amazon has disintermediated advertising because they're fulfilling the transaction. Also tremendous marketshare in commerce. Their margins on sales however are low. Apple is a slightly different beast: hardware, plus some software/information goods (largely entertainment sales). And no, I haven't peeked at their financials. Profits on the hardware side are tremendous, though marketshare is relatively low. Marketshare on their software/information sales (software, music, video, books, games) is higher, margins tend to be low. Facebook is in the ads space, and lacks for intentionality though its' got a lot of loiter time. People spend hours on the site (or can). The focus should be less on transactions per page, as on opportunities per user. Focus on detecting when someone's in a purchase state and utilize that, as well, perhaps, as the relationships between users and vendors which can be provided. Of all the majors, I'd say FB's position is the weakest, and the degree to which the user experience seems to be deteriorating under increased conversion pressure seems to support this. Of possible breakouts: Google going into direct retail or direct retail partnerships, which seems to be happening with Google Shopping Express, could be a net win. Google's disadvantage is increasingly negative response to its data profiling. Abandoning this for other bases on which to generate revenues would be an interesting move. Amazon is a latent player in the hardware space. To date I've found its tablet and e-Reader products unappealing because the're too ostentatiously shopping malls thrust before the user. A much, much softer touch would be more successful for me. Jeff Bezos's personality may be the company's Achilles heel. Amazon also have an interactive an online component through their forums (and product ratings) which might be leveragable into social space, though I consider that a very long shot. Apple could branch into either retail or search. It's risk is getting out-competed in hardware, particularly in the iPhone/iPod space where Android is now eating its lunch. On the other hand, there's an opportunity in that Apple doesn't rely on the intrusive surveillance that Android is predicated on. That pivot is complicated by iOS being a closed rather than open operating system. I see the opportunity being frustrated by Apple's preference to keep its software platforms closed. Its laptop and desktop market could grow at the cost of further decline of Microsoft, though challenged by Chrome devices. Facebook has the most difficult transition of any of the four. It's not in retail, pushing advertising reduces the appeal of its other offerings, and it doesn't have a hardware offering. Yet. That last could be a breakout, though again, I see this as a long shot. Of the four, FB is the most likely to fail or decline. Google is probably well-poised to retain king-of-the-hill status. Apple is likely to remain as a center of the personal-electronics / entertainment market, though pinched by Android in small devices. Amazon could be vulnerable to an open-platform based retail system based around or promoted by Google, though it would take a lot to topple it. Expansion into devices would be useful but not a major game changer. Other disruptive elements: a decentralization of social networking space through open-protocol networks (e.g., Diaspora, Friendica), and self-hosting systems (e.g., FreedomBox). A federation of search, whether through meta-providers (e.g., DDG) or truly federated search (YaCy). An open handset or open hardware spec. All of low to modest probability, but not impossible.

lmm 12y ago

Last time I worked on this we could sell an ad spot for a specific demographic (just gender + age range) for 5x what we could sell one with an unknown demographic for.