Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

blogs.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 454 posts

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#431

Post by pascalxus »

rossdavidh wrote: post #59

Oddly, I think the article underestimates the size of the change coming. I think one side affect of the surge of IT into advertising, is that it has become easier to measure exactly how well advertising works. By and large, it doesn't, very well. I am reminded of this, from Paul Graham, about his time at Yahoo: http://www.paulgraham.com/yahoo.html "...The reason Yahoo didn't care about a technique that extracted the…

but what percentage of ad spend on the internet is actually ROI justified? I'd guess it's pretty low, right? I got the impression it's dominated by big brand advertisers that can't calculate ad spend ROI anyway.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#432

Post by perl4ever »

rossdavidh wrote: post #59

Oddly, I think the article underestimates the size of the change coming. I think one side affect of the surge of IT into advertising, is that it has become easier to measure exactly how well advertising works. By and large, it doesn't, very well. I am reminded of this, from Paul Graham, about his time at Yahoo: http://www.paulgraham.com/yahoo.html "...The reason Yahoo didn't care about a technique that extracted the…

There are three main kinds of ads I see: (1) products I just bought, (2) products I would never ever buy, and (3) creepily manipulative clickbait. None of these should be worth the money to the advertiser.

I test drove a car and after I got almost a dozen follow up calls while I was busy with other stuff, I blocked the dealership number. They kept calling me from other numbers, which I also blocked (with the new Android spam filter on my phone). But the amusing thing was that I started seeing ads for the dealership online promoting their "low pressure" sales team!

I made fun of a company called Salsify for naming their business after oyster plant, a root vegetable I can't stand, and now I see ads for them all the time.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#433

Post by taysic »

telotortium wrote: post #377
taysic wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The individual can be assured that their personal data will not be restored back to production systems (except in certain rare instances, e.g., the need to recover from a natural disaster or serious security breach). In such cases, the user’s personal data may be restored from backups, but the controller will take the necessary steps to honor the initial request and erase the primary instance of the data again." It…

> It sounds like you need to erase the data again even if you used a backup. That means you need a separate database of the entries you deleted. Which you would need anyway. What, you're gonna make previously-deleted users active again after a backup restore? Fixing references to deleted data from active data might be a little more work, but tombstoning the deleted users isn't hard.

I’m going to bet a huge portion of websites do not delete data again upon backup. It’s the simplest implementation. Data deletion usually does not matter to the flow of business unless in specific cases.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#434

Post by perl4ever »

wdr1 wrote: post #200
madeofpalk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By and large, it doesn't, very well. I know Twitter isn't known for being the best at advertising, but it was made exceptionally clear to me that online advertising is a massive bunch of lies when I did my GDPR Twitter data export and it included me in a bunch of incorrect, non-sensical and contradictory ad targeting groups. Twitter claims I: * Own a cat, dog and other animal (I don't) * Have between $100k- $999k l…

> GDPR Twitter data export and it included me in a bunch of incorrect, non-sensical and contradictory ad targeting groups. This is expected. It's not desirable, but it is expected. The problem is your comparing it to an absolute. I.e. to perfect. If advertisers had that choice, they would love it. They generally don't. Remarketing is kinda close, but limits the scale. Rather, the only other scalable options are far w…

Traditionally, it wasn't necessarily considered a waste to give people a positive feeling about your brand even if they weren't the specific ones who wanted to buy, because everybody talks to everyone else.

I think advertisers have been chasing a chimera via targeting, because not only doesn't it work well, but there is a trade-off to maintaining a brand.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#435

Post by taeric »

wastedhours wrote: post #428
taeric wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I contend that marketing is expanded to too large a term. And at that point, yes, it is responsible from everything including product strategy, but also worthless as a term. :( Might as well debate that "business" is responsible. Especially if the success is not repeatable. Which, most early practices of large companies today are not repeatable by smaller companies.

Marketing has always been defined by the 4P's: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. The "business" defines the problem-space and strategic direction (in these cases, food/drink), marketing defines how you address the space (specifics of the products from research and evaluation, market positioning, promotion to audiences), operations executes on the above (supply chain, training, maintenance), and then customer supp…

That still seems to broad of a definition. I get that it is taught to be concerned with the 4Ps, but those can clearly exist independent of a marketing department. Or any discernible marketing strategy.

Consider, as well, that the engineering department is also responsible for the Product. In large, they are also influential in the Price. Yet, I think it would also be unfair to give engineering full credit for a successful product. Even if it was well engineered or poorly marketed.

Which is to further my point that I was not trying to dismiss marketing as a valid area that a company should invest in. I just don't think it should deserve full credit for Coke and McDonald's existing. :)

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#436

Post by perl4ever »

ebullientocelot wrote: post #367
pishpash wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$250 shoes do not last 5 times as long as $50 shoes. Improved comfort is the main benefit.

The math can work out in some cases. I've had my 400$ Allen Edmunds for 8 years, some wear, but generally still in fantastic shape and very comfortable. Prior to getting them I bought 1-3 pairs of ~70$ department store shoes per year.

I have some inexpensive Chinese-made boots that are over a decade old, I think. It can't be the norm that shoes last 4 months, unless you are talking about wearing down the soles of running shoes.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#437

Post by perl4ever »

dynamicvariable wrote: post #267
rossdavidh wrote: post #59

Oddly, I think the article underestimates the size of the change coming. I think one side affect of the surge of IT into advertising, is that it has become easier to measure exactly how well advertising works. By and large, it doesn't, very well. I am reminded of this, from Paul Graham, about his time at Yahoo: http://www.paulgraham.com/yahoo.html "...The reason Yahoo didn't care about a technique that extracted the…

> I think one side affect of the surge of IT into advertising, is that it has become easier to measure exactly how well advertising works. By and large, it doesn't, very well. I just don't understand the anti-social media agenda. The same people who for 2 years have been saying that social media advertising is so effective that it got trump elected are now saying it is ineffective. They demand that political advertis…

"The same people who for 2 years have been saying that social media advertising is so effective that it got trump elected are now saying it is ineffective."

So does that mean you think that social media advertising is effective as people claim and Russian use of it got Trump elected?

Regardless of whether your "same people" is a straw man, the opposite of a set of inconsistent claims tends to also be inconsistent, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#438

Post by manigandham »

Vinnl wrote: post #404
manigandham wrote: post #286

It won't do much. It'll definitely get rid of some low-value companies but that's about it. People think that adtech has some incredible insights but 99% of data is terrible. If you check your profile at any major site, you'll quickly find that you're probably in several conflicting segments that have nothing to do with you. Context is still king for any marketer who knows what they're doing, but unfortunately the in…

What you're describing sounds very much like a bubble that is going to pop...

I said that GDPR will not affect much, other than a few companies that add up to a microscopic market share. Where's the bubble?

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#439

Post by perl4ever »

adventured wrote: post #222
fanf2 wrote: post #211

> perhaps a $trillion or more has been spent on adtech, and not one brand known to the world has been made by it Google.

You can add Alibaba, Baidu and Toutiao to that list. Nearly all of their revenue comes from adtech. Just three platforms used by a billion people. Yahoo was also made possible by adtech, it was / is a brand known to over a billion people. Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat - they only exist courtesy of their adtech. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for Twitter to sustain itself with a paid model? There's such an ex…

I'm amused by the implication here, that it's obvious $500 million a year isn't enough to run a website where people send short messages to each other.

Re: GDPR will pop the adtech bubble

#440

Post by d1zzy »

rebuilder wrote: post #121
madeofpalk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By and large, it doesn't, very well. I know Twitter isn't known for being the best at advertising, but it was made exceptionally clear to me that online advertising is a massive bunch of lies when I did my GDPR Twitter data export and it included me in a bunch of incorrect, non-sensical and contradictory ad targeting groups. Twitter claims I: * Own a cat, dog and other animal (I don't) * Have between $100k- $999k l…

For the frugal/high spender conflict, I can kind of see how that might happen. I try to buy quality goods because cheap stuff doesn't last. That means spending more up front to spend less in the long run. So frugal, but also maybe high spender? My mom always says: if you're poor, you can't afford to buy cheap.

All things equal (features that I need from the product) I like to buy high quality things because they make me feel good (they look well built, they give me this warm feeling inside that I got my money's worth). But I realize this is all emotional and rationally I shouldn't, in most cases.

I don't think they pay off long term, at least it seems heavily dependent on the product type. That's because we are playing a lottery game, even if this product breaks in 0.1% cases vs 5% cases for a much cheaper product, we're not buying large numbers of them, we're buying just one and while the probability to break on me is smaller it can still happen and the monetary loss would be much larger than if I were to buy the cheaper product. That is, the warranty doesn't scale with the price (the expensive top quality TV is $2000 and the cheaper one is $500 and both have 1 year of warranty), for the same money I can buy 4 of those $500 TVs and would last at least 4 years (but very likely to find at least one that will work much longer, since I'm buying up to 4 of them).

Post reply on HN