Live data from Hacker News

AdTech Sucks

lockwood.dev

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: AdTech Sucks

#111

Is there a "pull" rather push aspect to advertisement? Sort of a trade-show equivalent of digital advertisement? Issues with pushing ads down my throat are as follows: 1. I don't want to buy another Sony XM3 headphones. I just fucking bought them and I am seeing more ads of the same thing. 2. Even if I saw ads for relevant accessories, say, I bought an iPhone and I am seeing ads for phone cases; I don't want to see t…

> I don't want to buy another Sony XM3 headphones. I just fucking bought them and I am seeing more ads of the same thing.

On that note: https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/724817086309142529

Re: AdTech Sucks

#112
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What role do the businesses that benefit from advertising revenue play" - They want to lure you into buying their products, at times by any means possible. Back in the day when advertisement was word of mouth and perhaps newspaper ads, the playing field included opinions of the people - it fostered increased quality of products because you wouldn't recommend a shit quality product to your friend. In modern society,…

You're still focusing on advertisers (I didn't make this clear enough). Think about the people owning the football stadium, the tv channel, the newspaper (they're likely advertisers themselves, but let's pretend for a moment they aren't).

There are invasive ads and less invasive ads. I am sure some "ads" are actually just to click-inflate a site.

Thinking of newspapers for example the problem is that the dynamics are very complex.

A few years ago, many sites started splitting in maybe dozens of weirdly specific topics just to artificially inflate the number of readers (if one user visit ten site it can be counted as 10 users) or even just buying click.

A billboard owner can do similar trick, but usually on a smaller scale.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#113
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd come away wondering how they could be so oblivious to the ethical concerns in what they were asking for Like Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

I'm not sure that's what's at play here. Marketers could easily be aware of the ethical concerns and simply disregard them. Their salary doesn't depend at all on their ignorance of the ethical issues involved. More likely, at the risk of overgeneralizing, I suspect a lot of the people going into adtech aren't really the philosophical-type (I think those probably tend to avoid marketing in general), a lot of them are…

I think criddell is right. I think the amount of money makes people gloss over some of the ethics, as cynical as that probably sounds. I didn't say it in the article specifically because of it sounding so cynical (even though the article is very cynical).

I think you're right, that a lot of the people going into AdTech, and just marketing in general, aren't philosophical. But, you saying that made me chuckle, because I have a BA in Philosophy, and no computing qualification.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#114

> I’d love for data to be seen as a liability - something audited and discarded often to minimise risk. Perhaps it's just the industries I've worked in, which tend to be highly regulated, but I have such a hard time seeing why this idea isn't more intuitive to people. Every single scrap of sensitive information you have laying around is something that has the potential to fuel a very expensive, possibly even existent…

I mean, I'd like for that to be true, but look at Equifax. They leaked nearly every critical detail about nearly every single working American. Not only are they still alive, their stock is up ~130% since December and is getting back to where they were before the leak was exposed (~$140)[0]

Leaking data has little consequences.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/EFX/

Re: AdTech Sucks

#115
post #4

Online ads seem to perform poorly and, for larger companies with brand recognition and large budgets, almost no lift. I've been under the impression that adtech is a bubble, but I'm not an expert in the space.

It's not a bubble, but it definitely shouldn't be on a pedestal.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#116
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing you might want to think about: What role do the businesses that benefit from advertising revenue play. You're looking at advertising from the perspective of advertisers pushing themselves into your life, but have you asked yourself how they got that billboard onto the football stadium, that video in front of your favorite show, that page in your newspaper (whether digital or print). > Fuck advertisement. It…

> One thing you might want to think about: What role do the businesses that benefit from advertising revenue play. You're looking at advertising from the perspective of advertisers pushing themselves into your life, but have you asked yourself how they got that billboard onto the football stadium, that video in front of your favorite show, that page in your newspaper (whether digital or print). That money comes out o…

> Without advertising, products would be cheaper because their producers would not have to spend money on adverts.

At the beginning the money comes from the product owner, who without any visibility will not have (as many) costumers

Re: AdTech Sucks

#117
>Tracking is bad, because even if you don’t have anything to hide now, you may find that your past activities make you a target under a future political system.

I've been screaming about this for years, but everyone thinks I'm crazy. Here's an interesting point of frustration: one one likes to give out phone numbers in the context of online dating anymore. Usually the request is to move from, say, tinder, to an app like Snapchat. People don't understand why I'm hesitant, especially when they want to discuss relatively personal, indirectly or directly politically charged politics on a platform built to harvest literally everything you write, photograph, and send.

On some level I start to feel like society is deserving of the dystopia it is building, because the average person simply doesn't care to understand the dangers of anything they do when everyone else is doing it. But maybe that's just vindictiveness brought on by jealousy of their blissful ignorance.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#118

> I’d love for data to be seen as a liability - something audited and discarded often to minimise risk. Perhaps it's just the industries I've worked in, which tend to be highly regulated, but I have such a hard time seeing why this idea isn't more intuitive to people. Every single scrap of sensitive information you have laying around is something that has the potential to fuel a very expensive, possibly even existent…

Author here. Yeah, and to expand on the idea of liability, I also additionally mean the possibility of a financial liability. If we were to say, charge per month for a retained customer date of birth, you'd see business analysts internally constantly asking why the data needed to be stored so long, or whether just age could be stored, or something. If the price was high enough, the problem would sort of just... go aw…

On the liability side the GDPR was already good progress

Re: AdTech Sucks

#119
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What role do the businesses that benefit from advertising revenue play" - They want to lure you into buying their products, at times by any means possible. Back in the day when advertisement was word of mouth and perhaps newspaper ads, the playing field included opinions of the people - it fostered increased quality of products because you wouldn't recommend a shit quality product to your friend. In modern society,…

You're still focusing on advertisers (I didn't make this clear enough). Think about the people owning the football stadium, the tv channel, the newspaper (they're likely advertisers themselves, but let's pretend for a moment they aren't).

Advertising allows those who have fleeting excess brain-seconds of attention to convert it into non-ephemeral money.

People give away their brain-seconds of attention based on interest, and the interest-providers are profiting on the difference in interestingness between advertisements and their own content. If they maintain interestingness above the boredom threshold, they can dilute their product with ads and pocket the difference.

If the advertisements were interesting in themselves, the advertisers wouldn't need to pay to get views.

Ad-tech is currently trying to shave ever closer to the boredom threshold. But people who value their own time are trying to maximize their interest-per-brain-second ratios. So they block ads, or multiplex their attention so they can switch to a different interesting thing while an ad is pre-empting another interesting thing.

So ad-tech should instead be focusing on making exposure to and information about the product on the market more interesting and useful.

Nothing stands out in my mind more as an example of doing things not just wrongly, but as the perfect antipode of correct, than the network-dependent insert-ad-here spots currently on DirecTV Now streaming video channels, that is literally nothing more than three static images paired with LOUDNESS-ENHANCED boring annoying synthetic music. It's the same ad, in every commercial break, on every channel, and it was boring and annoying to begin with. It only gets more boring and annoying with every repetition. It eventually generates antipathy in the viewer, toward the advertised products AND the advertiser. The natural reaction, of course, is to hit the mute button and switch to another attention sink until interesting content returns, or long-term to cancel DirecTV Now and switch to something with fewer or less-intrusive ads, or no ads at all.

The attention-reseller has to be aware that giving up control to someone else can possibly lead to a hostile advertiser that pushes negative-interest, such as audio of multiple babies screaming, over a video of Adolf Hitler shoveling kittens into a sausage grinder, or perhaps something else with less hyperbole. If the reseller cannot establish a minimum standard of interestingness, they risk a rogue advertiser killing off their audience. Again, the answer is more interesting ads, tailored to the channel audience--and not the individual viewer, because that's creepy and intrusive, which is anti-interesting.

In short, the advertisers are being too lazy, and too greedy. Pay the content creators to advertise the products themselves, in a way that they know will be above the boredom-threshold for their audience. Stop trying to figure out how to match prepackaged ads--that the attention-resellers have never had the chance to review--to audience members using tracking, profiling, and spyware.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#120
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still focusing on advertisers (I didn't make this clear enough). Think about the people owning the football stadium, the tv channel, the newspaper (they're likely advertisers themselves, but let's pretend for a moment they aren't).

Without advertising, these people would be forced to implement a profitable monetization strategy, or they would fail. That's how capitalism and the free market is supposed to work. If you're worried about the well-being of these people or believe their service is a public good that should exist regardless of profitability on the market, you should allocate public funding for them.

> That's how capitalism and the free market is supposed to work.

It's wrong to talk about how a market is "supposed to work" because markets aren't a Platonic ideal; they're how people get together and deal with scarcity in aggregate. Some markets can be highly competitive, some are monopolies or monopsonies, some are more or less regulated, and so on.

Capitalism is an ideology so it has a way it's supposed to work, but I think they'd broadly agree that banning a category of volunatry transactions is not capitalist.

> Without advertising, these people would be forced to implement a profitable monetization strategy, or they would fail.

Very true, if the government intervened, businesses would be forced to work around it. That may wind up being worse than what you started with. If ads weren't allowed, you'd probably have more people recruited to do direct sales, for instance.

More likely, though, they would lobby the government and point out the massive human cost of large numbers of businesses failing.

Post reply on HN