Live data from Hacker News

AdTech Sucks

lockwood.dev

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: AdTech Sucks

#141
The idea that ad targeting sucks because ad networks have no incentive to improve it is extremely dubious.

Google and Facebook have an incentive to use up advertisers' budgets. But they also have an incentive to keep advertisers happy by providing good returns so that they will keep spending / increase spending in the long run. Advertisers are not always perfectly rational, but I don't think they're as dumb as the article makes them out to be.

The simpler explanation for poor ad targeting is the bidding component. If it was the case that you were shown whichever ad had the highest predicted CTR, I'm pretty sure you'd be seeing some damn relevant ads. But instead you're seeing whichever ad has the highest (bid per click * ctr). Or worse, advertisers can also bid per impression, in which case there might be no relevancy component at all.

My guess is the car ads on YouTube mentioned in the article are that last case. Both of those components (YouTube and car companies) are notable for skewing towards "brand" advertising rather than "performance" advertising. They're not trying to get you to buy a car right then. They're trying to get you to feel good about their company in the long run so that five years from now you're more likely to buy their car.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#142

The idea that ad targeting sucks because ad networks have no incentive to improve it is extremely dubious. Google and Facebook have an incentive to use up advertisers' budgets. But they also have an incentive to keep advertisers happy by providing good returns so that they will keep spending / increase spending in the long run. Advertisers are not always perfectly rational, but I don't think they're as dumb as the ar…

+1 with that.

Having worked for an ad network: it doesn't matter how good your recommendation algorithms are if all you have in your ad campaign pool is shitty diet and car ads.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#143

The idea that ad targeting sucks because ad networks have no incentive to improve it is extremely dubious. Google and Facebook have an incentive to use up advertisers' budgets. But they also have an incentive to keep advertisers happy by providing good returns so that they will keep spending / increase spending in the long run. Advertisers are not always perfectly rational, but I don't think they're as dumb as the ar…

Might you or someone else mind explaining how this "bidding component" works? I'm not familiar with it or with the specific bidding models at work - "bid per click * ctr" etc?

Re: AdTech Sucks

#144

> 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…

> potential to fuel a very expensive, possibly even existential, crisis for your company.

In terms of security breaches, this maybe SHOULD be true, but isn't.

In terms of bad feature development, it's a little melodramatic. I'm not saying you can't misinterpret something so bad it causes something catastrophic, just that it's more likely to be a couple percent drop in some subset of traffic for some cohort. Not the worst thing.

> The default shouldn't be collecting and warehousing everything, the default should be, "when in doubt, throw it out."

We have a lot of things where I work that I wish we were collecting now, not because we could use it now, but because we could use it later. And you can't go back in time and get it (usually).

Throwing data away is easy.

I wish I could have the foresight, the prescience to only store what I know I'll need.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#145

The idea that ad targeting sucks because ad networks have no incentive to improve it is extremely dubious. Google and Facebook have an incentive to use up advertisers' budgets. But they also have an incentive to keep advertisers happy by providing good returns so that they will keep spending / increase spending in the long run. Advertisers are not always perfectly rational, but I don't think they're as dumb as the ar…

+1 with that. Having worked for an ad network: it doesn't matter how good your recommendation algorithms are if all you have in your ad campaign pool is shitty diet and car ads.

There is an alternate explanation that doesn't rely on advertiser stupidity. Most advertisers are statistically unable to estimate the profitability of their campaigns, because ads generally exert weak effects in very noisy environments. There is some high quality evidence supporting that, e.g. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/130/4/1941/1914592

Nota bene, weak effects does not mean ads are necessarily profitable. Profitability depends on many factors including margin, retention, ad cost, etc.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#146

The idea that ad targeting sucks because ad networks have no incentive to improve it is extremely dubious. Google and Facebook have an incentive to use up advertisers' budgets. But they also have an incentive to keep advertisers happy by providing good returns so that they will keep spending / increase spending in the long run. Advertisers are not always perfectly rational, but I don't think they're as dumb as the ar…

Might you or someone else mind explaining how this "bidding component" works? I'm not familiar with it or with the specific bidding models at work - "bid per click * ctr" etc?

Advertisers go to an ad network and configure their campaign with: "I want to show X to users who are Y or are on a site about Y, and I'm willing to pay Z for it".

X is just the content of the ad and is usually entirely advertiser-defined. Some ad networks will allow you to do some fancy stuff to help determine the best phrasing or arrangement or whatever of your ad.

Z can be in dollars per impression, per click, or per conversion. An impression is one person being shown an ad one time. A click is a person clicking an ad. And a conversion is advertiser-defined but is usually someone buying the product being advertised. Bidding per click is the most common.

Then when a user loads a page with an ad on it, the ad network finds all campaigns that are eligible - meeting the criteria defined in Y. It then runs an "auction". It has to calculate which eligible advertiser is willing to pay the most for that potential impression. But not all advertisers are bidding per impression, so some prediction comes into play. If an advertiser bid per click, then the expected amount they will pay is the probability the user will click multiplied by the price if they do click. Their probability of clicking is often called CTR which stands for "click-through-rate" so that's where the bid * CTR comes from. Usually an ML model takes what is known about the user, the ad, and the page, and predicts CTR. Similarly for conversion-based bids, it's bid * CTR * CVR, where CVR is "conversion rate". Whichever ad comes out with the highest result of this calculation is shown.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#147

The idea that ad targeting sucks because ad networks have no incentive to improve it is extremely dubious. Google and Facebook have an incentive to use up advertisers' budgets. But they also have an incentive to keep advertisers happy by providing good returns so that they will keep spending / increase spending in the long run. Advertisers are not always perfectly rational, but I don't think they're as dumb as the ar…

Yeah, this is why the whole ad industry is moving to automated bidding which gives a bidder more rooms to improve. Clicks maybe a relevant proxy for the performance but still the most important metric is ROI which cannot be accurately predicted at the moment of bidding.

Sadly, there's a huge conflict of interest between user privacy and relevant ads targeting here; we currently cannot accurately measure ads performance even with the current privacy-invasive practices and this will get even worse without them.

This is why I think user-tracking needs to be standardized in a more explicit way; more accurate and reliable tracking can significantly improve ads relevance while it can give some level of user control and transparency by default. Of course, I'm 100% sure that this won't come anytime soon.

Re: AdTech Sucks

#148

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…

Like it or not, there is a large swath of people (engineers, designers, workers, etc, etc) whose jobs would simply go away if masses of people didn't buy useless stuff they didn't want or need and couldn't afford. We all work for someone, and we all feed this system in some way or another. The only way to escape this is to go off the grid completely.

And so, I think that advertising is not the root cause, its consumerism, which has been anointed as this engine that drives positive economic growth under capitalism. And like any other macroeconomic theory it falls in this contradicting category of 'thats bullshit' and 'that totally makes sense'. "Studies show X" whoop-de-doo. Advertising simply enables consumerism, and the people who you're calling dickheads actually enable a TON of software developers to even have jobs. Where is all the tech we're building being used? To build websites to sell stuff. To build databases to store all this info, to build entertainment platforms to sell you more stuff, to build logistic systems to organize this useless selling of stuff, etc, etc. Unless you're somehow connected with selling things or otherwise generating economic activity, why would anyone pay you to build it?

Re: AdTech Sucks

#149

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…

Like it or not, there is a large swath of people (engineers, designers, workers, etc, etc) whose jobs would simply go away if masses of people didn't buy useless stuff they didn't want or need and couldn't afford. We all work for someone, and we all feed this system in some way or another. The only way to escape this is to go off the grid completely. And so, I think that advertising is not the root cause, its consume…

I'm not sure that line of argument holds up terribly well; people working in an industry I consider immoral aren't really my primary concern. How would you respond to an analogous argument like "landmines are made by people in factories - if we stopped making landmines, all those poor people would lose their jobs, is that what you want?" (side note, the answer to that hypothetical is also 'yes').

Re: AdTech Sucks

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, there is a large swath of people (engineers, designers, workers, etc, etc) whose jobs would simply go away if masses of people didn't buy useless stuff they didn't want or need and couldn't afford. We all work for someone, and we all feed this system in some way or another. The only way to escape this is to go off the grid completely. And so, I think that advertising is not the root cause, its consume…

I'm not sure that line of argument holds up terribly well; people working in an industry I consider immoral aren't really my primary concern. How would you respond to an analogous argument like "landmines are made by people in factories - if we stopped making landmines, all those poor people would lose their jobs, is that what you want?" (side note, the answer to that hypothetical is also 'yes').

I am talking about convincing a consumer to buy something like a headphone or a smartphone or a laptop that they don't need... not about selling weapons to kill people. Personally, I have never seen an online ad for a landmine.

Edit: Sorta off topic, but our little conversation reminded me of a quote from Lord Of War.

>Yuri Orlov : I don't want people dead, Agent Valentine. I don't put a gun to anybody's head and make them shoot. But shooting is better for business. But, I prefer people to fire my guns and miss. Just as long as they are firing. Can I go now?

Post reply on HN