Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

theinformation.com

151–160 of 343 posts

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#151
As someone who worked in ad tech for half a decade, I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting. We're speaking of databases mapping data to random numbers stored in a file that can easily be deleted. The real issue is ad targeting by a handful of large companies that have personally identifiable information.

It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either. It's very difficult to get cookie based ad targeting right – you have to make significant investments into product, technical integrations and data buys. Given the fact that the cookies to which you are tying these investments can vanish at any time (and a large % do so regularly), it rarely makes business sense to make the right sort of investments. Instead most companies do the bare minimum and try to make a guess that is slightly better than a coin flip. I actually remember seeing a deck from a data company boasting how their gender data was ~ 60% accurate.

Why are we worried about this? Contextual targeting is far more effective. As an example, targeting an ad on Elle.com is more than 60% likely to reach women than an ad targeted based on cookie data.

Genuinely curious so would appreciate calm, non-aggressive responses. I'm wondering whether this is due to a generally poor understanding of cookie targeting effectiveness or if I'm missing something.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is “cracking down” on ad targeting, while simultaneously helping iOS apps track and target users through a unique advertising ID.

It keeps the advertisers happy while still allowing users to opt out of tracking.

Safari “opts out” of (blocks) tracking by default iirc. But users have to explicitly choose to opt out of iOS tracking.

Most people don’t even know about the tracking ID.

Edit: Apple ought to prioritize the privacy of users over “keeping advertisers happy.”

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#153
post #7

I was talking to my friend about this the other day. He's an executive at an ad company (not Google). He had an interesting take on this: Yes, it is in fact working and breaks targeting and retargeting. But what is the outcome of that? The CPMs (how much the website makes) are 10x higher for re/targeted ads. So as they stop working, do you think the website will cut their revenue? No, they'll either put up a paywall,…

Apple is not willing to understand the whole dynamic in the ads market, including publishers trying to game with the system all time. I've observed the worst on what those publishers can do and am pretty sure about that they will find out a "creative" way to make up for the revenue loss. Of course, I'm not saying this will be user-friendly; publishers tend to be more "creative" when it tries to rather exploit users.

apple has millions of devs of apps who amount essentially to an army of gig workers who expect to be paid via ads or in-app-payments. if apple is not making sure the devs have a fair revenue stream , it's equivalent to abuse of the same kinds Uber is accused of. sadly, the terms of all similar platforms favor exclusively the companies and not the devs. Still, labor laws exist.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#154
post #7

I was talking to my friend about this the other day. He's an executive at an ad company (not Google). He had an interesting take on this: Yes, it is in fact working and breaks targeting and retargeting. But what is the outcome of that? The CPMs (how much the website makes) are 10x higher for re/targeted ads. So as they stop working, do you think the website will cut their revenue? No, they'll either put up a paywall,…

No, they'll either put up a paywall That would be a great alternative. I buy Apple stuff because the business model is simple. I give them money and they give me stuff.

i dont know any computer or phone manufacturer that gives phones for ads.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#155

> Only about 9% of Safari users on an iPhone allow outside companies to track where they go on the web > In comparison, 79% of people who use Google’s Chrome browser allow advertisers to track their browsing habits on mobile devices through cookies. Something to keep in mind the next time you see someone from Google complaining about how Apple won’t allow Google Chrome to run natively on the iPhone.

Apple won’t let Firefox run either.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#156

> The cost of reaching Safari users has fallen over 60% in the past two years, according to data from ad tech firm Rubicon Project. Meanwhile ad prices on Google’s Chrome browser have risen slightly. This is a great metric for privacy.

Are ads a lot worse on Safari as a result of this price drop? I’ve tried going tracker-less before (e.g. on YouTube) and the ads get hyper spammy. There was a large shift, too, in the spamminess of display ads a couple years ago as Facebook took all the high-quality ad dollars. There are several news sites that run such spammy ads they usually crash the browser.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't use browsers to look at ads. So from a user standpoint ads shouldn't be there in the first place.

People don't go to the grocery store to give their money to the cashiers. So from a user standpoint the cash registers shouldn't be there in the first place. The ads typically are paying for what the users are going to the website for. I don't like it, but most users seem to prefer visiting sites with ads over sites they have to pay directly for. I hate how intrusive and abusive many ads can be, block ads on many sit…

I agree that ads serve their purpose. Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place.

My point is indeed that people go to grocery stores to buy food, not to spend money. Doesn't mean cashiers aren't justified.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#158

As someone who worked in ad tech for half a decade, I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting. We're speaking of databases mapping data to random numbers stored in a file that can easily be deleted. The real issue is ad targeting by a handful of large companies that have personally identifiable information. It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either. It's very difficult to get cook…

What if I want to target women who recently bought Chanel perfume? How would I go about doing that unless I do cookie targeting?

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Domains have nothing to do with the businesses and vendors behind them. TLS certificate says different. If malware comes from a TLS signed domain, then the owner of that domain is at-fault. Getting reparations from that domain is of course a different matter. But this should simplify the blame game. > The vast majority of publishers don't have the resources to run their own adtech infrastructure. I strongly disagre…

No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them. Anyone can buy and transfer certificates. Besides there are actual business contracts in place so there's no need for such tenuous connections over domain names in the first place. As for your disagreement, what's your basis for claiming that publishers can build, operate, and scale their own adtech infrast…

> No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them.

> Anyone can buy and transfer certificates.

The registrar has a business relationship with the domain because the domain was purchased. The domain's owner uses DNS to point to an IP address. The client connects to that IP address and verifies that the IP address knows about the domain. "I paid for you to see example.com at 1.2.3.4" and "1.2.3.4 is responding to the name of example.com" completes that relationship.

With Letsencrypt, anyone can get certificates for free. And you certainly can transfer your private key and certificate information to a third party. That won't stop you from being liable for any malware served by them because you are the one who owns the domain. Unless you transfer the domain too. Then it's all on them. The third party. Hope you transferred the IP address payment too.

> Besides there are actual business contracts in place so there's no need for such tenuous connections over domain names in the first place.

Business contracts don't mean shit to me because I can't inspect them. I can inspect DNS, however.

> As for your disagreement, what's your basis for claiming that publishers can build, operate, and scale their own adtech infrastructure and salesforce?

Publishers can just as easily create advertisements and host them on their own website the same way they host any other static content. Scaling advertisements is just as easy (or hard) as scaling any other web services. Once upon a time businesses actually employed people for their sales departments instead of offloading it to a third party.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#160
post #138

> For instance, a publisher can track what people do on their own site—just not on other sites. So they can sell targeted ads based on the information they have. This is what I believe is fair. Unfortunately we are seeing the difference between first-party cookies and third-party cookies gradually vanish. Publishers are already encouraged by ad tech companies to set up CNAME records so that a subdomain on a publisher…

That may help the one adtech company but they still wouldn't be able to "sync" (https://www.adpushup.com/blog/cookie-syncing/) their cookies with other companies in the supply chain.
Post reply on HN