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

Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 188 posts

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#91

Post by stoev »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #70

A few years ago I created an online business for serious cyclists and runners. Targeted Facebook ads enabled me to find customers for a few pennies each - I don't think I could have found customers any other way (apart from the trying to get 'free' ads via blogs/news/viral tweets etc). Targeted ads are the only way that small, new, local, or just poor companies can do advertising. It's a bit scary seeing what sites s…

You don’t need targeted advertising to achieve that. You don’t need FB, Google, and a thousand other lesser-known companies tracking every step you make in order to know that you might be interested in cycling. Instead you, as a small advertiser, would target the right context and would only show your ads in articles specifically-dedicated to cycling or whatever other niche you are after.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#92

Post by SifJar »

libertine wrote: post #78

I'm a suspect because I worked in digital media in a media agency some time ago, and let me tell you that this is quite a broad request. Why? Let's start by asking: what is targeted advertising? Is it based on interests? Behavior? Demographic? Psychographic? Contextual? Placement? Geolocation? Search queries? The list goes on. Even if they want to narrow it down to collected data from users, this still has a lot of b…

> A company that sells vegan supplements that places advertising in the POS (Point of Sale) is targeted advertising - why should we ban something that has the consent of everyone involved?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is the consumer also consenting?

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#93

Post by stoev »

vthriller wrote: post #90
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online, without personalization it's the other way around Local and niche businesses can only advertise on Facebook/Google Ads because their clientele can be defined and targeted. Without targeting we'll be watching ads for Coca-Cola and McDonalds and other brands that have 'mass' appeal.

Why can't they target content instead of visitors? i.e. articles and videos about X instead of people that showed even minimal interest in X in the past month or so.

Exactly. Which is what drives the biggest advertising machine anyway (Google Search). That model could be replicated for the open internet.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#94

Post by libertine »

jka wrote: post #81
libertine wrote: post #78

I'm a suspect because I worked in digital media in a media agency some time ago, and let me tell you that this is quite a broad request. Why? Let's start by asking: what is targeted advertising? Is it based on interests? Behavior? Demographic? Psychographic? Contextual? Placement? Geolocation? Search queries? The list goes on. Even if they want to narrow it down to collected data from users, this still has a lot of b…

What is targeted advertising needed for?

Targeted advertising allows you to deliver specific messages to specific audiences, and by specific audiences I mean a narrow cluster of people that has the potential to have an interest in your brand.

This allows you - the brand - to reduce wastage. And in theory, it should reduce Ad Fatigue in the audience.

Wastage because every time you miss a potential audience member, or you reach a wrong person, you paid to deliver a message that won't be heard/read/seen. If you think about it, this adds up - even with targeted advertising.

Ad Fatigue comes from you being shown advertising you have no interested in (why are you seeing bunions cream if you don't have bunions), or you see too many times the same ad you start to notice it for the wrong reasons (imagine you see a re targeted ad from amazon for a product you bought 3 weeks ago, and for 3 weeks you're seeing daily the same product being recommended to you).

In theory, everyone should win with targeted ads, in reality, it's being abused and it's saturating consumers. Not only abused by brands, but also by a consumer behavior/culture that aims to spend more.

You can argue that one fuels the other, well, I'm not so sure about that, because cultural shifts are too big to be the agenda of anyone. In my opinion, they feed on each other.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#95

Post by 1123581321 »

jka wrote: post #81
libertine wrote: post #78

I'm a suspect because I worked in digital media in a media agency some time ago, and let me tell you that this is quite a broad request. Why? Let's start by asking: what is targeted advertising? Is it based on interests? Behavior? Demographic? Psychographic? Contextual? Placement? Geolocation? Search queries? The list goes on. Even if they want to narrow it down to collected data from users, this still has a lot of b…

What is targeted advertising needed for?

Ideally, advertising is a way for the seller (or teacher/advocate/government) to pay some of the buyer’s/researcher’s search costs.

Targeted advertising lets the advertiser pay for part of more expensive searches.

One of the problems with Google and Facebook is that they are businesses whose core product should be driving search costs very low, so they compromise their product so that their advertising remains valuable to close the gap.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#96

Post by mLuby »

rcxdude wrote: post #68
slipheen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this will work well. If you give them that leeway, they'll claim everything is voluntary. "Oh, you can go into [random place in settings that changes every week] and disable each one of your anxieties. It will remain disabled for 72 hours"

I think the point is no data collection: only targeting based on stuff you explicitly enter on a clearly indicated form.

Right, but then like "accepting cookies" or ToS/EULAs they'll just make explicitly giving them this permission a requirement for using their application, and we're back to where we were before.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#97

Post by ativzzz »

eyeinthepyramid wrote: post #86
jka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is targeted advertising needed for?

Perhaps to inform people about the goods and services that you offer that they might be interested in buying?

Is this not what a search engine is for? When I want a good or service I'm interested in buying, I can search it, do my research, and/or find a place to buy it. I only want advertising when I explicitly opt into it. Otherwise, I never want to see an ad.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#98

Post by libertine »

SifJar wrote: post #92
libertine wrote: post #78

I'm a suspect because I worked in digital media in a media agency some time ago, and let me tell you that this is quite a broad request. Why? Let's start by asking: what is targeted advertising? Is it based on interests? Behavior? Demographic? Psychographic? Contextual? Placement? Geolocation? Search queries? The list goes on. Even if they want to narrow it down to collected data from users, this still has a lot of b…

> A company that sells vegan supplements that places advertising in the POS (Point of Sale) is targeted advertising - why should we ban something that has the consent of everyone involved? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is the consumer also consenting?

Unless they have no other choice to buy from, they enter the shop by their own terms and can leave any time.

Unless you're trying to say that the consumer didn't consent to have messages being displayed around him, and this is just once again too broad... the solution would be any media (or for the sake of simplicity, any surface) would need to be plain white with no text. Walls, shelves, windows, clothing of staff, even products on display.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#99

Post by dfxm12 »

dx034 wrote: post #85
jka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is targeted advertising needed for?

To get information to those that are interested in it. While some dislike any kind of advertisment, many (me included) don't mind having ads, as long as they're not too intrusive and actually useful.

But, you can't have targeted ads without some database out there tracking everything you do. A database that is ostensibly used to get information to you that you might find interesting, but in reality has been used for much worse, according to the article: proliferation of hateful and false content on social media & political manipulation, among others. This data is also an valuable target for ID thieves.

The ads themselves aren't the problem here, nor is it really what's being discussed.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#100

Post by stoev »

There is a very important point made in this article that is unfortunately lost in-between all the other arguments:

“Meanwhile, the ability to track users wherever they go tends to shift ad revenue from higher quality sites to less reputable ones. “The way the adtech system works is, it follows the reader from Wired.com all the way down to the cheapest possible place, the basement bottom-feeders on the internet, and will serve you the ads there.””

Many people don’t like seeing ads. But they do like receiving the free content that those ads pay for. And would find it far more annoying if all the content was locked behind paywalls. Whether we like it or not, digital advertising is a powerful equaliser that gave free access to vast amounts of information to anyone from any country and from any income bracket.

But the shift towards audience targeting has stripped high-quality content creators of their share of the value they create and has instead spread it out to countless click-baity websites and apps designed entirely to profit of off targeted advertising.

So diminishing our reliance on targeted advertising is not only great for the user, it would be truly game-changing for high-quality content providers as well. For some reason, this mutually beneficial outcome is often forgotten and I’m glad that Wired pointed it out.

Post reply on HN