131–140 of 188 posts
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.
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…
The images of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... illustrate the difference in a different space. Personally, I found the difference greater and more lovely than I expected and support reducing advertising. Other cities are doing it. The parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wo…
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.
I'd add nuance to this: Ban _involuntarily_ targeted advertising. I am 100% ok with Google, Facebook etc. knowing that I live in Oxfordshire, UK; that I love cycling; that I play the church organ. That's who I am. If they want to target cycling, classical music, and local ads at me based on this information, that's great. I would happily log onto these sites and click checkboxes based on this (or do it via browser se…
This is the direction we need to head in. ML/AI peeps dont wait for regulation. Push back on misguided attempts from mgmt and point them in different directions. I have had experiences with execs running large video services for content producers/publishers who would openly say (and therefore influence underlings and the next gen) - we know there are people who are addicted to our platforms, they have nothing better…
Unless management is genuinely mindless, it seems to me like it might work no more than once.
Perhaps you've had different experiences?
The argument for massive Pigouvian taxes on advertising seems much clearer. Advertising imposes massive costs on society and the viewers. These costs aren't borne by the advertiser, so they should be captured through massive taxes and put to good use. And many brands wouldn't feel much of an impact: what matters to Coke is that it spends more than Pepsi. If their $6B on advertising only buys 1/10th as many ads as it…
On the flip-side, businesses that rely on ad revenue would disappear. That means most of the commonly used websites. No more Google, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, almost all news sites etc. This also means that everything goes back to essentially subscription only and this without a credit card don't get much access to stuff (like it used to be).
Because then only untargeted advertising will be left, and that's definitely not what you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. So we ban advertising. Now you have to spend your “attention tokens” earning money to purchase the content you were previously getting for free. Is that better? How about we let people make this choice themselves, just as we do now?
> Is that better? “Better” by what metric? If the cost of showing 1000 ads is $5 [0], each advert is at worst replaced with needing 0.5¢ for a micro-transaction. It doesn’t take much time to earn that: Even if someone only earns $5/hour, it is 3.6 seconds. There are people on this site earning 30 times as much, for whom the delay between a new pattern of light hitting their retina and their conscious mind having the…
I tell my browser my max default micro-payment for a website view. If the site asks for that or less, I view the page. If the site wants more I can approve a larger payment or not view the site. Market dynamics will set the price levels for individual sites over time. The browser keeps track of my payment levels for different sites.
I get to set whether I want to do micro-payments or look at ads. It should then be illegal for web sites to violate that global preference set in the browser.
Bandwidth needs drop, my web viewing isn't cluttered with crap, and info providers still get rewarded for their efforts.
This seems simple, so I'm guessing it must have been discussed before. What happened? Was micro-payment security the issue? Is it just too expensive in typical scenarios?
Why don't we just ban advertising?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand completely your argument, and the article argument - I've used plenty of contextual advertising, and it's better than what we call ROS (Run Of Site), but it's worst than targeting based on interests. But let me give you a inside view: there's been a war from major media groups to try to take down Facebook and Google (let's see what they come up with for Amazon). This solution for them is the best solutio…
Sure, it is in the author’s employer best interest for the industry to switch to contextual advertising. But it is also in the best interest of the end user. So why is that a bad thing? I also don’t believe that behavioural advertising is better by definition. Even the article mentions some research to prove the contrary. I’ve seen it from first-hand experience as well. Which, of course, is anecdotal. But what is not…
Like said, the bad thing would be more wastage and potentially less relevant advertising.
The problem with advertising is that a campaign success is a multi variable equation that fiddles with human attention/retention of attention/memory and many other factors that makes us humans and regulate our perception.
For example, I don't consider Google Search contextual base. I put it in a category of it's own, because you're tapping into people declaring their intent and interest, and reducing it to context is dangerous - because it's more than that.
I used to say to clients: Facebook knows what you like, Google knows what you're looking for, and Amazon knows what you're buying.
Google does have Contextual Segmentation but it's used mainly for display advertising (GDN - Google Display Network). There was a time you could even select/exclude domains, but I don't know if that's still available.
Also, Facebook tried to leverage their data for display advertising outside of Facebook and they ended up closing Audience Network... so even interest based targeting seems to work within a context itself.
>The fact that publishers so far have not been able to do something about FB’s and Google’s duopoly doesn’t necessarily mean they will never be able to.
This would be a long conversation, but in a brief way, I think they tried to compete by placing themselves next to Facebook and Google, while they should have set themselves apart and leverage their strengths - name content quality wise.