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

Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 186 posts

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#151

Post by busymom0 »

arjunkava wrote: post #148

This is actual blog by google https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sa... and it says "eliminate third-party cookies by replacing them with viable privacy-first alternatives, developed alongside ecosystem partners, that will help publishers and advertisers succeed while also protecting people’s privacy as they move across the web." Am I the only guy who is distracted by the blog which uses 13 thir…

Is it just me or does that statement read like a PR virtue signalling? They are almost trying to change the meaning of privacy with that statement. If they want to eliminate third-party cookies but replacing them to achieve the same goal as the third-party cookies (help advertisers), then nothing is actually changing.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#152

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

coldpie wrote: post #63
gopi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads. So likely the publishers will increase the number of ads per page to maintain the same eCPM yield. Also the ads will optimize for top of the funnel (clicks) than bottom (conversion). So we will start to see aggressive & intrusive ads. (remember the "punch the monkey" ads from the early 2000s?)

> CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads. Only because they're viewed. If we can get everyone to install an ad blocker, that price will plummet, and business models that aren't based on abusing users will be allowed to succeed.

Ads will be rendered server-side, and nothing will plummet.

In exchange you'll get completely opaque and abusable serverside user tracking systems and encrypted html pages.

This isn't what you want.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#153

Post by vermilingua »

busymom0 wrote: post #147
shp0ngle wrote: post #139

People say how they hate surveillance tech, but at the end of the day, it pays half of the bills on this website. Most probably, there is Google Analytics and Facebook pixel on the very site you are building right now. So all these horribly, horribly outraged comments ring kind of hollow to me. I mean look at how many trackers are on The Verge site itself. Yeah FLoC is horrible. I hope it dies in a fire. It's just, p…

> People say how they hate surveillance tech, but at the end of the day, it pays half of the bills on this website. HN has surveillance tech? > Most probably, there is Google Analytics and Facebook pixel on the very site you are building right now. Nope. I haven't used any of those since 2016. None of the apps I build for iOS have third party analytics, trackers or even ads. I solely rely on a single one time only in…

> HN uses surveillance tech?

HN is fully funded by Y Combinator. The suggestion is that YC make half their money from surveillance tech, but I can’t speak as to whether that is true.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#154

Post by busymom0 »

naikrovek wrote: post #149
shp0ngle wrote: post #139

People say how they hate surveillance tech, but at the end of the day, it pays half of the bills on this website. Most probably, there is Google Analytics and Facebook pixel on the very site you are building right now. So all these horribly, horribly outraged comments ring kind of hollow to me. I mean look at how many trackers are on The Verge site itself. Yeah FLoC is horrible. I hope it dies in a fire. It's just, p…

> people that build websites want tracking. And it works. Retargeting works, banners work. do they? I've never once bought anything because and ad made me aware of it, or because an ad convinced me I needed it. not once. has anyone? I'm sure someone has, but how many? I would not be surprised if studies were done that computed a purchase rate overall for all the ads people see or hear in their lives, that the number…

One thing to note is that the purpose of ads might not just be to get you to directly click on it and buy something. It might also be to make you remember the brand name so the next time you think of lets say baby diapers, you remember "Huggies" because they are the most advertised ones even though there are better and cheaper alternatives.

As for how impactful the ads are - you don't need a study. Simply run an ad and you will know how many people click your ad and how many then follow up with purchasing. That's where terms like cost per acquisition (CPA), customer acquisition cost (CAC), cost per click (CPC), Cost Per Thousand (CPM) etc come into place.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cpm.asp

It's not one purchase per billion ads. You can look up google Adwords cost per acquisition by industry (WARNING - might be blocked by ad blocker):

https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/02/29/google-adwords...

Cost per acquisition on the app stores is much cheaper too.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#155

Post by busymom0 »

vermilingua wrote: post #153
busymom0 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People say how they hate surveillance tech, but at the end of the day, it pays half of the bills on this website. HN has surveillance tech? > Most probably, there is Google Analytics and Facebook pixel on the very site you are building right now. Nope. I haven't used any of those since 2016. None of the apps I build for iOS have third party analytics, trackers or even ads. I solely rely on a single one time only in…

> HN uses surveillance tech? HN is fully funded by Y Combinator. The suggestion is that YC make half their money from surveillance tech, but I can’t speak as to whether that is true.

Fair point. I see what OP means now. Though that is like saying one won't use React Native or Flutter because it's made and funded by FB and Google.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#156

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

mijamo wrote: post #73
gopi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads. So likely the publishers will increase the number of ads per page to maintain the same eCPM yield. Also the ads will optimize for top of the funnel (clicks) than bottom (conversion). So we will start to see aggressive & intrusive ads. (remember the "punch the monkey" ads from the early 2000s?)

That is only true because targeted ads are possible. In a world where there is no targeted ads, companies still need to get clients and compete. The marketing budgets of companies would not miraculously go down if targeted ads ceased to exist, the money would just go to other means, and non targeted ads are a very good candidate (also they can be extremely hard to block as they can be served first party if needed)

Yes. TV advertising is actually much more targeted than web advertising. (In the sense than TV advertisers know precisely their target audience and its response.)

The various annoying remarketing schemes are a tiny part of advertising technology and really only exist because of the well-meaning but poorly thought-out ideas about privacy on the web.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#157

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

dvdhnt wrote: post #140
kwdc wrote: post #136

Rant ON. Third party cookies are surveillance tech. So is FLoC. There is no need to track a person from one web site to another like some stalker. Any tech to stalk people like this isn't a good idea in general. This is antithesis to multiple business models. I know. But I see no reason to accomodate faulty models. Ironically however, I'm not against advertising. But my experience with targeted ads is that they are u…

I absolutely agree with your statement. Anecdotally, the majority of targeted ads I see are for services or products I already use or pay for! That makes no sense to me. It does not drive loyalty, it simply annoys me. I’d opt out in a second if possible. Please give me contextual ads.

That's because underneath there's a primitive Bayesian engine with a simple rule of

    P(buying crap on the Internet)
there's nothing intelligent going on under the scenes and a massive tracking setup isn't needed here.

(And yes, the massive tracking by Google, Facebook et al isn't really for advertising purposes. It's so they are prepared to pivot from adtech to the much more profitable govtech, a la China's social credit system. TV advertising is actually much more targeted than web advertising and they do it with practically no tracking at all.)

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#158

Post by foerbert »

freyir wrote: post #137
cratermoon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You: Here's a cute picture of my cat, I'll post it on Instagram for my friends Instagram: cool! We're showing this to all your friends. BTW it costs us money to do this but don't worry, we don't charge you, we just show some ads to your friends. You: Hey, my kitten is really popular, a lot of people are liking it. Instagram: High five! You're popular. We ended up making a lot more money from selling ads than it cost…

Your “cut” is having a place to store, view, and share your cat photos online. The web only has two business models: users pay for a service or advertisers pay for a service. I’m all in favor of paying for services, but it turns out most people prefer ads to breaking out their wallet.

This always gets said, and I don't exactly think it's untrue, but it carries this strong implication that the problem is that people are too cheap to pay.

And I'm not sure that's entirely true.

My own pet theory is that - payment method and model issues aside - the largest contributor is the uncomfortable questions it makes us ask ourselves.

When you pay for something, you ask yourself if whatever you are buying is actually worth the price. And a lot (most?) of what people seem to do on the web these days is feed their dopamine as much novelty as they can, as quickly as possible.

I don't know how much value people are expecting to get out of their browsing activities. Do they even think it's actually worth the time, if they stop and think about it? Asking them to pay for it is forcing them to confront this issue.

No wonder nobody pays.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#160

Post by hakfoo »

roody15 wrote: post #112
xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

Anonymous web makes sense. The very idea that we need an ad profile that follows us as we traverse the web is ridiculous. Contextual advertising works. Visit a popular website covering PC hardware .. and advertisers can pay to put ads to parts, chips, cases, etc. Visit a website that covers hiking trails and companies can purchase ads for camping gear, travel lodging, etc. The very notion that it should be normal for…

At this point, I think it's become a "too big to fail" argument for the industry.

We have several near-trillion-dollar companies that basically have no viable business model other than doubling down on targeted advertising. If third-party cookies get demonized or GDPR'd to death, they need to pivot to SOMETHING else that still fits into the same profiling paradigm.

I suspect it's not about results or innovation anymore, it's about being a moat. Only a trillion-dollar company with huge scale and scope can possibly build and maintain "high quality" profiles, so it's a great way to spread FUD against any competing, potentially actually privacy-first, ad-tech upstarts.

I'm sort of waiting for the "Emperor has no clothes" moment. We see the occasional "Brand stops advertising for 6 months and sales stay on trend" story, or the "our best conversions come from real content and relevant direct ads" story. We have the fact that ad spend grows and yet publishers starve, implying the middlemen are taking an ever-larger chunk of value out of the ecosystem in exchange for their services. It's gonna be ugly when the dots are joined.

Post reply on HN