Live data from Hacker News

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

801–810 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#801
post #774
post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I think we should operate such that consumption is slightly negative to begin with. imo, buying something you need is good, but then you don't need an ad to tell you to do it. Buying something you want is good. Buying something you neither need nor want is bad. Allowing something to manipulate you to want more stuff seems bad compared to it not happening.

> Buying something you neither need nor want is bad. Allowing something to manipulate you to want more stuff seems bad compared to it not happening. Okay, those are the qualifiers I was looking for. That makes sense. It sounded like you were taking a stance against all purchases and not just excesses.

I sort-of am: I'd say it seems most reasonable to assign a negative reaction to any purchases, so the positive reasons need to be enough to justify it.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#802

The author writes that you can either pay with money or you can “pay with your attention”. What’s left unsaid is the cost of that attention. I believe that cost is very high and it isn’t just ads, it’s the design of countless products including social media sites, games and even the site you’re reading this on right now. It’s all designed to extract as much attention as possible, and the cost is people’s ability to c…

My ability to concentrate, learn, or get shit done has only ever been hindered by an ad to the extent that it's annoying waiting for the ad to finish. I can't imagine most people don't just tune ads out most of the time. Still better than having to pay every website a subscription. It's nice having the option though, for example I personally find YouTube Premium worth the money.

> I can't imagine most people don't just tune ads out most of the time.

"Most" means "not all".

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#803

The author writes that you can either pay with money or you can “pay with your attention”. What’s left unsaid is the cost of that attention. I believe that cost is very high and it isn’t just ads, it’s the design of countless products including social media sites, games and even the site you’re reading this on right now. It’s all designed to extract as much attention as possible, and the cost is people’s ability to c…

With ads you're not just paying with your "attention" (waste of time and focus), you're also paying with changes in your behaviour, perceptions, and attitudes. As much as we like to imagine our minds to be impenetrable bastions of rationality, they are not. We can easily be enticed and manipulated to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, to see things differently than we otherwise would, to consider things we wouldn't…

> not just paying with your "attention"

And maybe abolishing democracy

Political manipulation ads, helping an authoritarian rise to power.

But ads for buying what I just searched for: "buy new running shoes", aren't like that -- they can be helpful instead :-). It's mainly social network ads like on Facebook that are dangerous for society?

From the article:

> I think advertising is positive

It's both? Ads are different from ads, just like different things one can eat are different, like potatoes (running shoe ads) versus poisonous mushrooms (nation states abolishing democracy in the US via political manipulation on Facebook)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#804

The author writes that you can either pay with money or you can “pay with your attention”. What’s left unsaid is the cost of that attention. I believe that cost is very high and it isn’t just ads, it’s the design of countless products including social media sites, games and even the site you’re reading this on right now. It’s all designed to extract as much attention as possible, and the cost is people’s ability to c…

The problem with ads is that they destroy value, which I think is what you are getting at. If you are an ad-dependent website, you are incentivized to fill your site with so many ads until it becomes just barely tolerable for the marginal reader. E.g. if your site as V viewers, and N ads, with L(N) being the number of viewers who turn off in disgust at seeing the N-th ad, then the equilibrium condition is L(N) = V/(N+1). A website with 10 ads displayed would suffer a 10% drop in readership if it added an 11th ad. That's the only condition whereby they don't ad that 11th ad. And you only added 10 ads because the number of readers you lost with the 10th was less than 1/10 of your total.

That is, you are incentivized to significantly reduce the pleasure obtained from your product, as the attention demanded by ads competes with the attention of your readers/viewers.

But if you are selling a good for money, while you are also incentivized to keep raising prices until the marginal cost of the product is equal to the marginal benefit, the money you charge doesn't reduce the quality of the product. A beautiful car may be painful to buy, but it's still a beautiful car. There is no such thing as a beautiful website with ads, the product is intentionally made awful.

And that situation of destroying value creates really weird long and short-run equilibria. For example, ads incentivize the kind of products for which attention is more easily shared: you wont find a lot of deep-think pieces that are ad-supported because the ads are too distracting. Instead, you find a lot of short-attention span pieces as these work better with ads. Thus the staccatto assaults of 9 weird tricks to do X, where you read a weird trick and then look at a couple of ads and go to the next weird trick. You can feel the presence of the ads in the work itself. In the Old TV era, episodes would encounter these cliff-hangers when the detective walks into a room, points a gun, you hear the sound of a woman screaming, and then it cuts to a commercial. They needed to create this peak of interest so you'd stick around to see what was in the room. But that peak also artificially disrupted the story. Online, all that is compressed into a few seconds of recognition, it is constant disruption.

In terms of long-run equilibria, there is this ratchet effect: As people flee the ad-sponsored world the ones who remain are more insentitive to ads and so the number of ads increases. In other words, the quality of the writing gets worse over time, in an ad-supported eco-system.

So no, ads are not just an alternate way of paying for content, they are a way of shaping content, and for the worse.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#805

There's a lot of talk in the comments here about how ads are terrible, Jeff is terrible, etc. Eg "I personally have a very low opinion of anyone who works for a company that does that and even lower of anyone who actually works on serving those adverts." According to https://www.jefftk.com/donations , Jeff and Julia have donated about $1.5m. GiveWell top rated charities are estimated [1] to save a life for each $3,00…

If you really want to be utilitarian about it, then you must weigh the lives saved by donations against the lives destroyed by advertisements. If Jeff does not comes out ahead, he is terrible. The Less Wrong creed "shut up and multiply" is relevant, I ask commenters be sure to understand what I mean before replying to my argument.

I estimate that while he is still earning income, the upper bound for person-years saved will be 550_000 (30 more working years, 19_000_000$ total donations, a lifetime is worth 100 years and costs 3_500$). I estimate the lower bound for person-years destroyed will be 24_000 person-years (50_000_000 people affected, each losing 365 seconds every year over 42 years). These numbers are inconclusive.

I cannot answer the big philosophical question whether he shares responsibility with the other people working in advertisements, so we would divide the total destruction person-years by the number of people working in advertisements. If yes, this would certainly make the donation scheme very favourable/positively utilitarian.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#806
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outcry would be huge if everything went to a pay model.

I foresee micropayments being extremely common place in the future. Something like a digital wallet browser extension. And instead of paying 5p to watch a video, you will instead pay 5p to skip 3 minute ads.

This would be an absolute nightmare experience. It would force you to make small decisions about money constantly. You would have to constantly make the decision "Do I want to pay some money now or do I suffer through this ad? How much have I paid lately? It feels like it might be adding up? But I really can't be bothered, maybe I'll just pay. I feel bad about paying so much though..."

It would be utterly exhausting, which is why it will not happen.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you come to the conclusion that people get cheaper goods? Cost of ads has to be included in the product pricing.

Effective ads lead to better margins and easier to conduct mass production.

It's a zero sum game. Effective ads steal leads from technically better products.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With ads you're not just paying with your "attention" (waste of time and focus), you're also paying with changes in your behaviour, perceptions, and attitudes. As much as we like to imagine our minds to be impenetrable bastions of rationality, they are not. We can easily be enticed and manipulated to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, to see things differently than we otherwise would, to consider things we wouldn't…

> not just paying with your "attention" And maybe abolishing democracy Political manipulation ads, helping an authoritarian rise to power. But ads for buying what I just searched for: "buy new running shoes", aren't like that -- they can be helpful instead :-). It's mainly social network ads like on Facebook that are dangerous for society? From the article: > I think advertising is positive It's both? Ads are differe…

If I search for “buy new running shoes” I’d rather get the best search results, not the highest paid for.

I’m pretty sure there are better criteria for those results than the amount of money paid to end up in that list.

But alas, that’s not what modern search engines use, because they are advertisers first and foremost. Not reputable search providers anymore.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#809
post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the craziest parts is the total lack of accountability. Google / FB just say they show your ad to a XXXX million people. You owe them $XXXX.

Wouldn't traditional "offline" advertising be even worse? "We suspect X million people watch this TV show (based on highly inaccurate Nielsen ratings) and then stayed around for the ad break, pay XX dollars." "XXX people passed by your billboard, XX saw it, X people visited your website and made a purchase, pay XX dollars."

At least that's an independent ranking (I presume?)

Plus you can go watch TV and see that it's actually been on there. Or walk down the street, or pick up a newspaper.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the craziest parts is the total lack of accountability. Google / FB just say they show your ad to a XXXX million people. You owe them $XXXX.

People track conversions - click through URLs contain tracking query params which track the source. If you convert (download a resource, request a demo, start a trial, buy a product) it gets reported back to Facebook. There's definitely accountability. The problem is that you can't always blame FB or Google because maybe your targeting is off, your ad copy sucks, you dumped the user off the front page of your website…

If you're only paying for conversions then you should be OK, but paying for clicks is still very common no?
Post reply on HN