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

Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 632 posts

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#131

Post by rascul »

makecheck wrote: post #120
aviraldg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as ad supported free services start shutting down because of ad blocking and lowered clickthrough rates on ads because of targeting being blocked, most people will probably start changing their minds. (The alternative being maintaining 10-20+ paid subscriptions.) For now, all this change means is that users who are opted-in to tracking are subsidising those who aren't.

This is not destroying the whole concept of ads, it is only pushing back against awful variants. It is definitely possible to have “nice” ads, like simple text or images, with no creepy or CPU-draining elements in them. Nothing is preventing those ads from supporting free services.

I vaguely recall that Google used to use text ads. Not sure if they still do, or if I recall correctly.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#132

Post by ineedasername »

We'll, so much for the myth of privacy apathy. I've seen it mentioned before that for many people, the younger the more prevalent, the sense was "well the genie is out of the bottle so who cares."

Clearly that was either never the case, or things have changed. Or now there is the sense of "well maybe we can shove that genie back where it came from."

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#133

Post by Workaccount2 »

ggggtez wrote: post #108
aviraldg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as ad supported free services start shutting down because of ad blocking and lowered clickthrough rates on ads because of targeting being blocked, most people will probably start changing their minds. (The alternative being maintaining 10-20+ paid subscriptions.) For now, all this change means is that users who are opted-in to tracking are subsidising those who aren't.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that if Cable TV is any indication, things that start as subscription services will slowly begin to double-dip and you'll be paying money upfront and watching ads anyway.

At least now we have piracy as a counter balance for that.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#134

Post by derefr »

makecheck wrote: post #120
aviraldg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as ad supported free services start shutting down because of ad blocking and lowered clickthrough rates on ads because of targeting being blocked, most people will probably start changing their minds. (The alternative being maintaining 10-20+ paid subscriptions.) For now, all this change means is that users who are opted-in to tracking are subsidising those who aren't.

This is not destroying the whole concept of ads, it is only pushing back against awful variants. It is definitely possible to have “nice” ads, like simple text or images, with no creepy or CPU-draining elements in them. Nothing is preventing those ads from supporting free services.

However, the reason companies looking to place ads, will choose modern-adtech-platform-X (Google, Facebook, etc.) over traditional advertising medium Y (billboards, TV, etc.) is that the former promises to be more targeted (using the ad”tech”) than the latter, such that there’s higher value-per-click or value-per-impression.

Without that promise, there’s no reason to favor advertising on these platforms over other platforms. Which, if you flip it around, means that there’s no reason that these platforms should be valued in excess of the traditional-advertising-impression-value of their MAU. (Which is, to be clear, a lot lower than the value these companies currently have!)

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#135

Post by _zzaw »

aviraldg wrote: post #94
_zzaw wrote: post #67

If people opt out of what you're doing to them as soon as they're made aware you're doing it, then perhaps that's a sign that you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. I don't even believe that 25% of users actually wanted tracking. I think a lot of people just blindly tap buttons to make annoyances go away, and these guys just hit the wrong button.

As soon as ad supported free services start shutting down because of ad blocking and lowered clickthrough rates on ads because of targeting being blocked, most people will probably start changing their minds. (The alternative being maintaining 10-20+ paid subscriptions.) For now, all this change means is that users who are opted-in to tracking are subsidising those who aren't.

Or these ad companies could come up with ways of making money that people don't want to block.

I despise ads, and generally approve of anything that makes ad companies sweat, but it didn't have to be that way. We are where we are because those ad companies have a sociopathically disrespectful attitude towards the people whose attention they need. With tactics like auto-playing videos, popovers, animated ads, and hideously obtrusive design, it was simply inevitable that people would try to get rid of that garbage. That approach to advertising is borne of greed and laziness, and it deserves to fail.

But there are tech blogs I read that do not adopt that approach. They have small, tasteful, non-animated ads. They don't need to violate my privacy to have a good idea of the kinds of things I'd be interested in; the fact that I'm on a tech blog means I'm more receptive to ads for tech-related tools and services. The people who run these sites have more respect for their visitors, so they choose a more respectful approach to ads.

Like I said: most companies' approach to ads is rooted in abject contempt for the people they need. If your business strategy is based on treating people badly, you have no grounds to complain when they decide not to put up with that anymore. You can either whine about how unfair it is and fail, or you can identify an approach that is appealing enough to be sustainable.

This could be a chance for that much-vaunted market-force-shaped innovation. Facebook's current strategy—whining—suggests they're still stuck in the old way of thinking: greed and laziness.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#136

Post by frabcus »

melomal wrote: post #56
danbruc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the personal entitlement people have when using free email, free social media, free search engines and everything else to the point they are offended if they try to make ends meet by making profit. Those are not free, the users are paying for them with their share of the ad budget in the price of all the products they buy. And I am not complaining about ads per se - even though I would personally prefer if the…

But 1000 HN readers paying $X per month for a web browsing service is not going to pay for the R&D needed to overcome Google's amazing ability to search the web. ex. $5 per month from 1000 HN readers is only $5000. This is petty money if you want and all swinging, all dancing product, profit and work/life balance. You should check out Indie Hackers which is essentially a graveyard of products, ideas and people asking…

If advertising wasn't a viable business, all of these pay for services would suddenly get much more popular.

That said, advertising without tracking across multiple sites/apps is perfectly viable - The New York times does it (https://stuntbox.com/blog/2020/05/new-york-times-third-party...).

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#137

Post by bobthepanda »

Engineering-MD wrote: post #126
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #12

Even with all the tracking, the generated ads still suck, showing things already purchased. This reminds me of the overhyped lead generation tools out there, they do not work as expected. Someone's financial interest is the root cause here, someone is making good money with ads. The ones who sell ads? For sure. The ones who buy adds? Not many success stories out there.

The explanation I have heard previously is that people have bought an item are actually more likely to buy another: unhappy with the current purchase, or people who need multiple items. Sure, for most people it’s irrelevant as they are happy with their purchase, but most ads are ignored anyway.

at the same time it's very easy to run into anecdotes people have like "you bought the 5th edition of this college textbook? do you want to buy the 3rd edition in Spanish?"

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#138

Post by wintermutestwin »

shadilay wrote: post #100
aviraldg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as ad supported free services start shutting down because of ad blocking and lowered clickthrough rates on ads because of targeting being blocked, most people will probably start changing their minds. (The alternative being maintaining 10-20+ paid subscriptions.) For now, all this change means is that users who are opted-in to tracking are subsidising those who aren't.

Or people will realize the service isn't as valuable as what's being charged. No one asked for 80% of facebooks features, it could be run/maintained by a much smaller team.

So much this. All I wanted was a simple way to share pics and updates with family and friends. Instead, I got an anal probe and mind control. Seriously, it is harder and harder to actually find my family and friends on their convoluted mess of a site.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#139

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #134
makecheck wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not destroying the whole concept of ads, it is only pushing back against awful variants. It is definitely possible to have “nice” ads, like simple text or images, with no creepy or CPU-draining elements in them. Nothing is preventing those ads from supporting free services.

However, the reason companies looking to place ads, will choose modern-adtech-platform-X (Google, Facebook, etc.) over traditional advertising medium Y (billboards, TV, etc.) is that the former promises to be more targeted (using the ad”tech”) than the latter, such that there’s higher value-per-click or value-per-impression. Without that promise, there’s no reason to favor advertising on these platforms over other pl…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#140

Post by freeone3000 »

zohch wrote: post #104
kingaillas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do they think Facebook will stay operational? The same way ads work in print media - the publisher doesn't have as detailed targeting info for the advertiser, and presumably would charge less.

> The same way ads work in print media Do adds in print media not "monetize people's eyeballs" also? > The publisher doesn't have as detailed targeting info for the advertiser, and presumably would charge less. Okay but I was responding to a claim about adds not tracking.

Nothing about this change prevents Facebook from serving ads! Opting out doesn't remove ads, only tracking.
Post reply on HN