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

201–210 of 632 posts

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

#201

Post by masswerk »

PaulHoule wrote: post #195
masswerk wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about tracking back to content related advertising rather than tracking based advertising? All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway. And, as these metrics (and ethics) suggest, it has been an illegitimate invasion, right from the beginning. The fancy "conversion rate" dashboards are just not worth it. Bonus: Maybe this will be an opportunity for content providers to reset the decline o…

Tracking is necessary for the advertising economy to control bad behavior on the part of publishers and advertisers, not just to serve targeted ads. No matter what there would be discrepancies in the numbers (publisher says it sent 75 clicks, advertiser says it got 70) and that breeds mistrust. Participants have a reason to lie. Having multiple third party watch the whole thing helps them trust each other.

This has been possible before. Google was built around content based advertising. Also, maybe click-through rates are not that important? Maybe exposure is a more decisive metric? As a side-effect, we may reduce social bubble effects and maybe even return to a shared reality? (Many of the unwanted effects of the Web are really due to targeted advertising and its consequences.)

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

#202

Post by samizdis »

[Eric] Seufert [a mobile analyst who writes the Mobile Dev Memo trade blog] estimated that in the first full quarter users see the prompt, the iOS changes could cut Facebook’s revenue by 7% if roughly 20% of users agree to be tracked. If just 10% of users grant Facebook tracking permission, revenue could be down as much as 13.6%, according to his models.

If those figures are even near the ballpark, this would surely represent a significant blow to FB. If widely circulated, this could be wielded to some effect in a campaign by FB detractors/rivals.

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

#203

Post by handrous »

rascul wrote: post #131
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.

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

That used to be all they did. You'd see a lot of "of course I block all ads—except Google's, they're fine".

They also didn't used to trick unsophisticated or distracted users into clicking ads by putting them inline with search results.

Both changed, I assume, when someone was allowed to run an experiment and the projected profit trend line went from "exceptionally good" to "holy shit, it's all the money in the world". And all it took was being evil. Go figure.

Some tie this to internal fallout from the the DoubleClick acquisition, which checks out pretty well timeline-wise.

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

#204

Post by comprev »

mariusor wrote: post #73

For the past year I've had this ritual of clicking on every advertising tile as soon as it appears and mark it as irrelevant and that I don't want to see any more from that company. Currently this happens for a couple of days at the start of some months. So far I feel like this strategy has worked fine, 90% of the time I don't get served any unwanted content and I can view a decent timeline.

You're still served ads though. To me it doesn't matter if the advert is relevant or not - I still have zero interest in clicking on it or pausing to read it. Little point in wasting time "marking" adverts.

For Instagram the web based app has no adverts, at least not on iOS/Firefox/NextDNS.

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

#205

Post by aerosmile »

masswerk wrote: post #143
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.

How about tracking back to content related advertising rather than tracking based advertising? All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway. And, as these metrics (and ethics) suggest, it has been an illegitimate invasion, right from the beginning. The fancy "conversion rate" dashboards are just not worth it. Bonus: Maybe this will be an opportunity for content providers to reset the decline o…

> All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway.

This is very common on HN these days - stating something with a lot of confidence that turns out to be some self-constructed mental model that has nothing to do with reality. Then, add the obligatory "all related studies are showing it" and you have met the publishing standards.

Legally or illegally, morally or immorally, for better or worse, Facebook has created the most sophisticated ad targeting engine the world has ever seen. You want proof? Look at their financial statements. You want more proof? Look at all the companies that went public on the back of Facebook's ad targeting engine. Again, perhaps it shouldn't exist in the first place, but trust me, it works.

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

#206

Post by kalleboo »

Iv wrote: post #196
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.

Mark my words: as soon as the world starts to turn their back on advertisement, there will be several micropayement unicorns flourishing in the next 6 months. 20+ paid subscriptions make no sense, but checking a box with your ISP to get a 2 USD monthly credit to use on the articles you click on, could work.

I'm still disappointed that Flattr never took off

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

#207

Post by School-Cotton »

jaywalk wrote: post #187
School-Cotton wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i thought cellular you get a unique ip? In the US at least, yes, because most cell providers switched to IPv6 long ago. In other places, carrier-grade NAT is widespread.

CG-NAT is widespread in the US as well, but is only used when a site isn't reachable over IPv6.

True, but in this particular context the IPs would be unique, as Facebook has been IPv6-native for many years.

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

#209

Post by sp332 »

gruez wrote: post #71
qwerty456127 wrote: post #66

How in the world can this be considered reasonable for them to track you across other apps and sites? This like if the local grocery store owner would install hidden cameras to spy on me at home and at work and in the car and one day somebody forced them to ask if I'm sure that's what I want them to do. This all makes me start feeling like I might finally want an iPhone...

>This like if the local grocery store owner would install hidden cameras to spy on me at home and at work The more accurate analogy would be the grocery store owner teaming up with other local businesses to aggregate your shopping habits across stores into a central database. What you're describing would be if facebook installed a RAT on your computer after visiting it.

Exactly. All those other sites voluntarily send your data to Facebook.

Edit: although they do track your physical location in real time through the app. That's more direct spying.

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

#210

Post by kalleboo »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #66

How in the world can this be considered reasonable for them to track you across other apps and sites? This like if the local grocery store owner would install hidden cameras to spy on me at home and at work and in the car and one day somebody forced them to ask if I'm sure that's what I want them to do. This all makes me start feeling like I might finally want an iPhone...

You're basically describing Apple's latest privacy ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4qPUSG17Y
Post reply on HN