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

231–240 of 632 posts

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

#231

Post by masswerk »

aerosmile wrote: post #219
masswerk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

You're clearly under the impression that all that Facebook does is get you good click-through rates and low conversion rates. Similarly, you're under the impression that Google's conversion rates are through the roof. Did you ever stop to ask yourself if your world view might be limited to a small sample size (eg: your own experiences)? I know plenty of businesses where the conversion rates are exactly the opposite o…

On the other hand, if I'm not on FB, I probably miss those vendors of suspension components all together. Advertising "in the bubble", as opposed to "in the world", comes with its disadvantages. With content based advertising (media analysis), you'll probably catch me at the related watering holes and communities. Also, excluding non-targeted audiences doesn't exactly benefit a shared world view.

P.S.: The general idea of targeted advertising misses the concepts of state of mind and focus of interest entirely. There's a (significant) difference in delivering a message in context and out of context. (The latter may have even adversarial effects.)

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

#232

Post by ransom1538 »

Publishers (people that sell adds) do not want tracking. They want to take inventory space, display an ad then charge you money per impression. They do not want tracking,reports,clicks or any accountability. IMHO fraud is a large portion of publisher business.

On the other hand, ad spenders (people who buy inventory) want cost per action. You click my ad, you signup, then you purchase something, then pay the publisher a cut. FANNG pretends cost per action does not exist.

The current compromise between the two is cost per click. Removing tracking on the click would be a HUGE win for publishers (Google/FB). They could increase fraud and revenues. Ad spenders would be completely screwed spending money on fraud with no accountability.

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

#233

Post by crazy1van »

b3kart wrote: post #28
layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That sense of entitlement makes me sick. No. It is in fact your sense of entitlement that makes us sick. Update: ok, after checking danbruc's comment history, they probably weren't arguing for tracking, and the second paragraph should be read in third person... I'll take my downvotes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sense of entitlement for…privacy? What a world we live in.

I prefer privacy too. But there is something entitled about wanting to interact with a company but keep the details of that interaction secret from that same company.

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

#234

Post by officialjunk »

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.

do you worry any of the links are malicious?

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

#235

Post by rchaud »

alkonaut wrote: post #167
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.

If sites can’t fund their content with ads based information I’m willing to give up, then they can beg me for money, or charge for the content, or beg me to look at ads or whatever. But I want that transaction to be transparent and deliberate. And I don’t care if 90% of content online just disappears because we click the privacy button. Then it was never a viable business model to begin with.

> Then it was never a viable business model to begin with.

I think there's much more evidence to the contrary than there is for your position.

Facebook is absurdly, staggeringly profitable. Uber and WeWork by comparison are the BS business models, needing to break local laws and requiring nation-state levels of VC backing and still nowhere near profitability.

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

#236

Post by cfjgvjh »

samizdis wrote: post #202

[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…

> If widely circulated, this could be wielded to some effect in a campaign by FB detractors/rivals.

But who are the FB ads rivals that aren't affected in a similar manner by this change? Since the tracking permission isn't specific to FB, wouldn't other players with a similar business model also be negatively impacted?

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

#237

Post by derefr »

Retric wrote: post #153
derefr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many companies are prohibited from doing stuff that they would profit from. I am sure soda companies would love to be able to add heroin to their products etc. However, maximizing random companies profits isn’t societies only concern.

My point wasn't so much about maximizing profits; it was more that these free-service companies might not even be tenable (at least at their current scales, or anything like them) with the drastically lower profit-margins of traditional ad impressions.

The GP comment said:

> Nothing is preventing those ads from supporting free services.

And my thought is, a zero-or-negative profit margin might very well be. It costs a lot to run Google/Facebook/etc. — probably a lot more than it costs to run the types of services they compete with. For the companies to not go bankrupt, their ad clicks/impressions need to be of at least as much value as their CapEx+OpEx. With adtech type ads, they certainly are at least that valuable. With only traditional type ads, would they still be?

I'm not arguing that these companies should be allowed to do this because they have some fundamental right to exist, mind you. Just pointing out that taking adtech out of the equation could "pop the bubble" drive margins negative, and just erase the whole free-ad-supported-services market entirely.

(Consider: why don't traditional-ads companies offer free web services supported by said traditional ads? Is it only because nobody cares about buying placement with them when targeted placements are available from Google/Facebook/etc.? Or is it because, even with full dealflow, it's still negative-margin?)

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

#238

Post by devb »

artursapek wrote: post #148
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.

On Twitter, I've been blocking every account that pushes ads. Slowly I think I've gotten most of them lol. I don't see as many now.

I've been doing this for several years, and it doesn't seem to reduce the number of ads I get. I just start getting absurdly irrelevant ads. A memorable one was for @7Up_Nigeria. I live near NYC.

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

#239

Post by sarsway »

dont__panic wrote: post #181
sarsway wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep go delete your WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram accounts now. Takes 10 minutes. No one truly needs them. Don't make excuses why you need them. In fact these apps only hurt you. So don't hesitate, just do it. It can feel uneasy, but in only a week or so you'll be happy you pulled through.

Too bad it takes 1 month for any of those services to permanently delete your account -- logging in up to a month after clicking the "delete" button, even accidentally, fully restores the account and you have to go through the entire process again. Need more incentive? Just try finding the delete button on your Facebook or Instagram account. Go ahead, just look for it right now. You weren't able to find it, right? Ju…

Yes, luckily I was able to find the delete button :) WhatsApp was instant, only FB & Instagram took 30 days. But that's not a reason to not delete the accounts, isn't it? Just hit the button, remove the apps, and forget about it, a month later the accounts will be gone.

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

#240

Post by downrightmike »

notwhereyouare wrote: post #72
_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.

I personally wish the wording was slightly different. Something like Deny Tracking Allow Tracking instead of the "Ask app not to track" I have to read the prompt a few times to make sure i pick the right one

Dark pattern on purpose
Post reply on HN