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

321–330 of 632 posts

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

#321

Post by sokoloff »

potatolicious wrote: post #319
subsubzero wrote: post #291

It isn't just facebook that will see this decline, they are the bellwether in social media so to speak since they are the largest player. Expect an across the board drop in revenue for social media and any company that uses ads and tracking of users behavior as its primary form of income. Hopefully this will signal a pivot in ad tracking and lead more companies to try subscription based services.

> Hopefully this will signal a pivot in ad tracking and lead more companies to try subscription based services. I highly doubt this. I suspect this will instead signal a pivot to products that are intrinsically "trackable". It's important to remember that ATT doesn't disable tracking in its entirety , it only disables cross-app tracking. It's only harmful to your business if you are reliant on tracking users while th…

It seems like retargeting will be substantially harmed, which is surely a non-trivial portion of Google search revenue.

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

#322

Post by Kye »

subsubzero wrote: post #291

It isn't just facebook that will see this decline, they are the bellwether in social media so to speak since they are the largest player. Expect an across the board drop in revenue for social media and any company that uses ads and tracking of users behavior as its primary form of income. Hopefully this will signal a pivot in ad tracking and lead more companies to try subscription based services.

Twitter is already doing this with Super Follows and buying Revue.

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

#323

Post by marc__1 »

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

there are some reasons behind that, including liability on Apple's side

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/27/what-does-ask-app-not-to-trac...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/ma7gwx/why_does_it_say...

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

#324

Post by long_time_gone »

saiya-jin wrote: post #320
subsubzero wrote: post #291

It isn't just facebook that will see this decline, they are the bellwether in social media so to speak since they are the largest player. Expect an across the board drop in revenue for social media and any company that uses ads and tracking of users behavior as its primary form of income. Hopefully this will signal a pivot in ad tracking and lead more companies to try subscription based services.

I've read similar comments since around 2010. Stock market doesn't seem to agree. They always find another loophole to work as usual

It's not that "stock markets don't seem to agree", it's that the revenue of social media companies doesn't agree. If this new scenario has any appreciable effect on how many users Facebook can track, it will hurt their future revenue potential, which will impact their stock price.

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

#325

Post by xemdetia »

renewiltord wrote: post #258
tomelders wrote: post #19

Advertising used to be a creative industry. Online advertising has pretty much destroyed that. Perhaps anti-tracking measures will put the focus back on quality in advertising.

Advertising is a super creative industry. One time we targeted people who worked at a particular (large) company in a certain capacity with ads that were specific. This is just standard Account Based Marketing, but we had great conversion rates and one of them was like "I saw your guys' product advertised to me between Words with Friends turns like 'This is how [our company] can help [his company] with [problem we an…

A campaign who's willing to do the legwork to actively identify potential customers/decision makers and advertise to them in innovative ways is perfectly reasonable. The issue is always going to be how they identified the targets and if the sources of data are ones actively consented to, which is different than what Facebook are collecting and providing. A lot of these firms are assuming consent and then reaching as far as they can, and that's always been the problem. I consent to plenty of sources of advertising data through contests, conferences, newsletters, accounts and actions on a particular service, public social media, and so on. If you want to aggregate that consented to information from multiple providers it is fine as long as their privacy policies make that clear. What I don't consent a single provider assuming they can just leech off other providers through device snooping/super cookies/other shenanigans. When some of these inputs are coming from these shady or overreaching sources the campaign itself and anything that's an outcome of that becomes fruit of a poisoned tree. If you look at it from that perspective what becomes 'good' compared to 'bad' becomes straightforward.

If facebook wants this correlating data for outgoing traffic they should be asking to buy it from individual providers instead of assuming consent and scraping it via a side channel on your phone.

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

#326

Post by nemothekid »

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 ones who buy adds? Not many success stories out there.

It's hard to believe the economy is dumping almost 100B/year into a product that doesn't work.

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

#328

Post by skinkestek »

subsubzero wrote: post #291

It isn't just facebook that will see this decline, they are the bellwether in social media so to speak since they are the largest player. Expect an across the board drop in revenue for social media and any company that uses ads and tracking of users behavior as its primary form of income. Hopefully this will signal a pivot in ad tracking and lead more companies to try subscription based services.

Actually I think one thing that might happen is ad spenders will realize they have been massively fleeced.

I guess ads will continue to work about as well as before and then ad buyers will realize they can buy ads directly instead.

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

#329

Post by kzrdude »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #286
villasv wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads I froze up the first time someone said this to me. Of course I prefer random ads, cause this way they're less likely to push the right buttons on my vulnerable monkey-ass brain. Do people think tailored ads are good for them instead of consumerism triggers? Messed up worldview.

Random ads are effectively noise. Targeted ads occasionally are of value. If there's going to be an ad, better it be a targeted one. I also have no problem with companies tracking for the purpose of seeing which ads work. I do *not* like the retargeting ads--if I didn't buy the item there's a reason! Either I didn't want it or I'm waiting for a better price, neither of which you're going to solve unless you're tellin…

Ads should be targeted to the content, not the recipient IMO. If you're reading about California wine in an article, advertise based on that - travel, wine, whatever.

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

#330

Post by wolpoli »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #286
villasv wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads I froze up the first time someone said this to me. Of course I prefer random ads, cause this way they're less likely to push the right buttons on my vulnerable monkey-ass brain. Do people think tailored ads are good for them instead of consumerism triggers? Messed up worldview.

Random ads are effectively noise. Targeted ads occasionally are of value. If there's going to be an ad, better it be a targeted one. I also have no problem with companies tracking for the purpose of seeing which ads work. I do *not* like the retargeting ads--if I didn't buy the item there's a reason! Either I didn't want it or I'm waiting for a better price, neither of which you're going to solve unless you're tellin…

Also, retargetting ads are intrusive as they are the equivalent of a salesperson of a store following me after I left the store, asking me if I want to buy the item I looked at, when I am trying to do something else.
Post reply on HN