Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #343

matheusmoreira wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess you could call this a form of censorship. Content gets suppressed, simply because it doesn't generate enough ad revenue. Absolutely. I've seen entire websites completely reinvent themselves because someone complained to Google about some "offensive" page and got their ads pulled. Stuff I used to like got deleted because of advertisers. If this "sanitized advertiser friendly web" is the future, I'd rather no…

Honestly one of the few things worse than advertisers are the engineers who work to enable them. Some things are worth more than money.

Agreed.

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

#352

Post by Tarsul » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #336

janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

> Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But... You don't even need your "but" (so hold on to it), because this is a classic false dichotomy anyway. Targeting does not require spying nor does spying tend to improve targeting. Basic immediate context (what you're doing, not who you are) works better for both advertisers and willing consumers than personally in…

I'd have no problem telling advertisers that I am between 30-40 years old, male and live in a certain region. And that's information that would help advertisers (if they did not have it yet) very much. So just ask your users to give some information and tell them how they will use it and maybe they will give it, but don't spy on your users every secret.

But not Facebook. That ship has sailed. I can't and won't trust them.

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

#353

Post by intev » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #287

intev wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such convoluted reasoning and you keep mentioning it. For example I could say: "I don't want to pay the road toll, I pay for it with the gas tax I pay" or "I don't want to pay for Disneyland, I pay for it with all the things I buy inside". Technically Disney could make entrance free and charge ridiculous rates for everything inside but I'm certain that makes theme parks significantly less viable as a business…

What is convoluted about that? I buy a product, some fraction of the profit goes into the marketing budget, some fraction of the marketing budget goes to Facebook. How am I not paying for using Facebook? Where does their revenue come from if not from me?

Take my Disney example. All what you said applies to that example too. Where does their revenue come if not from you? They could make entrance free and make money on what you buy inside. In fact, you can go further with this. You should not pay for any government services other than taxes. Where does the government revenue come if not from you? Why should they charge for things like drivers license renewals. Everything should be free and come from your taxes...

What's convoluted about your argument is you are asking the service provider to change their business model by pointing our somewhere along the chain they are making money from you so they should be happy. Changing business models might also mean completely changing the way they provide the service. The whole service might have evolved differently if this model was enforced from the beginning rather than suddenly springing it on them now and then saying "make money in a way that's more convenient for me, I don't like how you make money now".

Their business model, leaving aside the ethics/merits, is pretty simple. They offer targeted users on a platter to advertisers. It's easy to package up and sell. Suddenly that's being taken away. Of course they will kick and scream because they've depended on this predictable money making model. Saying "I buy things so you make money" doesn't even make sense. They become no different to a billboard provider.

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

#354

Post by elorant » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

fairity wrote: post #347

> Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook “may even be in a stronger position” following the iOS changes if it means more businesses start to make sales directly within Facebook’s apps instead of sending users to a web address. Does anyone know what he's referring to in this quote? There isn't a way for advertisers to move their purchase flow onto Facebook's app is there?

Probably Facebook Marketplace

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

#355

Post by mzkply » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

villasv wrote: post #265

janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

> 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.

Most people will be more annoyed than anything else at seeing a "random" ad, in the same way it's just more painful, for example, for a guy to sit through a 30 second women's shampoo TV commercial than a car commercial.

I'd say most people don't even realize they may or may not be triggered, they simply don't want to suffer through a completely irrelevant ad.

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

#356

Post by axaxs » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

Do people really prefer relevant ads? I just disregard them, and it doesn't matter to me whether they are relevant or off the wall.

The only ads I specifically don't like are the ones Youtube have randomly showed my wife and I. It's only happened twice to each of us, but they were a bit adult themed. Having a child in the house, I was pretty peeved.

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

#357

Post by jfoutz » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

bquest2 wrote: post #339

kzrdude wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But surely, there are car enthusiasts who read about cars that would never read an article about California wine, but would benefit from knowing about it. In your world, that person misses out on the pleasures of california wine

This is an amusing example. I'd guess that car enthusiasts are aware of Sonoma for various reasons. I suspect they'd get some exposure to California wine inadvertently through that connection.

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

#358

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

aerosmile wrote: post #301

renewiltord wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* There is a pervasive belief on HN that marketing teams are making easy errors, i.e. there is low hanging fruit * Consultancies that improve marketing campaign efficacy make lots of money * HN users are making small fractions of that money and constantly complaining about it * Any HN user capable of picking this low hanging fruit could do this for two years and retire for life * They are not * Conclusion: Either the…

Alternative conclusion: as with all things in a capitalist society, there is a small minority of people that is killing it, and they are not making it easy for everyone else to discover their playbooks.

That doesn’t work because we’re assuming that most marketers are making easy mistakes. The playbook is so simple that people on HN could write it, supposedly.

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

#359

Post by celestialcheese » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #245

Workaccount2 wrote: post #156

Alright HN, so what is the end game here? I'm sure some of you have some experience working in the "ad supported" space, and obviously most of the internet and many of its services run on the ad model. So where are we going to end up if there is a full on public distrust of the current ad model?

We go back to the stone age. Me make product ('content'). You want product. You pay money. Patreon, paid newsletters and paid news subscriptions are all mature industries now. Why do we act like the sky's going to fall if the spigot of useless memes, influencer primping and political propaganda gets turned off?

Wait. Influencer pimping is going to get significantly worse in a "3rd party tracking-free" world. Coupon codes and "link in bio" are one of the few channels that aren't affected by this.

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

#360

Post by munchbunny » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

fouric wrote: post #149

cm2012 wrote: post #116

I own an advertising agency. I've tracked ios impressions % over time on all of our remarketing campaigns (as a proxy), its down about 30% from peak and stabilized. Not a huge deal. LOL at this below: "Seufert 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 permis…

iOS impressions down 30% from peak is "not a huge deal"? This is very counterintuitive to me, as iOS both holds the majority share of the US market, and 30% seems like a very high number. Can you explain?

This is key: "on all of our remarketing campaigns"

The discrepancy is that a 75% reduction in users opting into Facebook tracking is leading to only a 30% reduction in iOS share on the highest ROI ad campaigns. 30% is big but not 75% big.

Another possible explanation is that opting out of tracking in iOS doesn't make you invisible. It just makes it hard for Facebook to correlate your off-app/non-Facebook.com web activity, but there are ways around that. So what 30% means hinges a lot on how the 1st touch -> 2nd touch leap is done, and the data for that leap doesn't always come from Facebook.