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

#391

Post by throwamon » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #381

continuational wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd simply prefer if all services became paid.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

This argument just shows how blind people have become to the possibilities. It's not either/or. There should be at the very least an option to pay and not be tracked. Most services offer no such option.

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

#392

Post by the-dude » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:22 PM UTC

dharma1 wrote: post #378

air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

Youtube Premium (paid) is well worth the price of admission, to not have to watch ads. Don't think I'd pay for Facebook

This can be had for free with uBlock Origin ( I never see an ad on YT ).

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

#393

Post by sleavey » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:23 PM UTC

air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

I'm in the same boat as you and I don't have a solution but I would say that I'd be fine if the web were far, far smaller. Most content on the web is trash. The information density of most YouTube videos is so low that it would be quicker to read a concise text article on the topic if such a thing existed (it usually doesn't). Gone are the days (perhaps before 2007 or so) when most blogs were labours of love; now they're mostly clickbait to show ads and affiliate links. Maybe a partial solution to paying for it all is to reduce the amount of content being pumped around the internet in the first place.

As a side point, many labour-of-love websites start to monetise to sustain the hosting costs. But some of the best blogs I read are flat HTML. The running costs of such websites must be negligible for all but the most heavily trafficked blogs. When my blog got hit by hundreds of views per second over the course of a few hours via reddit, Apache on a Core 2 Duo barely broke a sweat because it was flat HTML. With modern CSS websites can look fantastic with minimal assets and bandwidth. I'm happy to pay €20/month for such a server myself, and donate my content to whoever wishes to read it.

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

#394

Post by reader_mode » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:24 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.

There are products out there that would increase my quality of life that I'm not aware of or not actively thinking about. In an ideal world ads are about informing the consumer, so absolutely ads can provide value to you as well. One of the recent life improving products I never thought about before an ad is an electric toothbrush - honestly I saw them but I considered it a silly gadget. Saw a plug in a random video, got some cheap version and was really surprised how useful it is I upgraded to a decent model. Likewise I never used an electric razor, tried Philips one blade after seeing an ad and it's also a great improvement. Point being there are products out there that would improve your life if you knew about them.

That being said I dislike tracking not because I might get manipulated - I also prefer relevant ads. I dislike the fact that they can better target vulnerable groups - like depressed people with addictive personalities and gaming - this is the majority of app stores profit, I would bet it's a huge ad% as well - mobile gaming is basically milking people with low impulse control and nothing better to do with their time. It's just like those scamming telemarketing scum targeting old people

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

#395

Post by tempestn » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:24 PM UTC

jimkleiber wrote: post #385

air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

Your post inspires me to look at it from a real-world analogy. If I imagine that online ads are the same as offline ads, I start to think about what offline ad tracking would look like. I imagine cameras being on the streets to watch me walk down the street, following me to different stores to see what I buy, with whom I meet, and other activities to inform which billboards/street advertisements should exist. I think…

Absolutely agree with this. Both from a consumer perspective and as a website owner I'd prefer to have ads that are simply intended to appeal to the expected audience for that site/content, as you would expect for offline ads. Unfortunately it doesn't tend to be a good use of time for small to medium operators to curate their own ads directly, so in order to get there we need major ad networks to support this, and, critically, advertisers on those platforms to see value in contextual ads vs precise targeting and tracking.

I do think that value is there though. Some of our best marketing for AutoTempest has been through youtube sponsorships where we find creators and videos relating to cars and car buying, and work with with the creator to include a pitch for our service in exchange for (usually) a flat fee. It's dead simple for both sides, and as long as what you're advertising is legitimately useful and you're transparent about the relationship, the response from viewers tends to be very positive. I suppose it could be trickier if your product had a very niche audience, but I would think these days there are corners of the web targeting every niche, so you just need to find where your potential customers hang out, and go there, rather than trying to target them wherever they might be.

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

#396

Post by woudsma » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:25 PM UTC

air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

I don't mind to pay for privacy and transparency. FB and other platforms are hoarding and abusing highly personal information for profit, they're parasites.

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

#397

Post by adrr » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:25 PM UTC

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.

They don’t know you purchased it because it’s not commonly shared to ad networks unless they are making cohorts but that is usually done at the product category level.

There are many success stories with ads. I’ve been involved with two exits that is all attributed to digital advertising. No where else do you get a ROAS in the double digits. Here is a good example of the difference. When I worked for a challenger bank. We paid under $75 per signup and $10 per app install. Chase and BOA pays $1200 per new customer in marketing expenses using traditional marketing channels.

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

#398

Post by the-dude » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

mzkply wrote: post #355

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.

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.

Isn't a women's shampoo TV commercial filled to the brim with beautiful women? I don't care what they are saying.

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

#399

Post by asdff » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #381

continuational wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd simply prefer if all services became paid.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

If its an important service it could be subsidized. You can get past newspaper paywalls with a library card in most cases, people are just lazy and prefer to spend the 20 seconds it takes writing a comment complaining about a paywall rather than the two minutes it takes to find out your library covers these newspapers.

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

#400

Post by mingfli » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #364

Auracle wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a photographer, and I right now I’m targeting local teenagers and their moms for high school senior portrait sessions. I would think they’d rather see that, be reminded it’s time to get them done, and possibly learn about a better photographer than seeing an ad for an ice cream maker or what have you.

In other words you want to manipulate them into buying something they wouldn’t have if they hadn’t seen your ad. That doesn’t sound like a good thing for the person on the other side of the transaction.

This seems like an extreme way of thinking about it. Maybe they like taking/looking at/sending the pictures, but between work, summer camp, soccer lessons, making sure everyone's fed, etc, they just forgot to book a session, and seeing the ad reminds them to do it. In this light, it seems like a great thing for both sides of the transaction.