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

591–600 of 632 posts

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

#591

Post by awillen »

no_time wrote: post #561
awillen wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're right about this. Highly targeted advertising disproportionately benefits the little guy. I say this as a little guy, running a small dog treat e-commerce company. Almost all of my new customer acquisition is by way of Facebook ads. If you get rid of Facebook ads and go back to the non-targeted, TV commercial and newspaper type ads, my company might not survive. Purina, though? They'd be fine. Th…

The cancer of targted advertising has only been with us for like 20 years. Small companies have existed way before that. Blaming people who want to protect those who don't even know what a server or a company is from their data being harvested because you can't sell them dog food is just ridiculous. That being said, if you are concerned about monopolies, there are better ways to fight them. Unfortunately they have be…

To channel my money towards anything I have to make money. To make money I have to sell things to customers.

The world prior to 20 years ago was a very different one in terms of the scale and reach companies could achieve. Pretending as though the situation now is comparable is just naive on your part.

And honestly, the drama of calling it a cancer is just silly and dramatic. If you think this is all so terrible, go live in a commune instead of posting on a message board that is run by an organization that is deeply connected to big tech and all the things you're complaining about. I guess you probably can't see that connection all the way up there on your high horse, though.

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

#592

Post by gonehome »

awillen wrote: post #553
gonehome wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A complete collapse of the viability of targeted advertising would be totally fine with me. The business models that would become viable in that reality would be a better equilibrium and the incentives would be better aligned between software companies and their users.

I don't think you're right about this. Highly targeted advertising disproportionately benefits the little guy. I say this as a little guy, running a small dog treat e-commerce company. Almost all of my new customer acquisition is by way of Facebook ads. If you get rid of Facebook ads and go back to the non-targeted, TV commercial and newspaper type ads, my company might not survive. Purina, though? They'd be fine. Th…

I think you’re being unfairly downvoted and your point is valid. It’s the strongest argument in favor of targeting and I think it’s also true - it gives big advantages to smaller players so I concede all of that.

I think on net the problems targeting creates are worse than the small business benefits, but that’s an easy position for me to hold because I don’t run a small business.

I also think in a world where advertising models are not really viable for supporting software companies (or media) - you get better models that have a better outcome for the group. Things like Substack.

I’d imagine in that world there’s still room for your company to succeed, but the model is probably different. Maybe niche community sites where people review high quality dog food? Someone from your company could be part of those communities in a genuine way. There’d still be advantages for little companies - it’s just hard for people to model what that kind of world would look like.

So I both agree with you that targeted advertising today helps the little guy, but I disagree that a world where that model isn’t viable is one where the little guy can’t exist.

Comments like the sister reply to mine don’t help because they make it seem like I don’t care about the trade offs - I do, I just think they’d be different and the costs today are pretty bad.

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

#593

Post by downrightmike »

drstewart wrote: post #447
downrightmike wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dark pattern on purpose

Please explain the purpose of this dark pattern? Keep in mind that my follow up question to you will be: "why even show the popup at all then?"

It is dark because it is not clearly written in the standard language that iOS and apps have been using for 15 years. It is deliberately designed to make it unclear as to the purpose of the choice, which is then not a real choice.

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

#594

Post by snappyTertle »

leokennis wrote: post #389
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…

Re: blocking ads guilt free: Not that long ago someone posted this beautiful Banksy quote about it on HN: > “People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They ar…

You're coming from privilege. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean everyone else has money to spend on entertainment.

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

#595

Post by kzrdude »

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

No, you seem to construct some kind of straw man where you can't randomly make ads for California wine? But you can. Don't use profiling, though.

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

#596

Post by aerosmile »

yarcob wrote: post #564
aerosmile wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind to elaborate? I am genuinely wondering if you're a troll or if I am mistaken in my argument. To summarize, I responded to the claim below that Facebook's ad platform is ineffective: > All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway. I pointed out that Facebook wouldn't be profitable if the ad platform is ineffective, and you called that argument fallacious. I am really curious to h…

The fallacy is that Facebook making a profit doesn't mean that invasive ad targeting is effective. It just means that Facebook is good at selling ads, whether they are effective or not.

I guess we have to define effective. Is it effective from the consumer point of view? That might be a long discussion, and we might assume that a world without advertising might be the most effective way to live your life, etc. But is it effective from the advertisers' point of view? Unless you want to call 5+ million marketing teams around the world total idiots, you have to assume that they are meeting or exceeding their ROAS targets and therefore pouring a lot of money into Facebook.

> It just means that Facebook is good at selling ads, whether they are effective or not.

Facebook doesn't sell ads. Marketers choose to sign up and spend money, because their jobs depend on being able to achieve ROAS targets. Contrary to popular belief, the world of marketing is very quantified and apart from experimental budgets, most of the money is spent on channels that are proven to work.

But without getting any deeper into all of this, I think I found my answer - it appears that at least a subsegment of people on HN believe that over 100BN of ad dollars (25% of overall digital ad market) is spent on Facebook in an unprofitable way, and that 5 million marketing teams get away with it, year after year. Hence, it's possible for Facebook to achieve great financial results without their ad platform being effective.

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

#597

Post by srg0 »

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…

> what "our" ideal end-game goal is?

I think most HN users will agree that the good stuff costs money. So the question is really who pays, and how.

For me the ideal end-game is ability to get what I want through a direct pay-as-you-go transaction. In the ideal world this transaction is explicit, instant, anonymous, nearly zero overhead and non-recurring. Explicit, because as a consumer I want to be able to say no, and know exactly when I engage in a transaction. Instant, because waiting X working days sucks. Anonymous, because there are many reasons to stay anonymous. Zero overhead, because we want to cut middlemen. Non-recurring, because a recurring payment is _always_ an up-sell. Paper money works great in the offline world.

Any kind of an indirect payment is not ideal because it takes control from the consumer and gives it to someone else.

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

#598

Post by baq »

Nicksil wrote: post #124
baq wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they wouldn't do it if it didn't work. i'm not in the business but i think these kinds of ads work quite well if you return the thing you just bought.

>hey wouldn't do it if it didn't work. Now why would you go and think a thing like that?

money, basically.

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

#599

Post by notacoward »

frickinLasers wrote: post #465
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.

Not a mom, but if I want to learn about a better [photographer/plumber/mechanic/whatever] I will use the tools that list and attempt to give accurate information about businesses (yelp, angi, BBB, ?), inadequate though they may be. My brain doesn't register your ad. If it does, I'm probably less likely to consider your business, because you shoved an intrusive internet ad in my face.

I'm a bit suspicious of Yelp being a better alternative to anything. They've been caught doing more shady stuff than anyone.

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

#600

Post by sli »

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.

I've had numerous people say that to me over the years and I still never have a reply, because for me it's just such a mind-bogglingly foreign way of thinking. I just cannot put myself into that kind of mindset enough to actually figure it out.
Post reply on HN