Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 188 posts

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#121

Post by helsinkiandrew »

stoev wrote: post #91
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #70

A few years ago I created an online business for serious cyclists and runners. Targeted Facebook ads enabled me to find customers for a few pennies each - I don't think I could have found customers any other way (apart from the trying to get 'free' ads via blogs/news/viral tweets etc). Targeted ads are the only way that small, new, local, or just poor companies can do advertising. It's a bit scary seeing what sites s…

You don’t need targeted advertising to achieve that. You don’t need FB, Google, and a thousand other lesser-known companies tracking every step you make in order to know that you might be interested in cycling. Instead you, as a small advertiser, would target the right context and would only show your ads in articles specifically-dedicated to cycling or whatever other niche you are after.

But there aren't sites/publications that are niche enough. Female runners over 50? Interested in Italian food in Denver?

Targeted ads are a response to the poor results from site/content specific ads

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#122

Post by hrktb »

ch4s3 wrote: post #115
hrktb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. Perhaps removing ads now wouldn't bring a dramatic change in the next months or even years; But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less of an inclination towards soda. It might be a chicken and egg problem, but at least I think the…

> I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. That has nothing to do with your innate preference for sugars and calorie density. People liked sweet foods and dumped heaps of sugar into tea long before modern advertising existed. > But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less…

As you point out people putting sugar in coffee or tea might be as old as tea or coffee in the western world. People even add sugar in their fruits when they feel they're no savory enough. I think though that it makes it all the more interesting that soda drinks succeeded in a market with a ton of other traditional alternatives.

In my eyes the very fact that all the other standard sugary drinks have been displaced by commercial soda in so many countries is a reflection of the power of advertising.

Interestingly from your link, in the last few years Chile has become the #1 soda drinking country...and of course:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coca-cola-to-invest-13-bln...

Aside from the health argument, I think advertisement can have deep and long lasting effects on a society. For a completely different take, De Beers decades of campaign to push diamonds on wedding rings is another example of it.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#124

Post by stoev »

libertine wrote: post #108
stoev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s well defined in the article - the author means behavioural advertising that has to do with targeting any information specific to the user (whether we consider that personal or not). The proposed alternative is contextual advertising which puts the targeting emphasis entirely on the context in which the ad is shown, not on the person seeing the ad. The idea is that if it is executed correctly, contextual…

I understand completely your argument, and the article argument - I've used plenty of contextual advertising, and it's better than what we call ROS (Run Of Site), but it's worst than targeting based on interests. But let me give you a inside view: there's been a war from major media groups to try to take down Facebook and Google (let's see what they come up with for Amazon). This solution for them is the best solutio…

Sure, it is in the author’s employer best interest for the industry to switch to contextual advertising. But it is also in the best interest of the end user. So why is that a bad thing?

I also don’t believe that behavioural advertising is better by definition. Even the article mentions some research to prove the contrary. I’ve seen it from first-hand experience as well. Which, of course, is anecdotal. But what is not is the fact that the world’s largest and most profitable advertising product, Google Search, is completely reliant on contextual rather than behavioural targeting.

The fact that publishers so far have not been able to do something about FB’s and Google’s duopoly doesn’t necessarily mean they will never be able to. Or at least I certainly hope that it doesn’t.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#126

Post by helsinkiandrew »

Tarq0n wrote: post #118
haste410 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work for site like Facebook or Instagram or other sites where there is no clear relevant content to target?

There's been a lot of work in this area over the last few years, clustering and tagging text and video. Facebook even has an open source library for it called Starspace.

But the point is that Facebook is showing you ads based on your surfing behaviour outside Facebook - not the content you view on Facebook.

If you use facebook purely for posting and viewing family baby photos, but view websites about tractors, you'll probably see ads on facebook from tractor related companies.

Starspace is used by FB to tag the sites that report that you've visited them to facebook. So they can target ads

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#127

Post by woodrowbarlow »

rcxdude wrote: post #63
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these questions are in earnest, not meant as a put-down of your position. how would you draw a line between what's okay to collect and what isn't? do you think a line could be drawn that would work for most people? would sites offer different levels of invasive tracking, and the user opts-in as far as they want? what incentive would users have to opt-in at all?

I think the line drawn would be easy: they cannot collect the data themselves, they can only use what you fill in on a form they present. Then the line is basically whatever you feel comfortable telling them, knowing it will be used for advertising. The incentive would be the standard reason ad companies give for targeted ads: given there are going to be ads, people would generally prefer they be relevant.

i like that, and i like using the advertising industry's standard PR line to justify it.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#128

Post by nilkn »

hrktb wrote: post #109
ch4s3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re misunderstanding why people like soda and McDonald’s. You’re hardwired to love sugar, fat, and salt which soda and fast food provide in abundance. Advertising these products is about capturing dollars that might otherwise flow to competitors products. This isn’t to say that ads can’t help drive overall consumption, but the lift isn’t huge and the demand has to already be there.

I think you are seeing it in a culture where soda were already pushed to people's eyeballs for decades. Perhaps removing ads now wouldn't bring a dramatic change in the next months or even years; But for comparison, asian or european countries with more push on other drinks (e.g. tea, can coffee, sparkling water) have less of an inclination towards soda. It might be a chicken and egg problem, but at least I think the…

The amusing irony is that the best way to elevate awareness about soda alternatives might be advertising. So by eliminating certain types of ads, the side effect might be to encourage people to stick with what they know, which in many parts of the world is sugary soda instead of other flavored fizzy water that either has no sugar or very little sugar in comparison.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#129

Post by stoev »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #121
stoev wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need targeted advertising to achieve that. You don’t need FB, Google, and a thousand other lesser-known companies tracking every step you make in order to know that you might be interested in cycling. Instead you, as a small advertiser, would target the right context and would only show your ads in articles specifically-dedicated to cycling or whatever other niche you are after.

But there aren't sites/publications that are niche enough. Female runners over 50? Interested in Italian food in Denver? Targeted ads are a response to the poor results from site/content specific ads

Sure, there are niche categories that would be hard to get. But for your two specific examples you could use those simple sets of criteria:

1. Target specific articles with advice for older runners in running publications. 2. Target Italian recipes in cooking websites only for users located in Denver.

You don’t need to do those things manually, it can be automated. Sure, it might not deliver the scale that FB and Google are promising, but to say that it’s impossible to do contextually is not accurate.

Use Google Search ads to capture all direct intent.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#130

Post by PaulRobinson »

avalys wrote: post #38
bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

The argument for massive Pigouvian taxes on advertising seems much clearer. Advertising imposes massive costs on society and the viewers. These costs aren't borne by the advertiser, so they should be captured through massive taxes and put to good use. And many brands wouldn't feel much of an impact: what matters to Coke is that it spends more than Pepsi. If their $6B on advertising only buys 1/10th as many ads as it…

What’s the cost that advertising imposes exactly?

Go to a drug store.

Find a generic no-brand ibuprofen. Check the price.

Find a branded ibuprofen that is advertised on TV. In the UK, Nurofen is popular. Check the price.

The difference is advertising.

Same goes for detergent, breakfast cereal, AA batteries, etc., etc.

Post reply on HN