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

Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 339 posts

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#201

Post by marketingtech »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #159
lumost wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few factors at play here when it comes to advertising. 1) Digital is taking over all ad-channels 2) Digital ads can be tracked and attributed ways that were never possible with traditional media 3) It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that effective, and aggregate ad spend is falling. FB ads are effective and high value because of tracking. If tracking goes away, FB ad revenue will fall to t…

> It turns out most non-targeted ads aren't actually that effective Non-personalised television advertising is still doing great.

No, it's not. Eyeballs are down, thus prices and market share are down compared to digital. Different industry sources have different figures, but everyone agrees TV spend was down >5% in 2020 and expected to drop faster in 2021 as digital continues to grow at >30%.

There's now a mad rush to standardize tech for personalized tv advertising, as providers plan to use the email/phone number you used for your cable/streaming service as a personal identifier that can be joined against 3rd party targeting data.

I'm not trying justifying this - just describing where the industry (and money) is going.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#202

Post by bluesign »

panta wrote: post #175
imheretolearn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all

Individual ad targeting is needed only as soon as someone does it. It is not “needed” per se.

For sure there are some advertisers, they would not be able to advertise if there is no individual targeting. Problem is for one of those honest businesses, there are 10 dishonest ones abusing the individual targeting.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#203

Post by grishka »

lumost wrote: post #146
grishka wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever talked to someone who works in adtech? They do sincerely believe that ads are helpful to people.

I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing data is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy the products, and they do this more often than they would have had we not shown the ads at all (for some market segments). I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser, and what mechanisms could be…

> I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser

Yes, I would characterize myself as such. The best products gain their exposure through word of mouth, and don't need paid advertising. Incessantly raping my eyeballs with your brand would just make me hate it even more. Especially so if it's happening on my own electronic devices against my will.

But then there are people who legitimately want to be advertised to — I know some personally.

> I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use.

These are called ad blockers. I use them in some form on every device I own.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#204

Post by hctaw »

bnj wrote: post #5

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping…

> if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping users of their opportunity to understand and agree to the surveillance infrastructure at issue here.

Up there with "we can't afford to pay our workers a living wage." Businesses do not have an unalienable right to exist.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#205

Post by AlexandrB »

lumost wrote: post #146
grishka wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever talked to someone who works in adtech? They do sincerely believe that ads are helpful to people.

I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing data is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy the products, and they do this more often than they would have had we not shown the ads at all (for some market segments). I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser, and what mechanisms could be…

> I worked in ad-tech for years, ultimately the convincing data is that people actually do click on ads. They do buy the products, and they do this more often than they would have had we not shown the ads at all (for some market segments).

This says nothing about whether ads are useful or beneficial to people. Buying a product does not mean the product was not a net loss for the customer, with the classic example being cigarettes.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#206

Post by rationalfaith »

bnj wrote: post #5

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping…

Apple is doing a great service for the industry. Google should follow very promptly but then again, Google's business model is on tracking users :p

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#207

Post by squeezingswirls »

sanedigital wrote: post #179
kibwen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors. This is absolutely not the case. Google’s biggest ad clients achieve pretty incredible ROI (called ROAS) on each dollar they spend. And they track these obsessively—I supported a large travel client that had a small (but highly skilled) engineering team dedicated exclusively to their…

'When Big Brands Stopped Spending On Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why?'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/02/when-bi...

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#208

Post by Nextgrid »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #90
Nextgrid wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ask App Not to Track" just means the app will be denied access to the IDFA (which you can already do by turning on "Limit ad tracking" in settings). It's worded like that because this can't prevent the app from using something else (IP address or device fingerprinting) to track you.

Is the discussion moot if users can be easily fingerprinted without IDFA? It makes life slightly more difficult for advertising partners and social media companies, but not impossible. It's just a small additional barrier to friction that buys Apple some good PR.

At least it’s a start.

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#209

Post by prostoalex »

imheretolearn wrote: post #161
kibwen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…

>> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all

This would just return to 2000-esque state of affairs, where the ad model was based on selling page views, clicks or actions.

That model favors small publishers (as niche advertisers flock to niche publications) and disadvantages large generic publishers (social networks, email clients, portals).

Re: Facebook testing notification to users about Apple privacy changes

#210

Post by ryanisnan »

bnj wrote: post #5

It's simultaneously remarkable and utterly unremarkable that Facebook has been dragged kicking and screaming into building a consent screen for this kind of tracking. Watching this tracking notification conflict unfold in the media has really helped me to refine where I stand on this: if a business depends on non-consensual tracking to be able to survive, then I'd prefer that the business has to fold before stripping…

"This won't allow us to collect new types of information..."

Yeah, just information you've already been shadily collecting.

Post reply on HN