After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue • Hacker News Board

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#211

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #107

rusk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience of targeted advertising is Amazon trying to sell me things I’ve already bought ...

And Booking pushing advertisements for the exact same hotel I've just checked on their service. I can't understand how that would seem like a good idea to anyone.

Actually... That one works, if certain conditions are met.

They also don't update that fast.

You looked at a hotel in London and a certain hotel is the best revenue generator in the area - for a little bit you're going to see that ad... or maybe you're going to see that ad for a long time, if there are no better options to advertise.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#212

Post by drb91 » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #17

pjc50 wrote: post #3

This is the thing the ad industry really didn't want people to discover: what if the behavioural and personalised targeting wasn't actually worth the cost?

there is a huge amount in variability that is often not discussed. Overall however, behavioral targetting does seem to work. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be other types of advertising, but often you end up serving "russian brides" ads instead of anything useful.

The entire industry seems to prey on the old and weak.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#213

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #180

distances wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Booking pushing advertisements for the exact same hotel I've just checked on their service. I can't understand how that would seem like a good idea to anyone.

And Booking pushing advertisements for the exact same hotel I've just checked on their service. I can't understand how that would seem like a good idea to anyone. This happened to me just last week. Unfortunately, it's the least of Booking's user-hostile traits. Like sending me e-mails pestering me to review a hotel I checked into less than an hour before. Or flashing "Hurry! Only 1 room left!" when I know for a fact…

A hotel can be 90% empty and Booking could have only 1 left in their inventory to sell.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#214

Post by DeusExMachina » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #52

bitofhope wrote: post #6

I honestly would not be surprised if the difference in effectiveness of targeted vs untargeted advertisement turns out to be none, negligible or even unfavorable to targeted. Sure, NYT is not enough data to be significant, especially when compensating for my confirmation bias, but I would really like to see more sites stop tracking, at least from an ethical standpoint.

I would be absolutely astounded if targeted ads did not provide significant long-term advantage to a big player like Google. How can it be that having intimate knowledge of someone would not allow you to sell them more stuff? John has a 10th wedding anniversary coming up. Mary is single and goes to the gym every day. Steve just got a promotion and likes the BMW 3 series. Michael is overweight but has just gone on a d…

I think it also depends on the quality of the targeting.

We tend to think that these companies know us very well, but (anecdotally) that's not my experience on Facebook.

There is a page where you can see a list of things Facebook thinks you like. In my case, it's full of things I don't care about and I would never buy. They are there because, according to that page, I clicked on some ad at some point.

Which I don't remember, so it might well be five years ago. So I get targeted by ads I am not interested in at all. A random ad has more chances to capture my attention than something targeted on a non-interest.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#215

Post by cyborgx7 » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #161

cyborgx7 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR is a great piece of legislation, that significantly improves people's privacy. Your arguing about how terrible it is will not convince anybody that your industry's practices aren't evil. They will only reinforce it.

Maybe you should look me up first: https://twitter.com/search?q=manigandham%20regulation I'm one of the few in the industry who actually spent time and money on regulation. I've met with Senators and major CMOs to make it happen. It's not that simple. GDPR has good intent but is poorly executed and has no measurable effect on privacy because those politicians fail to understand the market they're regulating. This is…

>I'm one of the few in the industry who actually spent time and money on regulation. I've met with Senators and major CMOs to make it happen. It's not that simple. GDPR has good intent but is poorly executed and has no measurable effect on privacy because those politicians fail to understand the market they're regulating. This is now playing out again in the recent copyright directives.

I'm reading that you are a member of industry Lobbying to get influence on regulation of your industry. And that is somehow supposed to make me trust you more. GDPR is exactly as far reaching as it should be. The only problem with it is that people aren't following it yet to the letter, and I hope there will be some heavy fines for those breaking the law.

>Targeted advertising definitely needs fixing, but that's separate from privacy

Privacy is inherently incompatible with targeted advertising, and the industry will have to die for us to get our rights.

>"Evil, harmful, just dies" are useless for discussion. I suggest dropping the immature rhetoric if you actually want to have a productive conversation and perhaps create the change you want to see.

I'm not interested in having a "productive discussion" with you and find a compromise if you represent the targeted advertising industry. The targeted advertising industry is the political enemy. And I want it to die.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#216

Post by drb91 » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

skilled wrote: post #35

I can't be the only one who thinks behavioral targeting is a bit creepy? This has happened to me at least 3-4 times in the last 2 years: I go to a supermarket or a store that I have never been to, I do shopping and come back home. After a few hours, I pick up my phone to check Email/Facebook, only to find myself staring at an advert for a product that's sitting in my fridge. I mean, come on... The first time this hap…

The real creepy behavior is that companies can openly pay to manipulate you for most of your waking life, and people are fine with it.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#217

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #167

pelario wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought the same (and heard the same booking "blunder"), until I visited a city I had visited before, and went for the exact same hotel...

But did you need an ad to get you to do that? Seems like that's the one ad you don't need to see.

That depends on where you see that ad. If you search for that particular hotel on Google, it's going to have an ad from N online travel agencies(OTA).

If you do a broad search on OTA website, then you're likely to book the same hotel that you stayed last time... Thus pushing it up is a great way of getting you to book... But that depends on how much the hotel is contributing in marketing

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#218

Post by chris_wot » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

piquadrat wrote: post #144

duxup wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense the way you describe it. But the ads I see are way off target. Hell Google's news ... AI or whatever they're doing has been absolutely convinced I'm a Nebraska Cornhuskers fan, probabbly because my team plays them and I google something about them once in a while.... but in the past even when I told Google directly "I don't want to see stories about Nebraska Cornhuskers" ... after a while it again…

Google News for the longest time kept showing me updates for the Fremantle Dockers, an Australian football team (I'm Swiss, and never set foot on Australian soil). I wonder why...

Wow, that's super random. As an Australian, hope you enjoy Aussie Rules!

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#219

Post by cyborgx7 » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #175

cyborgx7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you already acknowledge that it's just a bullshit job because people need to make money to live, maybe they could do something that is not actively harmful.

What the fuck are you talking about? How many people in this industry indirectly rely on companies like Google for employment? What percentage of mobile app development is paid for with ads? What percentage of web development is paid for with ads? How many open source projects are contributed to by developers who work at companies that rely on ads to you, pay their actual bills How many “side projects” on this site a…

This industry does as much harm as it does good. It will be good for it if you can't make money anymore by getting people to look in your direction long enough to show people something they might actually want to spend money on.

Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue

#220

Post by mook » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #82

thatguyagain wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. What stands in the way of a small niche website for, say, dog owners to sell ad space for dog related products without having some kind of data hoarding ad tech behind it?

Because advertisers don't want to deal with a bunch of smaller sites. That's why ad networks and exchanges exist, so you can buy a single impression for the right user wherever they are across the web. Take away the fine-grained targeting and you end up with big blind campaigns running on a few large sites with the biggest reach. This is the way TV and radio work, wasteful and expensive but great for the channels tha…

Why can't middlemen still exist, just without the individual targeting? Can't sites still self-report their categories (so that, say, a dog grooming site would say they should get dog ads)?