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

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

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 464 posts

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

#261

Post by semi-extrinsic »

SilasX wrote: post #197
badwolf wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a point I bring up when casually talking with non-tech minded friends when they start talking about machine learning taking over everything... I bought a Dyson last summer. Amazon is still suggesting that I buy more vacuum cleaners.

"We showed him an ad. He bought the vacuum cleaner." 'In that order?' "Shhhh, just give us money." Half-joking there -- in a previous discussion, the claim was that the ad-buyers don't care enough to check for whether these product-buyers were ones that had already seen an ad, or it was after the fact.

This makes sense. While the "you might need a second vacuum cleaner" argument maaybe checks out, the "you might need a second sous vide machine/espresso bean grinder/welding machine" definitely doesn't make sense.

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

#262

Post by x0x0 »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #140
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.

What if I told you the NYT has been doing "untargeted" advertising for 150 years? Besides if you advertise in the NYT you ARE technically targeting people: namely NYT readers. Thats a demographic right there. And a lucrative one.

The NYT is one of the premier ad properties just because of exactly that: the demographics of their readers. Breaking google ads works out great for the very tippy-top of premier properties like the nyt. It doesn't work out well for non-premier properties.

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

#263

Post by chipotle_coyote »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #242
badwolf wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a point I bring up when casually talking with non-tech minded friends when they start talking about machine learning taking over everything... I bought a Dyson last summer. Amazon is still suggesting that I buy more vacuum cleaners.

Dyson users probably disproportionally have second homes, holiday homes, etc.. You're more likely to recommend to a friend of you see a deal "hey, I bought this awesome vacuum, you should get one, I saw a deal" ... It's not as silly as it seems. I buy repeat items as gifts (I like this, X will like this), or for my parents (home stuff), or when I bought something for one child I know and it turned out to be well made…

It's not as silly as it seems.

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, I see the theory you're getting at, but the Dyson example is built on a few assumptions we'd need more data on -- starting with the notion that Dyson owners are disproportionately more likely than owners of other vacuum cleaners to have second homes. And even if they do, that's, well, one more sale at most, and one that's more likely to be influenced by their experience with the first Dyson rather than ongoing advertising. When you say that you buy repeat items as gifts because they turned out well, you're tacitly confirming that further advertisements for that product aren't necessary to reach you. At best, the ads can sway you if they happen to be running an unusually good deal on the product you've already decided you want to buy.

The big problem targeted ads have now is, as other people have pointed out, that they seem to be targeted with knowledge of what you've recently been looking to buy, but not knowledge of what you've recently bought. If I search for polo shirts, I'm in the market for polo shirts, but once I buy polo shirts, I'm probably not going to be in the market for them for a few months. Once I buy a car, or a television, I'm probably not going to be in the market for another one for years.

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

#264

Post by darkerside »

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…

Well, you remember that French advertisement, don't you? Just because you don't think an ad is effective doesn't mean it wasn't effective.

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

#266

Post by Angostura »

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…

Except that more typically, if I buy a pair of shoes I am then followed around by footwear ads for the next month.

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

#267

Post by StreamBright »

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…

Now removing the names:

>>> User1 has a 10th wedding anniversary coming up. User2 is single and goes to the gym every day. User3 just got a promotion and likes the BMW 3 series. User4 is overweight but has just gone on a diet.

There, no identities and you can still advertise. Is it hard?

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

#268

Post by StreamBright »

Angostura wrote: post #266
MarkMc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except that more typically, if I buy a pair of shoes I am then followed around by footwear ads for the next month.

Or you talk about shoes... :)

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

#269

Post by kuwze »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #206
MarkMc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 diet. Are such details of no significance determining what ads to show these people? It's possible that some combination of…

The real issue imho is that there is no shared sales information. So you advertise BMWs to people who may have already purchased a car. I think that is a bigger issue.

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

#270

Post by tivert »

snowwrestler wrote: post #176
Tsubasachan wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I told you the NYT has been doing "untargeted" advertising for 150 years? Besides if you advertise in the NYT you ARE technically targeting people: namely NYT readers. Thats a demographic right there. And a lucrative one.

National newspapers have several ways to target print ads: - Calendar: You can buy an ad for one day, a whole week, the weekend, just Sunday, etc. - Section: You can run your ad in the Travel section instead of Sports. - Region: For national papers, you can have your ad printed in only one region--for example buying a full-page NY Times ad that is only printed in the papers printed in DC. - Edition: Papers use to run…

> National newspapers have several ways to target print ads:

Broad content-based targeting kind of targeting we or the GDPR is talking about. The issue here are individually targeted ads that are only possible with computerized ad delivery.

Post reply on HN