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

291–300 of 464 posts

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

#291

Post by IshKebab »

nekopa wrote: post #290

I toyed around for awhile with an idea I called Gadfly. Basically it's an idea for complete opt in advertising. It would have a dashboard for setting up what ads I want to see. So I could put in friends birthdays, things they like, and around that time get relevant ads of things to buy that they may like. Or I could say that I need a new laptop, and while I browse see relevant ads for what I want. I was hoping to mak…

While that idea would never work (who is going to bother with that faff rather than just googling laptops?) it does also show why Google can make so much money from ads.

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

#292

Post by com2kid »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #247
misterprime wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be the genius of targeted ads. Once one vendor starts doing it, the other vendors have no choice but to bid on the same target. Winner: ad platform.

> That may be the genius of targeted ads. Once one vendor starts doing it, the other vendors have no choice but to bid on the same target. Except that they do have a choice. Suppose there are five competitors. Everybody knows Steve is going to buy a BMW 3 Series. The margin is $5000. Assuming everyone else is going to do what you're going to do, how much does it make sense to bid to advertise to Steve? If you bid $10…

You are assuming the ads don't have any impact on where Steve goes to buy.

In reality what happens is marketing runs an ad for $3000 offering a $1000 incentive, Steve makes the purchase, and making gets to (possibly correctly) claim they netted $1000 in sales.

Those marketing people want to keep their jobs, so they are going to work hard to justify their existence!

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

#293

Post by com2kid »

r3bl wrote: post #250
JAlexoid wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The opposite works as well. On one occasion, I've tried booking straight from the hotel, it told me no rooms available for the selected dates. I've tried Booking, and sure enough, that same room I had my eyes on was available.

Larger hotels have blocks of rooms reserved for the different booking services.

The opposite can also happen, Booking shows no rooms, and calling the hotel results in a room. It just means Booking's block of rooms is all rented out, not that the hotel itself is all rented out.

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

#294

Post by tivert »

cm2012 wrote: post #146

It's amazing how so many people who no knowledge of online advertising post so confidently in these threads. Since I have a lot of experience with targeted ads, it makes me trust the comments on topics I'm not an expert on less.

> It's amazing how so many people who no knowledge of online advertising post so confidently in these threads. Since I have a lot of experience with targeted ads...

Since you seem to work in adtech or advertising, that famous Upton Sinclair quote probably legitimately applies to you ("It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!").

That's the big problem here. The people with the most knowledge of adtech are likely biased and untrustworthy due to their economic interests, but the people who lack that bias also have less knowledge.

What needs to happen is that you and other adtech people should volunteer to be interviewed by some deep investigative journalism piece by a place like the NY Times or ProPublica. They could take your knowledge, filter out some of the self interest, and educate the rest of us.

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

#295

Post by Rebelgecko »

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…

A few (potential) ways targeted ads may not be advantageous:

Often I see targeted ads for products I looked up and did some research on. I either bought the product or decided not to buy the product. Unless the ads convince me to buy another one or change my mind about whether or not I need a first one, they're not going to do any good.

Targeted ads can also be creepy and offputting. It's weird to look something up and then see ads for that specific version of that specific product everywhere.

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

#296

Post by commonsense1234 »

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…

this is fantastic analogy. but, Steve just got a promotion and likes the BMW 3 series. But, advertising a Tesla 3 can be another worthy option you are trying to advertise. I think behavioral and randomness should go hand in hand.

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

#297

Post by not2b »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #263
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

No one has the data for both sides of the equation. Google dominates search advertising, Amazon dominates online buying. If those companies merged, one company would have all the data needed to use deep learning to take all our money. They'd be able to distinguish products that, once purchased, means the buyer won't buy again for years, and items that are regularly bought, and they'd have the timing between seeing ads and buying. It wouldn't be perfect, because some people would buy elsewhere, but it might be frighteningly effective.

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

#298

Post by the_watcher »

Isn't this an example of regulations helping established players? Sure, the NYT is able to direct sell ads, but an upstart publisher can't. That doesn't necessarily mean that GDPR's pros don't outweigh the cons, but "The New York Times can direct sell ads" isn't exactly evidence of "Anyone can avoid GDPR having an impact on ad revenue"

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

#299

Post by chillacy »

FakeComments wrote: post #271
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There’s a bigger effect: context. I don’t want to buy beef jerky when I’m reading about a military strike in the Middle East, no matter how much my profile indicates I like beef jerky — but I might be open to a book on politics. Because reading about content is self-selected disclosure of interest, the NYT already has all the information they need to target me — they know I read politics, and when I’m in that context…

For sure, the type of person who reads the NYT politics section in English is _already_ a fairly niche audience compared to everyone who uses the internet.

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

#300

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

throwawaymath wrote: post #47
darkpuma wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you want, but sweaters don't spy on people.

Then in a decade our new sardonic message board reference will be, "Yes, the software engineering industry cratered. But for a beautiful moment in time, we stopped serving ads." I don't think the parent commenter disagrees with you about spying. I think they're trying to highlight the fundamental tension of the is-ought problem at play here. Your normative claim is that it's good to limit activity which reduces consu…

As Upton Sinclair so aptly observed "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

There was a thriving core to the software industry that existed well before the ad-fueled web and still exists today. Plain old business websites, line-of-business internal software, desktop apps, embedded and IoT software, etc., none of these things depend on ads. If you can't see that there is plenty of things to do for software developers to do if ads are curtailed, you need to broaden your horizons.

Post reply on HN