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

#331

Post by throwawaymath » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #300

throwawaymath wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

I can clearly see there are plenty of things to do for software engineers beyond advertising. But that was never germane to my point. What does concern my point is how many comparably compensating opportunities there are, how quickly they can transition to them, and whether or not those opportunities will be meaningfully less controversial (e.g. fintech).

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

#332

Post by Klonoar » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 8:39 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…

A nitpick, but Google stopped scanning emails for advertising back in like 2015. I see this still thrown around way too much...

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

#333

Post by bradyo » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #87

cyborgx7 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is generating trillions in economic activity and allowing billions of people to be employed and connected not adding value? By itself? No, not at all. At least not more valuable than giving the same people the same money for doing nothing. >What would you rather have people do? Literally anything not actively harmful.

You seem to misunderstand how marketing works. Creating customers is how companies grow and requires advertising, so creating those channels is filling a business need. Throwing money at people doesn't change that need. >> Literally anything not actively harmful. "Literally" must be the most overused word in English today, but a vague description like that is completely unproductive to any discussion and doesn't even…

"Filling business needs" is also not an objectively useful thing. There are many businesses I would prefer not advertise (e.g. cigarette and gun companies) and many more industries that are nearly zero-sum (and thus advertising just moves a fixed pool of money around). I'm not sure where this idea that growth for the sake of growth is inherently good came from. In fact, we've demonstrated many ways it's harmful.

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

#334

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

Cpoll wrote: post #276

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…

But if you determine that targeted ads are worst than scattershot, the correct conclusion isn't to do scattershot, it's to invert your target group.

The issue is that this "target group" is typically "people that visited your website and stayed there for some time".

Unless you have a promo, you really don't want to advertise to them... But that is exactly what you end up doing, because you can't target "people that visited my website 6+ months ago".

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

#335

Post by jjtheblunt » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 8:55 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…

All your examples presume that the people targeted lack the initiative to seek what they want, no? One could argue that getting all the junkmail targeted ads out of one's face _delays_ actual transactions with retailers that would-be customers can adequately find themselves, with even greater information.

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

#336

Post by scythe » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 8:59 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 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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

People know when they're being manipulated and we usually don't like it. All the data in the world won't help you if using it creates antipathy.

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

#337

Post by manigandham » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

cyborgx7 wrote: post #215

manigandham wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mem…

GDPR is not meant to be followed to the letter, it's legislation on principle and will continue to be ineffective and only cause further problems for the EU, while entrenching the very companies that it most wanted to protect people from. California's privacy act is a much better legal framework in case you want examples.

Privacy is also not incompatible, as even choosing the NYT to advertise on is still a targeted decision, and advertising will never die unless you entirely replace the economic system we have. We might get some better online ad practices but it certainly won't happen by just calling it all "evil", which is especially ironic considering what evil actually exists in the world.

Anyways, by your dismissals it's clear you are only interested in irrational tirades which is unfortunately very common when discussing adtech so I'll end it here.

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

#338

Post by webkike » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 9:01 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…

Here’s a thought: targeted advertisements sell me crappier versions of things I’m likely to research, while non targeted ads actually aid in discoveribility of things I would not be already thinking of purchasing

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

#339

Post by thisisweirdok » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

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?

It's not and they know it. You think ad agencies use their best talent on display advertising? Shit no. No one cares.

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

#340

Post by redwall_hp » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 9:03 PM UTC

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…

In other words: targeted advertising is about making ads cheeper for advertisers, whereas the traditional assumption is that the real estate is valuable and desirable. e.g. companies want their ads in the New York Times or the Superbowl. Targeted advertising is a way of spreading ad dollars out more, which ultimately is detrimental to large publishers as well as being unethical on the data harvesting side. (I choose to adhere to the ACM's guideline that collecting personal information without informed consent is unethical.)