Wild speculation: What if cutting off the ad exchanges was a dose of quinine for the New York Times? NYT is a premium venue for people who want to advertise, because its regular readers (especially the ones who don't live in New York) tend to have above-average disposable income. Because of that, the NYT should be able to charge a premium for advertising with them. But if they opt into the ad exchanges, then they've…
I'm not clear how that would work. How does NYT enabling ad exchanges enable advertisers to target NYT readers or the NYT website?
After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
421–430 of 464 posts
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#422It'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.
Feel free to share some of your expert knowledge with the rest of us (instead of just complaining about comments from non-experts).
EDIT: and the downvotes begin, at this point it's just comical.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show of hands. How many people have clicked on an ad and bought something directly related to the ad? I was researching cameras. I saw very little camera ads in my research. After I bought a camera? Ads for the camera I just bought everywhere, for months afterwards. I have not once clicked on a ad and bought something. I maybe clicked on 10 ads in my lifetime and they were 75% stuff I THOUGHT I had no intrest in. I t…
Haha, similar. I was shopping around for a Sony mirrorless camera a year ago. Ended up with the model I actually had in mind in the first place (A7S2 for its supreme low light capability), but shit am I hounded on the Internet either for Sony cameras or accessories. And there's no way I know of to get rid of it! And for what its worth even Facebook and Instagram (at least the latter, I only use on my tablet in the ap…
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#424It'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…
Willfully choosing not to believe is on you. If you discount everyone talking about their profession because they get paid for it then you'll quickly end up with no experts on anything. People are still professionals regardless of industry. Treat them that way and you'll get clear answers.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#425Earlier 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.
This also puzzles me. If I buy a household appliance that's not a consumable product (most shouldn't be), why does it recommend more of the exact same? Why doesn't it instead recommend other types of appliances? The key take-away should be that you're comfortable with buying household appliances online, usually not that you need another vacuum cleaner within the next year.
Banks and merchants and publishers and advertisers and all the layers in between create dozens of data silos and nobody is interested in sharing. Add to that the weird expectation that people don't want to be tracked but yet want adtech to know when you've bought something.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
JS injection into display ads, which happens a lot more often than you would think when it comes to ad display network content.
Yeah, no it doesn't. I ran supply side programmatic for years and run buy side now. That is not true.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t mind paywalls. I do mind paying with my information rather than with money without being given an option.
You have an option: dont visit the site. Nobody is forcing you to read that content.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#428I 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.
At that point wouldn't all ads be targeted, to some extend? The only sites that would be in "trouble" is massive news aggregations sites.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having said that, I'm constantly surprised by how bad Google is at targeted advertising. For example, today when I visit nytimes.com I see an ad from Google with the ad text in French. Hey Google, despite my recent visit to Paris I don't speak French - maybe your AI experts could analyse my 13 years of Gmail and search history to figure that out! No, they literally could not, because the data flow between Gmail and…
Gmail is the exception, as google can harvest all the data from other Google services. Virtually all google products are governed by a shared google privacy policy, which allows Google to combine data across products and services. This change was made years ago, despite some end user protest. Most apps and products are also optimized to maximize data harvesting - ex. Android OS and Maps will nag if users don't give u…
However, once you allow the idea that there are powerful people inside these companies, that genuinely don't want the company to create a panopticon, things can get interesting. I can't exactly prove that to you, but you've seen hints of that in the news over 2018. Or, you might have noticed e.g. that safe browsing only sends hashes of the URLs you type. Or, now this Gmail not telling Ads which languages you speak thing.
Now, again I can't offer more than my word for it, but the Gmail-Ads situation is the rule, not the exception. The only reason this made it to the news, is that the exception in place before has been lifted. But in Google, by default, if a product wants data you shared with another product, it has to make a very strong case that that's covered by intent of a permission you already gave. That, or ask you for permission, or ask you for the data again. If you ever wondered why Google keeps asking for the same basic immutable data, that might be the reason.
Funnily enough, this whole privacy thing is hard to tell from the outside. As you said, there is a single privacy policy, that governs the relationship between Google and yourself. All the internal data siloing is, well, internal.
Edit: I won't be continuing this thread. The cognitive load to not leak anything non-public is a bit unpleasant.
Re: After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and kept growing ad revenue
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are working on propping up the ad industry I certainly won't lie awake at night if you are inconvenienced by it dying.
You’re pretty short sighted huh? I don’t work with ads. But we have B2C clients that wouldn’t exist without the ad industry, in fact how would people know we exist without the ad industry? How many of your customers are funded by ads, or use tools funded by ads, or have customers of their own that are? Not to mention stuff most people use, like GMail, Google Search, “free” apps We’re part of an ecosystem, you can’t p…
In keeping with the guidelines of this website, I think it's fair to not immediately resort to personal attacks as a retaliation for a perceived slight.
As for the rest of your reply: I have not and continue to not get reliable statistical information that outlines exactly how ads help businesses. Mostly because the people that work in the ad industry just don't really seem to care about accurate numbers. If they did, it seems to me they would invest a bit more time and effort into understanding what makes a measurement accurate and how you make such a measurement.
That then neatly ties into your claim that basically every business I know wouldn't exist without advertising, which I would classify as the kind of extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Of which there is none.
As for the claim that I am all "uppity": If that means questioning when people do things that I see as wrong, I think that is a virtue.