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

441–450 of 464 posts

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

#441

Post by kaybe »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #208
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…

That's exactly how it works for me. I have been running my online business for 5 years now. I learn (and keep learning) all I need to know from the same, high quality source. I get targeted all the time by adds on landing pages, email funnels, Facebook ads, etc. Some of these are legit, but thanks to my experience I can see that most of them are of poor quality. They will never sell me anything, while they might sell…

Can you tell us your source?

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

#442

Post by aembleton »

tivert wrote: post #375
jrobn wrote: post #371

Earlier 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…

I wonder how much of the purported "success" of retargeting is just mis-assigned credit? You research a camera, but it takes you some time to make a decision. In the meantime, you get blasted with camera ads, which you ignore . Then you actually make your purchase. Even though the ads had no effect on you, there's a fairly high chance you still purchased an advertised model at a vendor that targeted you with an ad fo…

Google should know when I've bought the camera. They can read my email, as I use Inbox!

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

#443

Post by lmm »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #306
character0 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps he could be reminded. Car just won an award, which would direct him to look up more info about the car and why it's considered good. Maybe they just made an update to the car model he likes, but is not aware of this change.

Maybe that'll give him a slight nudge toward buying the thing he was already going to buy, but how valuable is that nudge? BMW has a lot more to gain by providing that info to someone who isn't already into their cars.

You don't make these decisions in one go. One ad doesn't make someone who isn't into cars go out and buy a BMW. The money is in tipping someone who's been thinking about getting a BMW for a while over the edge.

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

#444

Post by lmm »

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…

Google doesn't target ads themselves, they sell advertising targeting to the highest bidder. If someone's bidding high numbers for a French-language ad and not bothering to exclude non-French-speakers, Google is more than happy to take their money.

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

#445

Post by reitanqild »

buboard wrote: post #106
reitanqild wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if your game is an aquarium game, it doesn't mean that your users are only interested in aquarium cleaning products. Correct. On the other hand, the topic of the game is just one of the contexts. A trivial example: At least we can infer that the player likes to play games, so advertising for mobile games, discount gaming consoles etc might be a better match.

yeah but the category "plays games" is too broad, rivaled by "reads blogs". And after the users have seen enough of gaming ads (and not responded) they are offeered the bottom of the barrel: russian brides (true story). If we are going to go down the road of doing increasingly detailed ad customization as publishers, we will have come full circle to reinventing targeted ads by another name.

> yeah but the category "plays games" is too broad, rivaled by "reads blogs".

Plays x game on y website at z time of the days however should tell you something though.

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

#446

Post by buboard »

reitanqild wrote: post #445
buboard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but the category "plays games" is too broad, rivaled by "reads blogs". And after the users have seen enough of gaming ads (and not responded) they are offeered the bottom of the barrel: russian brides (true story). If we are going to go down the road of doing increasingly detailed ad customization as publishers, we will have come full circle to reinventing targeted ads by another name.

> yeah but the category "plays games" is too broad, rivaled by "reads blogs". Plays x game on y website at z time of the days however should tell you something though.

the question is how it overlaps with what the advertiser wants to promote. e.g. "is looking for new jeans"

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

#447

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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…

>further advertisements for that product aren't necessary to reach you //

I'm one if those "advertising doesn't affect me" people. Except, then I realised that advertising acts subconsciously and uses human psychology against us, and I'm not as immune as I thought.

I buy a Dyson, every ad I see for vacuums is a Dyson, it confirms I made the right choice, everyone is buying them, they're everywhere, etc.. Everytime I see a shiny new vacuum it's a chance for my brain to compare it with the old rubbish one; why are all those people "enjoying" vacuuming when I have to suffer it.

With polo shirts it's like "these new ones look smart/fashionable/etc." vs the old one.

Yes there is likely a lag in "this person was looking for ..." signals; but I still don't buy (heh!) that as _entirely_ silly.

>Once I buy a car, or a television, I'm probably not going to be in the market for another one for years. //

Car, probably, depends on the person's wealth; TV, I've v heard people say "we liked it so much we got another one for our bedroom" or whatever.

FWIW I'd never buy a Dyson ...

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

#448

Post by BoorishBears »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #386
BoorishBears wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think those people sell? Or their customers find them? Where do people search for sites representing businesses? The Software industry would retract almost to the point of death relative to its current size without ads.

I surely never follow ads. Most sites I find by word-of-mouth I think?

Good for you, you can go ahead and prop up the industry with your word of mouth.

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

#449

Post by reaperducer »

JAlexoid wrote: post #359
reaperducer wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even an proficient English speaker can be mislead I don't think so. A human would understand context. AI isn't supposed to be simple string matching.

Really? Take anyone that has no clue who Paris Hilton is and without implying what you mean by "Paris Hilton" ask them something about Paris Hilton.

There's a difference between "Paris Hilton" and "The Paris Hilton." "Paris" isn't a completely unheardof first name. Again, a human capable of working with context will understand that, as should a proper AI. Simple string matching won't.

Also, there is no "Paris Hilton" hotel. There is Hilton Paris Opera, Hilton Paris La Defense, and Hilton Paris De Gaulle.

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

#450

Post by daveFNbuck »

lmm wrote: post #443
daveFNbuck wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that'll give him a slight nudge toward buying the thing he was already going to buy, but how valuable is that nudge? BMW has a lot more to gain by providing that info to someone who isn't already into their cars.

You don't make these decisions in one go. One ad doesn't make someone who isn't into cars go out and buy a BMW. The money is in tipping someone who's been thinking about getting a BMW for a while over the edge.

I wasn't talking about people who aren't into cars at all. I was talking about people who aren't into BMWs in particular. If I'm about to spend a lot of money on a car, I'd think that BMW would want me to know about theirs.
Post reply on HN