631–640 of 765 posts
(The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marketing is a major cost factor for many products. You can't sustainably sell anything for less than customer acquisition cost. This is familiar to SaaS people but also high margin products like perfume and professional services.
That’s why I try to avoid products that sponsor major sports events/teams/athletes/etc. I want a good product, not surrounding marketing. Products with no fancy marketing, frequently coming from smaller local companies, bring much better price/quality ratio.
The sponsoring of brainwashing is worse than the value loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, and I personally don't see anything wrong with this approach. You can't offer a free service if you can't make money from it somehow.
They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The worst thing a company can do is try to sell you more soap. A company can bar the exits, letting you burn to death [0]. A company can send private militias to force you to work [1] (or because you were sent the wrong set of MtG cards [2]). A company can improperly store pesticide, until the resulting explosion kills thousands [3]. A company can own every house and store in a town, managing your expenses to ensur…
Try again, but keep things relevant within the past 10 years, and applicable to majority of the population.
Now, for a productive conversation, I'd recommend you putting effort in as well, instead of just sea lioning [6].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Privacy_is...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/company-that-mak...
[3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/analysis-health-insuranc...
[4] https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/07/not-again-bone-grafts...
[5] https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/poopy-lettuce-at-wen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could still show ads without all the invasiveness. For example: advertisers could pay to place ads in specific Facebook groups and they would show to people visiting those pages. Like it has been done for decades in magazines and other physical media. The internet did not invent advertising.
There’s a reason why magazines ads are dying and being replaced by personalized ads. Advertising like that is widely inefficient. It’s easy to show ads. Not that easy to make money from doing so. It’s as valid alternative as telling people to use horses instead of cars to reduce CO2 emissions. They both get from point A to B, right?
Too bad, if your business model can’t make money without breaking laws and harming people’s rights, do you really deserve to stay in business?
> It’s as valid alternative as telling people to use horses instead of cars to reduce CO2 emissions. They both get from point A to B, right?
More like banning formula 1 cars from suburbs. People survived before without personalized ads, what will not survive is making 10-digits of profit every quarter and the associated butchery of our life and institutions in the pursuit of profit.
I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)
Disclaimer: Individual EU opinion not reflective of whole continent. I am very very happy to look at all the ads and even personalised ones, as long as those are not overly obnoxious and mostly (obviously-)scammy. If I have to scroll through endless ocean of ad with my actual priority(friends and family posting something) drowned out at the very bottom of my feed, I will naturally stop clicking any ads. All we need i…
non-personalised ads != random ads It is still perfectly possible to place ads in meaningful contexts.
I would add that personalised ads != less random ads.
Mapping the context to the ads is likely far superior in convertion.
But once again, fb is in the business of high margin and already figured out personalised ads based on profiling is the most profitable strategy.
I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)
Sure. As long as I don’t have to deliver (all) my private data to get those relevant ads.
Some examples of what I'm fine with: if I visit a hardware store's online website and am then retargeted by their ads, or I visit a hardware magazine's website and am then targeted by hardware ads.
I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)
Sure. As long as I don’t have to deliver (all) my private data to get those relevant ads.
This is the value Facebook delivers (targeting and measuring), and it's about to go up in smoke.
Nobody will pay the same price for a billboard.
I might be in the minority here but I personally find personalized ads useful, and am far more annoyed by ads recommending products and services completely irrelevant to my interests and/or needs. (The latter still account for the ads I see most of the time, unfortunately.)
Sure. As long as I don’t have to deliver (all) my private data to get those relevant ads.