Live data from Hacker News

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

digiday.com

91–100 of 464 posts

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

#91

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 wonder how many people are turned off by targeted ads because they find them creepy.

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

#92

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…

You seem to misunderstand what this thread is about. This thread is not about "marketing". It is about personalised targeted ads.

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

#93

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.

You mean that following the users with the same repetitive ads across the net (for things that he might have even bought already) is not so effective? Yeah, tracking probably throws the ads into a local minima. But ad algos don't care about conversion, they care about charging the ad buyer more.

> But ad algos don't care about conversion, they care about charging the ad buyer more.

Bingo. The users clicking the ads aren't the ones funding the advertising networks - it's the people buying the ads. If you can convince them that targeted ads are more effective (and it would certainly be a safe assumption based on most peoples' understanding) then you can charge them more.

I'm not sure why you're being so heavily downvoted for this, but the presence of so many people "in the industry" in this thread might be some indication.

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

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to misunderstand what this thread is about. This thread is not about "marketing". It is about personalised targeted ads.

Yea I get it. Advertising is a subset of marketing, and efficiently connecting people with a message inherently involves targeting. There's a reason 2 of the biggest companies on the planet are ad networks.

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

#95
post #35

I can't be the only one who thinks behavioral targeting is a bit creepy? This has happened to me at least 3-4 times in the last 2 years: I go to a supermarket or a store that I have never been to, I do shopping and come back home. After a few hours, I pick up my phone to check Email/Facebook, only to find myself staring at an advert for a product that's sitting in my fridge. I mean, come on... The first time this hap…

I bought a Casper mattress around a year ago and the websites I visit are still full of ads for mattresses. How many mattresses do they think I need, anyway!?

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

#96

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.

targeted advertisement is not by itself inferior or superior to untargeted advertisement. Method can only be effective when used correctly.

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

#97

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.

NYT advertising is still targeted to their demographic though. NYT would know their demographic pretty intimately at this point.

I would be surprised if there is no difference, but advertising worked for decades without hyper-targeted ads, I'm sure it will keep working.

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

#98

“The fact that we are no longer offering behavioral targeting options in Europe does not seem to be in the way of what advertisers want to do with us,” he said. “The desirability of a brand may be stronger than the targeting capabilities. We have not been impacted from a revenue standpoint, and, on the contrary, our digital advertising business continues to grow nicely.” I wonder if smaller sites could do the same th…

It's all about the brand, ad tech firms are even willing to take losses to acquire big publishers so that they are more attractive to advertisers.

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

#99
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You be surprised how much less sophisticated Googles and Facebooks ad targeting is! We are far away from a machine classifying you as being single and going to the gym every day or liking BMW and having gotten a promotion. Not that I don’t think we couldn’t get there...but today these system are far away from it! Just go to your Facebook ad settings to understand how primitive the information is they have about you.…

Perhaps there's some kind of Baader-Meinhof phenomena going on here. When a targeted ad is creepily accurate and on point, people flip and think that the machines have figured us out. But the ads that are irrelevant just fly by us without a hit. The one-out-of-a-hundred ads that get it right, likely due to an ad targeter's lucky strike, are the ones that get under our skin, and the only ones we really notice.

But do people generally think that targeted ads are especially accurate? If anything, I’d think people are bothered by all that privacy invasion and still getting completely irrelevant ads!

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

#100
post #52

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…

Perhaps that's what google want you to believe, much like how Target scared people off with their targeted (heh) marketing that outed, among things, that a teenager was pregnant due to the things she started buying. After those events, they started inserting random ads to give a plausible chance that the very-targeted ads were random.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...

Post reply on HN