[LeeHarveysGrave]

No kidding, nor do they explain that ad agencies have little to no interest in selling their clients this 'acceptable experience'.

Nor do large brands have any interest in promoting expensively created brands with sub-par adverts.

Truth be told they're after a slice of the remnant and low rent market so they're effectively extorting the small and medium businesses, "mom and pop" outfits, folks that use adwords and similar to build their brands.

Extorting publishers and telling them to pay to advertise on their own content is pretty cheeky.

[thecolorblue]

I would second this.

Is there any data out there on ad placement effectiveness? It sounds like they are removing the ads that are actually effective and leaving the ads nobody notices, in other words, the ads that nobody would pay for.

As someone who used to work for a SaaS company, it always amazed me how many people expect to get things for free.

[tomjen3]

I can't remember the last time a promoted tweet was relevant for me. I am not going to buy Samsungs new super expensive phone, I am not going to be using mail-chimp.

So why do I keep seeing ads for crap I don't need and products I already know about, instead of new products that are useful that I can actually use? Maybe if ads were useful people would want to see them and so they wouldn't have to be annoying.

[thecolorblue]

That is a good point, relevant ads are less annoying. Are you fine with ad companies collecting information about you to give you better targeted ads?

[charonn0]

> ad agencies have little to no interest in selling their clients this 'acceptable experience'. Nor do large brands have any interest in promoting expensively created brands with sub-par adverts.

And users are clearly not interested in seeing their ads in the first place.

[LeeHarveysGrave]

Exactly.

So let's stop the pretense that acceptable advertising is meaningful.