| It's useful to distinguish between advertisements and adtech: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17972297 http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/05/12/gdpr/ > Advertising isn’t personal, and doesn’t have to be. In fact, knowing it’s not personal is an advantage for advertisers. Consumers don’t wonder what the hell an ad is doing where it is, who put it there, or why. > Advertising makes brands. Nearly all the brands you know were burned into your brain by advertising. In fact the term branding was borrowed by advertising from the cattle business. (Specifically by Procter and Gamble in the early 1930s.) > Advertising carries an economic signal. Meaning that it shows a company can afford to advertise. Tracking-based advertising can’t do that. (For more on this, read Don Marti, starting here.) > Advertising sponsors media, and those paid by media. All the big pro sports salaries are paid by advertising that sponsors game broadcasts. For lack of sponsorship, media—especially publishers—are hurting. @WaltMossberg learned why on a conference stage when an ad agency guy said the agency’s ads wouldn’t sponsor Walt’s new publication, recode. Walt: “I asked him if that meant he’d be placing ads on our fledgling site. He said yes, he’d do that for a little while. And then, after the cookies he placed on Recode helped him to track our desirable audience around the web, his agency would begin removing the ads and placing them on cheaper sites our readers also happened to visit. In other words, our quality journalism was, to him, nothing more than a lead generator for target-rich readers, and would ultimately benefit sites that might care less about quality.” With friends like that, who needs enemies? Versus the top four things he says about adtech: > Adtech is built to undermine the brand value of all the media it uses, because it cares about eyeballs more than media, and it causes negative associations with brands. Consider this: perhaps a $trillion or more has been spent on adtech, and not one brand known to the world has been made by it. (Bob Hoffman, aka the Ad Contrarian, is required reading on this.) > Adtech wants to be personal. That’s why it’s tracking-based. Though its enthusiasts call it “interest-based,” “relevant” and other harmless-sounding euphemisms, it relies on tracking people. In fact it can’t exist without tracking people. (Note: while all adtech is programmatic, not all programmatic advertising is adtech. In other words, programmatic advertising doesn’t have to be based on tracking people. Same goes for interactive. Programmatic and interactive advertising will both survive the adtech crash.) Adtech spies on people and violates their privacy. By design. Never mind that you and your browser or app are anonymized. The ads are still for your eyeballs, and correlations can be made. > Adtech is full of fraud and a vector for malware. @ACFou is required reading on this. > Adtech incentivizes publications to prioritize “content generation” over journalism. |
Note I am not saying "Adtech" is good, there are boundaries.
But notice "it shows a company can afford to advertise", "Advertising makes brands. Nearly all the brands you know were burned into your brain by advertising". Which makes winner takes all, and only big players can afford advertising. Which is bad and second half of 20th century was monopolized by giants that could afford buying all advertising space there was.
"Adtech" already is disrupting big companies monopolies allowing smaller players to be seen in the internet because of democratization of costs. But of course I agree it went wrong, though I don't know how to make it better, because if you would let people select their preferences it would be too much hassle and no one would care.
Maybe tracking-based would be OK if I could have all data on my machine and something like my personal assistant would help me with searching.