[buboard]

> That's the bare minimum. Right.

That's not addressing the argument. Advertising follows eyeballs, so naturally it went online. There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however, despite all the claims about high ad tech.

[tempguy9999]

> There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however

If you're right, those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis.

And this in an area where doing so is very easy (don't run the ad then do run the ad, then see the immediate and longer-term difference).

Also, from the same wiki link I gave

"The EU limitations restrict targeting by online advertisers; researchers have estimated online advertising effectiveness decreases on average by around 65% in Europe relative to the rest of the world."

Further, by "There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased" are you saying no studies have been done, or studies have been done but show no such evidence? In the latter case please post a few links, thanks.

[buboard]

> those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis

i should clarify i meant the effectiveness of ads overall, not just targetting. there is no doubt that online ads work, and that tracking ads perform better than display ads. However despite the shift to online ads, advertising spending overall is similar and it doesnt seem to have increased consumption. So i dont understand if the rise in online ad spending means anything (imho it's purely because online audience is bigger now).