[tehlike]

Lie & scam - big words.

Ads/marketing budgets create employment that would otherwise not be there.

Ads provide monetization for apps you use on your phone. Without monetization you wouldn't have the proliferation of the ads, and not everyone is willing to pay directly.

It creates jobs, supports businesses, helps otherwise unsustainable content. It helps the small businesses grow their market. It supports economy.

You are also sort of missing the point. We are trying to make ads relavant for everyone, but even if it's relavant, you don't click on everything you see. This is true because of how you as a person do things. You don't buy the first car you see on the street, you do research, you spend days etc. Just think of that, and you'll see why why 1% ctr is actually not a terrible thing as you made it sound like. if you clicked on everything you see, you wouldn't be able to do _anything_.

Disclaimer: Current FB and ex-Google employee working on ads for 8 years. And no, my pay doesn't depend on me saying these, i could just work _anywhere_ i wanted, literally.

[rland]

You know what else would monetize apps on our phone?

Actual money.

In the absence of ads, we'd have people paying money to honest app makers for the utility of the app. And along with that, the accountability, honesty, and incentive alignment that comes from a straightforward exchange. Instead, we have app makers selling users, their data, and their attention to the various companies/intermediaries/entities involved -- without ever telling the user how the bread is buttered.

Yeah, when I'm buying a toaster, I do research. But that has nothing to do with modern ad-tech and its various tentacles whatsoever. Actually, nowadays, I find this whole ecosystem actively prevents me from being proactive about my consumer choice, because every single thing I see when I google "best toaster 2020" is some type of eldritch symbiosis of Fb Goog Az (choose any; none are good), a 1 cent-paid-per-letter 3rd world content farmer, instant click bidding based on my browser, age, gender, location, prior 2 week consumption pattern, political view.

It's really tough to compete with free, and I understand that there are significant barriers to paying directly for content/utility/etc. I know, the system we have set up is ambiguous and complicated and subtle. But maybe those ads/marketing budget dollars could be used to actually like, I don't know: improve people's lives? fix these systems? reverse course? Convince people to consume less so that we don't collapse the biosphere?

It's so tiring to see the most intelligent people alive say, well, this is quite clearly a massive problem that might literally destabilize the order of our entire society on one hand, but on the other, people just have to know how bad they want the Newest Garbage On Sale This Upcoming Black Friday...

Yes, it is a lie and a scam. One of the most epic of recent years.

[tehlike]

Feel free to pay money, I applaud that. For the content you benefit from, if you are willing to pay, that's amazing. I do pay for content too (i have yt premium, netflix, blutv etc). But not everyone wants to pay for the content. You certainly wouldn't pay for a game you play for two weeks and get bored. How do you think a mobile game on a device would get the word of mouth they do without initial monetization etc?

How do you think you'd get to know your neighborhood burger joint without some form of advertising (either word of mouth, or through real paid advertising). how would you know the burger joint somewhere else?

Short of a micropayment solution that pays out proportional to the value you get (flattr? maybe), ads is the only viable option. But that only solves the content creator pov. It doesn't help the advertiser - the business that need your money to survive.

[rland]

The burger joint did absolutely fine before ads and the internet. That's kind of my point. Nobody is inventing a micropayment solution because doing ads pays. (Like, maybe we can put our efforts towards updating payments to the 21st century instead of just outsourcing everything to VISA and paying their 30c tithe...? Maybe we can have some kind of publicly funded digital cash thing?)

What I'm getting at is that some things are better for giant tech companies and corporations and worse for regular people and some things are better for regular people but worse for giant corporations and tech companies.

I'm not even saying that I hate that this is the case, I understand our reality. The lack of creativity, the lack of imagination on this from anyone at all, but especially our best and brightest -- that is the worst part about all of this.

The absolute depth of monoculture on these issues is "oh for sure, it's messed up, but like, fixing it is too hard because of how messed up it is. Better double down before this whole thing implodes!"

[AdrianEGraphene]

A shared prosperity micropayments solution is entirely possible. I am testing one version of this in regards to phone spam.[1] Your bigger picture is what I am addressing with my micropayments as a service platform.[2] We are relatively now & still creating our path, but I just wanted you to know that there are people working on micropayments solution as an alternative to the traditional ad model.

[1] https://myrobocash.com

[2] https://fyncom.com

[ogre_codes]

> if you are willing to pay, that's amazing.

Here's the difference: If I am paying for a thing, I have a choice. I am never presented with the choice over whether I want to get tracked online. Or between apps. Usually tracking is invisible and completely obfuscated in such a way that even if you want to know who is tracking me and what is getting tracked you can't.

> How do you think you'd get to know your neighborhood burger joint without some form of advertising

It's in my neighborhood, I see it when I drive by, friends recommend it. Sometimes I do a web search. I don't think I've ever found a restaurant (grocery store, pub, etc etc) due to an advertisement. About the closest I get is when the local paper runs their people's choice awards for local businesses. (and I know, the local paper gets revenue from advertising)

[buran77]

> If I am paying for a thing, I have a choice.

The only choice you have is to stop paying for the thing. In reality it's more likely that you'd end up paying with money and with the data that's being collected. Businesses always want to grow revenue so at some point collecting data again or serving you ads in a paid product constitutes low hanging fruit.

Look at Samsung and the ads they force on you after you paid thousands on their TVs, look at Amazon who crams some ads in movies and shows you already pay for with Prime, look at Google who still collects info on you even if you pay for YouTube Premium.

This isn't about paying with money or your data. You may get something for your money at first, until you don't anymore.

[egsmi]

> Samsung and the ads they force on you after you paid thousands on their TVs

TV manufacturers were forced to add AD revenue because they reduced their purchase price to levels that were less than sustainable so there is a trade off being made there.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Televisions/price-inflation

[buran77]

That's an explanation, not a justification and it just goes to show that "paying for a product" does not guarantee anything anymore. Today the assumption is that a "free" service is paid with ads and personal data, with the implication that you could pay money instead. I just posit that you'll and up paying money also.

[tehlike]

Browsers (starting with apple) and regulations (ccpa etc) will give you a choice.

The area is ripe for disruption. But sadly, that's the world we have to live in. I am pretty sure google would have prefered if you paid for the services you get (i suggest you sign up for google one, if you use gmail/drive/etc). But until that's ubiquitous ads is what we have.

re: neighborhood burger joint - web search implies someone is providing you this for free. or through ads. or you pay.

[Arelius]

> You certainly wouldn't pay for a game you play for two weeks and get bored.

I certainly would and have. I highly suspect that's the majority (or at least a significant percentage) of money made in the gaming industry.

[tehlike]

You are taking "you" as literal you. Not everyone is literal you. IAP revenue probably is on par with or more than ads. But ads is on top of that. There's a difference.

[imtringued]

There is this common meme that people buy tons of games during steam sales and never play them.

[disgruntledphd2]

I think the OP was talking about mobile, whereas the replies are talking about console/pc games.

Very, very different markets.

[nemothekid]

>In the absence of ads, we'd have people paying money to honest app makers for the utility of the app.

I don’t think so; and the counter example is gaming. We would see free to download products with upsells catered to whales. I’m not sure if that would be a better product but I don’t think that business model is honest either

[nottorp]

> You certainly wouldn't pay for a game you play for two weeks and get bored. How do you think a mobile game on a device would get the word of mouth they do without initial monetization etc?

[Replying to parent because I can't reply directly to poster]

It looks like you have no idea that there are games worth paying for. Not on mobile phones though. And definitely not free to play games. They are designed to take your money, not entertain you.

[tehlike]

I do know there are games worth paying 60 bucks for. Also worth games worth a few buck. I normally don't play games, but the thought of having to make pyments every single time is too much for me personally.

[semi-extrinsic]

I'm sorry, but whenever I'm looking for a new app to do something, it's consistently either the "hobbyist-made, free because ideology" apps, or the "made by $bigcorp, costs $5 but no ads" apps that actually are useful and good.

That, and the seemingly utter stupidity of ad engines. Like, yes I bought that new power tool last week. Stop showing me the ad for the tool from the same store I already bought it from.

I'm pretty much convinced that apart from the people working in the ad business, nobody actually profits off ads. Certainly it's close to impossible to prove that ads are effective, and people who sell ads to companies are good at cherry picking and suggestive correlations. Then in the end everyone tries to buy the same eyeballs by paying the same ad companies, and it all averages out to nothing except you spent a bunch of money.

[tehlike]

It's fairly easy to prove. Businesses are not dumb. Why would they throw their money on advertising otherwise?

[semi-extrinsic]

Come now, this is only an enhanced form of prisoners dilemma, where the prison guards do a side hustle helping prisoners rat each other out, in exchange for a "very small" commission. Everyone spending money on advertising is a strong Nash equilibrium, but it is not the optimal solution.

If everyone spends money on ads, a single actor choosing to not spend money on ads would (probably) see a loss. And in this case, you have a centralized actor (ad companies) spending a lot of resources telling everyone this fact.

But if everyone decided to not spend money on ads, everyone (except ad companies of course) would see a win.

[imtringued]

I think you are digging yourself too deep into antagonistic thinking.

>Come now, this is only an enhanced form of prisoners dilemma, where the prison guards do a side hustle helping prisoners rat each other out, in exchange for a "very small" commission. Everyone spending money on advertising is a strong Nash equilibrium, but it is not the optimal solution.

Imagine you are making your own craft beer in your basement and you are sitting on two crates of beer. You want to sell your beer but you don't tell anyone that you are selling beer because that would be advertising and according to you advertising is not an optimal solution. Even if we assume you are the only company on the planet and have no competitors, your business is still in trouble and about to make losses and close down.

>If everyone spends money on ads, a single actor choosing to not spend money on ads would (probably) see a loss. And in this case, you have a centralized actor (ad companies) spending a lot of resources telling everyone this fact.

Now we assume that you tell someone that you are selling beer which is basically what advertising is. People know that you sell beer now. They can now make a decision to buy your beer. If people like beer that's what they are going to do. If they hate beer they can still decide to not buy your beer.

Yeah, if you did not advertise then you would indeed see losses. Simply because nobody is aware of your products, meaning they are unable to buy your products. But again, no second party is involved, so you don't need a centralized actor to decide to do advertising.

>But if everyone decided to not spend money on ads, everyone (except ad companies of course) would see a win.

Since we are the only company around we are "everyone" and if we decide to not spend money on ads then we would see losses.

So now that I have proven that your hypothesis is not correct we can actually talk about the ad market in general.

Advertising is providing value for companies but the amount of value advertising can provide is not based on how many resources you spend on advertising, rather it is dependent on the size of the market. A big market with lots of consumers can make more money off of more advertising but there is a certain point beyond which you end up spending more on advertising than the market needs. On a planet with 1000 consumers and two companies the best case would be if both companies put out 500 ads. So clearly the optimum amount of advertising is not 0. However, a big company can put out 1000 ads and thereby displace its competitor's ads. It's best to have some ads but not too many.

[pdimitar]

Advertising per se isn't bad. Worked pretty okay for print press and I even liked to specifically browse the pages with ads on certain magazines. They were focused. If you were a farmer and bought magazines on this topic, the ads there were relevant.

The problem discussed today is the invasive and often clueless nature of online ads. They just spam you and nothing else. Adtech companies gather mountains of data and at the end of the day what do they have to show for it? "Oh, we see you bought a gaming machine. How about you buy these other five ones?". lol.

Seriously. This is sloppy work.

My conclusion is that they don't utilize the private data (that they gather in some very legally questionable ways) and thus they won't lose anything if they're robbed of all the personal data. And the world will be better for it.

[egsmi]

> Businesses are not dumb.

Over all businesses over long periods of time, maybe. But a business can definitely be dumb. And a smart business can definitely do a dumb thing.

[tehlike]

"some can be" and "all are" are different things. There are a lot of businesses that don't keep track of their finances, just like there are many people who don't. But assuming that's de-facto situation and every business is losing money on ads is cynical thinking.

[tehlike]

>"I bought that new power tool last week. Stop showing me the ad for the tool from the same store I already bought it from."

Yes. I hate this too, but think of it as a bug, not the actual intention. We would love to know when you wouldn't buy a product as much as we would love to know when you actually would. But we don't, always, and end up having to make approximations. We don't always know what you actually bought, we just know you bought something. Advertisers don't even always tell the value of stuff you bought, something tht'd have benefited them to share from ROI pov etc.

[pdimitar]

That "bug" exists ever since adtech exists.

Clearly, nobody is interested in fixing it then?

"It's a developing area" is a pretty old adage by now, and is worn out. Modern tech exists for 25+ years now. Do something. Most of the people I've spoken to hate ads.

Not fixing ancient bugs isn't helping the situation.

[tehlike]

No, this is within the framework - the buyer (say, amazon) wants to target you since you recently bought something. They could say they don't want to target you since you already bought it, but it's partly up to them. FB/Google/etc could downrank and reduce its frequency or whatever, but it will keep happening one way or the other due to variety of sellers etc in the market.

[ogre_codes]

> Ads/marketing budgets create employment that would otherwise not be there.

Whether something creates jobs or not doesn't make it a net good. Would you suggest Ransomware is good? Because it also creates jobs. As do Nigerian email scams and Ponzi schemes. "Creating Jobs" doesn't mean something is good for society.

> You are also sort of missing the point. We are trying to make ads relavant for everyone, but even if it's relavant, you don't click on everything you see.

Apparently you are missing the point here. Whether you see it or not, Facebook and google's marketplaces by nature serve advertisers, not me. Advertisers don't give a damn what advertising is "most relevant" to me. What they care about is which demographics are most profitable to their brands.

> We are trying to make ads relavant for everyone

So long as Google and Facebook put the advertisers in control of who sees their advertising, any assertion that the system is designed to serve us is bullshit. People don't see advertising that is relevant, they see advertisements from the people who pay google/ Facebook to see their message. Those two things are not equivalent and never will be.

[tehlike]

Advertisers don't give a damn what advertising is "most relevant" to me. -> They certainly do, indirectly - that'd mean they get better ROI on their investment.

But think of it this way. You are getting a service, you are paying either directly or indirectly through ads.

Facebook wouldn't be a thing if it were a paid product from get go. It'd probably even lose a major part of its user base if it became a paid product overnight.

Like i said, i would love if i can pay for a product i am benefiting from, but it's not always possible.

[disgruntledphd2]

> So long as Google and Facebook put the advertisers in control of who sees their advertising, any assertion that the system is designed to serve us is bullshit

But they don't put advertisers in control of who sees their ads.

If you look at audience sizes on FB, and then run some direct response ads on that audience, you'll notice that you only ever reach maybe 10% of that audience.

This is because what FB/Goog are good at is figuring out which ads are likely to get someone to click and/or convert, and show only those ads.

The dirty secret is that those people might have converted anyway.

One can measure this with an attribution model, but the trouble is that the two biggest players Google and Facebook have very little incentive to co-operate, so all attribution models are extremely biased.

tl;dr the advertisers set boundaries on who should see the ad, but they don't control who the ads get served to.

[playpause]

You haven’t addressed the only point in the comment you’re replying to.

[tehlike]

I did. "tracking is getting them better/ more relevant advertising" -> it makes it more relavant yes. But your individual experience on 100 impressions don't matter. Us showing you ads for something you already bought is a bug. Not a fundamental to advertising kind of issue.