The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about. In that regard, I appreciate good ads that tell me about things I would want to know about and didn't already.
For example, some of the ads I get are for live shows (back in the before times). These are live shows that I enjoy going to, but would never have known about, because I don't know where to look for them. Having it pushed at me helps me.
The example I gave elsewhere are ads for live shows (back when that was a thing). I like live shows and sometimes the ads are the only way I learn about new ones.
Not a fan of targeted ads, but which ad to show you is only half of the part. The other part is tracking conversions, aka finding out if you actually bought some item after you saw the ad.
Also, ads don't have to work for everyone. If they work for some folks, it's already profitable for the platforms. And they do work.
I would say tracking conversions is the most important part. There’s always a lot of attention on targeting because it’s user-facing, creepy, and strikes a nerve with the HN crowd. But anyone that has spent five minutes working with their marketing people or implementing adTech would know the true story.
“Are these ads effective? Should we spend more money on them?” Without conversion data the answer is one big shrug emoji.
I don’t believe most companies in the tech industry care about tracking/fingerprinting users for the sake of collecting & reselling their data. First hand experience, I’m just not ever seeing that. They just want to know if their ads are working or not.
> I would say tracking conversions is the most important part. There’s always a lot of attention on targeting because it’s user-facing, creepy, and strikes a nerve with the HN crowd.
It doesn't help that people try to sell conversion as something that benefits the ad viewer because if it increases sales, it must also be good for the people doing the buying or something like that. That argument of "better ads" then gets easily misunderstood as targeting but it is only indirectly about that.
This is specially true for any kind of news websites or blogs, where it's obvious what content a specific URL contains. The fact alone that a visitor is on that page makes him the best candidate for a targeted ad which refers to the content of the page.
No need to have over a dozen of trackers on that page so that advertisers create a profile of you.
The problem is the audience is global as well as the content in many cases.
My local Hearst paper operates a templates website full of crap trackers and ads that are brokered at a central point. They aren’t selling the inventory with local sales managers etc. To keep costs down, everything is aggregated.
On HN there seems to be a notion that ALL Ads are bad. No Ads should be allowed. And yet at the same time they are enjoying all the free tools and website build upon this business model.
And then also the notion that ALL data gathered intrude privacy. And somehow anyone on the Internet should be anonymous, may be that is not even the right word, may be invisible could be used to better describe it.
Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain language, and repeatedly.”
There should be a middle ground somewhere. Not all Ads are bad. I love useful Ads, but I hate bad ads, whether that is placement or the actual ads itself. And I know people gets to discover new Games, Clothes, Shows, or other product they like through these ads.
It cant be an all or nothing world. Which the Internet in general likes to encourage, and there is no middle ground. We need to start looking at Ads as part of UX, and not just money / target optimising tools.
> ALL Ads are bad. No Ads should be allowed. And yet at the same time they are enjoying all the free tools and website build upon this business model.
And then also the notion that ALL data gathered intrude privacy. And somehow anyone on the Internet should be anonymous, may be that is not even the right word, may be invisible could be used to better describe it.
Let's name it the Thiel paradox. Maybe then this flavor of cognitive dissonance is better captured and told further.
Instagram is actually pretty good at displaying only ads for things I’m interested in. Maybe I’m an easy mark, but it doesn’t really bother me, and occasionally I’ll buy something. I’ve also had the opposite experience on other platforms, where the targeting is shit and the ads make me stop using a product/app/site.
I think this is great. By putting tracking in the control of the user, the user can decide if they want shitty, generic ads or targeted relevant ads. What’s missing now is a built in ad blocker for iOS.
My cats are also extremely indifferent, but I actually bought 20 of them and used them in lieu of packing peanuts for a box of birthday presents for my partner.
I would be just as thrilled if companies gave me ads for things I wanted to buy, as long as the ad was not stopping me for doing what I was doing at the moment.
As it is the closest I get is ads for something I looked at 20 days ago and decided not to buy.
Ironically I had the same experience with Apple News app - I was seeing the same ads over and over again. I can not block the ads and I didn’t want to subscribe. I just gave up and toggled the setting to show personalized ads - hoping to at lease see something different.
You never heard about anyone being excited about any commercial product? Never heard about people learning about new product, and being happy about it?
The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about. In that regard, I appreciate good ads that tell me about things I would want to know about and didn't already.
For example, some of the ads I get are for live shows (back in the before times). These are live shows that I enjoy going to, but would never have known about, because I don't know where to look for them. Having it pushed at me helps me.