[cfjgvjh]

> If widely circulated, this could be wielded to some effect in a campaign by FB detractors/rivals.

But who are the FB ads rivals that aren't affected in a similar manner by this change? Since the tracking permission isn't specific to FB, wouldn't other players with a similar business model also be negatively impacted?

[samizdis]

I should have been clearer, sorry. I wasn't considering those competing against FB for ads in the same medium. I was thinking more of rivals for ad spend generally. Perhaps some of it would revert to print titles, or broadcast, as a result. I'd like to think that sometimes an advert can be effective even if you can't measure its impact precisely.

Perhaps I am unduly influenced by the sorts of ads that I like, which tend to be posters, billboards or, just occasionally, TV/cinema/online pre-rolls. My favourite example would be the success of a Levi's ad from the '80s, see [1]: ‘It was a piece of magic’: How Levi’s ‘Laundrette’ ad led to an 800% sales boost

Yes, I realise that no small company can afford such advertising as that, but in a previous life, when I spent about a year in advertising sales for a local newspaper, I was wined and dined about a dozen times by local firms who'd let me come up with ad copy for them, and sometimes a campaign, who (rightly or wrongly) attributed a sales boost to my efforts.

Anyhow, you make a good point nonetheless.

[1] https://www.marketingweek.com/levis-laundrette-sales-boost/

[stormbrew]

I mean it doesn't have to move to dead venues like print or tv broadcast in order to just get away from targeting. It's not like internet advertising requires narrow demographic and individual history targeting for some reason, it's just that it made that more convenient.

> Yes, I realise that no small company can afford such advertising as that, but in a previous life, when I spent about a year in advertising sales for a local newspaper, I was wined and dined about a dozen times by local firms who'd let me come up with ad copy for them, and sometimes a campaign, who (rightly or wrongly) attributed a sales boost to my efforts.

I mean, the fact that this isn't really a thing anymore is almost certainly part of what kills local media nowadays, and by a kind of vicious cycle also helps kill local businesses. It used to be that small, local businesses weren't competing on the same playing field as large (inter)national businesses. They'd get local eyes on local ads in local venues. That would keep local media alive, and the ads would keep local businesses competitive.

Now they fight with national brands for ad space on national platforms where they're outspent for more narrowly targeted ads than were ever possible in the old days. Local media dies to national media, local businesses die to national businesses, meanwhile the national media gets bigger and richer every day.

[klodolph]

I think this will affect different advertising platforms differently depending on how much they rely on targeting to begin with. Facebook's ad platform has some crazy tools for targeting to begin with--it's a big part of the platform's value in the first place. Less so for most competitors.

[fairity]

> But who are the FB ads rivals that aren't affected in a similar manner by this change?

Google. Apple's privacy changes restrict tracking from within mobile apps like Facebook and Instagram. Google is primarily browser-based and remains largely unaffected.

[jensensbutton]

No they don't. They only prevent tracking _across_ apps. Facebook will track everything you do and show you just as many ads in their properties as they did before. This really does harm smaller companies more than Facebook.