[Barraketh]

There seems to be a really strong disdain on HN for AdTech in general, which I think is misguided, and comes fundamentally from a "web consumer" mentality. I think that it would be valuable to reframe the question from the producers point of view: 1) I am a niche small business - how do I let people know that I exist? 2) I run a website and would like to monetize it - how can I get paid for the content that I produce?

The ad-tech solution is actually quite elegant in theory - if you can show ads only to the people to whom they are relevant, then, as a small business you can let people know you exist without blowing your ad budget, and, as a content producer, the more valuable an ad-view is, the more you can charge for it.

The current movement to avoid tracking is an extremely powerful centralizing force. The large platforms know a lot about you already - Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. So, in a way, "we're not going to let AdTech track users" = "we're going to make only ads on large platforms effective", which means that both content producers and advertisers will prefer them, and then people ask "where did the old internet go"?

The AdTech system isn't ideal, but it would be great if the people who criticize it came up with something other than "fuck the small businesses and content producers".

[lastofthemojito]

> I am a niche small business - how do I let people know that I exist?

Is this a serious question? You advertise. Just like people have been doing for generations. You advertise in publications or spaces that will attract people interested in your product or service. You're going to have to do more to convince me that we need individual level targeted for businesses to succeed.

We're not mad if the new bakery in town advertises in the town paper or sends postcards to everyone in the zipcode. We're not mad if the new geeky t-shirt website puts ads on geeky subreddits or Facebook groups. We're not mad if your new auto detailing service comes up if I Google "auto detailing <my city>". We're mad that those ads creepily follow us around the internet, reminding us of the scale of the enormous data collection that enables such behavior.

Don't tell me that bakeries or t-shirt shops or auto detailers can't thrive without targeted marketing. We've had those things for way longer than we've had targeted marketing.

[esperent]

> sends postcards to everyone in the zipcode.

I literally own a bakery and I would be mad at myself if I wasted that much paper.

I also don't even know if this town has a printed paper I could still advertise in. Maybe? But I'm unlikely to spend our extremely limited advertising budget there.

I also don't want to use invasively targeted online ads. I'd be totally satisfied for keyword based ads - like if someone goes on Maps and searches for "bakery", "coffee" etc. I think that's the best middle ground in the modern era.

I don't care if someone has a history of following baking related Facebook pages, searches for bakeries every day or for the first time ever. I understand that would make our ads more efficient but I'm willing to accept in exchange for respecting people's privacy. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way for me to make that happen - if I pay to advertise on Google Ads, which unfortunately is the best choice for us, then I have to let Google invade everyone's privacy. There's no setting that I am can find to disable targeted advertising for my campaign.

[BizarroLand]

Exactly. In an ideal world, you pay your ad fee, and everyone in a 30 mile radius who searches for bakery related terms would get information that you exist.

You wouldn't be popping up in the middle of someone's read of an article on fly fishing because someone else in that person's household searched for muffin recipes a week ago.

[MildRant]

> We've had those things for way longer than we've had targeted marketing.

You've had way less of those things as well. I'm not defending targeted marketing but you are ignoring that there are way more bakeries and t-shirt shops now than ever. As a small business, you aren't competing against other local t-shirt shops you are competing against every t-shirt shop that can setup a webpage and put a shirt in the mail.

[akira2501]

> You advertise in publications or spaces that will attract people interested in your product or service.

Are those publications most popular products, the online versions, selling advertising in the way their print only counterparts have? Or, are they just offering you targeting through their already extant advertising setup?

> Don't tell me that bakeries or t-shirt shops or auto detailers can't thrive without targeted marketing.

Local advertising and national advertising are two entirely different things and the campaigns even have two entirely different purposes and metrics for measurement.

One of the great forces of the internet was to allow me to do regular and successful business with niche operations that may not be local to me. It was supposed to expand upon the previously existing model. Adtech is trying to stand across this gap, which still hasn't been filled for anyone outside of a local goods retailer.

[Analemma_]

> and comes a fundamentally from a "web consumer" mentality.

Because literally all of us are web consumers, so we're hostile to things that are hostile to web consumers. This is like saying there's really strong disdain for leaded gasoline which comes from a "human being breathing air" mentality.

> I think that it would be valuable to reframe the question from the producers point of view: 1) I am a niche small business - how do I let people know that I exist? 2) I run a website and would like to monetize it - how can I get paid for the content that I produce?

I don't fucking care. This isn't my problem, and I'm really annoyed that we've build a giant world-spanning surveillance apparatus out of people trying to make it my problem.

[pxc]

> > and comes a fundamentally from a "web consumer" mentality.

> Because literally all of us are web consumers

Exactly. GP might as well have written

> The problem is that you're considering your own interests. I think it would be useful for you to consider my interests.

[Aerroon]

How many videos on vine do you watch these days?

How the companies, where you consume content, monetize is very much relevant to you. You have a choice though - you can choose to not watch the content and you won't get advertised to.

[BizarroLand]

Yes, because placing access to society inside of a walled garden is ethical.

[amelius]

Ads are wrong because:

1. They nudge people towards buying stuff they wouldn't otherwise buy. This causes a tremendous amount of real waste.

2. Ads are a distraction. When I'm looking up something for work, don't bother me with ads, even if *you* think they are relevant. When I'm working, I'm not looking for a new job, or new pants.

3. On a fundamental level, ads work against the free market: not the best product wins, but the product with the biggest advertising budget.

And there are many more reasons ... Ads suck! And people working in ad-tech should be deeply ashamed!

[elisbce]

Ads suck. But you know what's worse than Ads? Selfish people. If Google, YouTube and everywhere else starts asking you to pay high subscription fees for using their services, are you willing/going to pay? You looked up information for work, for life, for leisure, you spend hours online each day, gorging information and content for free. You even learned valuable things and made money using their services and information. And yet all you have to say is don't bother me while I'm leeching off your free content.

[mikrl]

>If Google, YouTube and everywhere else starts asking you to pay high subscription fees for using their services, are you willing/going to pay?

Based on my rudimentary knowledge of microeconomics, it depends on how much they charge.

But bringing economics into it, it does seem strange that the internet is probably the only industry where this form of exchange (ads, producers, consumers) exists.

In any other industry, the producer pays money to ads, the ads get me to the place and I pay the producer.

[chii]

> In any other industry, the producer pays money to ads, the ads get me to the place and I pay the producer.

how is this not what ads on the internet work?

[amelius]

We already pay these fees ourselves collectively because the advertising costs are incorporated into the price of products.

Plus we now pay an additional tax on top of it to Google et al.

Plus we pay with our attention, and with our data (as someone else already noted).

On top of this all, the near-monopoly of Google is forcing prices for ads up, and there is a vicious cycle where companies need to buy increasingly expensive ads to outcompete each other (or, to stay relevant). Which, of course, the consumer ultimately pays for.

[secondcoming]

You just demonstrated how advertising works.

[spost]

I don't believe anyone is arguing that advertising _doesn't work_.

[charcircuit]

>They nudge people towards buying stuff they wouldn't otherwise buy.

It allows people to find things they value that they were not aware of before.

>Ads are a distraction.

Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

>On a fundamental level, ads work against the free market: not the best product wins, but the product with the biggest advertising budget.

If something really is the best product, why aren't they the one with the largest advertising budget?

[amelius]

> It allows people to find things they value that they were not aware of before.

There are better ways for that. For instance I look it up in the yellow pages. Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

This happens when *I* want to look for something, not when *you* want to sell something.

> Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

So far, it has been a complete disaster. And there is no sign of it getting any better. The incentives are wrong to begin with.

> If something really is the best product, why talent they the one with the largest advertising budget?

What does this even mean? Typo? Are you suggesting that the company with the biggest ad budget also makes the best products by definition, somehow?

[jasode]

>There are better ways for that. For instance I look it up in the yellow pages. Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

Yes, I hate ads too but that said... The Yellow Pages are geared towards services rather than new unknown products. Also, asking a store clerk or flipping through Yellow pages doesn't work when the customer doesn't even know the existence of a new product to ask about.

Anybody in any hobby (woodworking, sewing, car engine modifications, etc) that uses tools and gadgets will get their first exposure to the existence of a potentially helpful product via advertisements. Sure, some awareness comes via word-of-mouth... but the people passing that info to you -- got their awareness from ads. Or maybe a trade show demonstration (which is also a form of advertisement.)

Of course, I've gotten bad and unnecessary tools because of ads. But I also got some genuinely useful and time-saving tools too.

Even though a few ads helped make my life better, I will admit that 99% of ads are not relevant to me and just obnoxious noise. I just saw a Wood Whisperer video on Youtube yesterday and the pre-roll ad was "Estee Lauder cosmetics for women". Given that 95% of the demographic watching woodworking channels are men, it seems like Google/Youtube is wasting Estee Lauder's ad spending -- all while irritating viewers like me. A lose-lose situation.

[waynesonfire]

Ads operate under a supply and demand model. There are far far more companies pushing their products via psychological manipulation to win market share then some novel product relevant to your favorite hobby.

Every ad needs to be sold to a pair of eyes and those relevant, novel, and interesting prdocuts that would actually be useful to you have a much smaller budget and just are not that common. And so you get to watch liberty mutual and geico commercials, for the 55th time instead.

[amelius]

Can you agree that ads (or product recommendations) can be limited to a time and place chosen by the customer rather than by the seller?

[MildRant]

> Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

Stores are limited by the amount of shelf space they have and employees will lead you towards certain products they have an incentive to sell.

[IggleSniggle]

This is basically the value prop for mom n pop shops. If the salesperson is also the owner, they have a lot more incentive to get to know you and steer you towards the things that will be best for you, in order to

1) keep you coming back 2) navigate highly localized politics

[MildRant]

Mom n Pop shops are great but getting rid of ads doesn't put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to big box stores and Amazon. It also doesn't solve the shelf space problem. I've found incredibly niche and useful things through online retail ads that a local business would be insane to stock because they would have dead inventory.

[charcircuit]

>This happens when I want to look for something, not when you want to sell something.

Not all consumers are aware of what is out there, nor do they actively make an effort to learn what is out there.

>What does this even mean? Typo?

yes

>Are you suggesting that the company with the biggest ad budget also makes the best products by definition, somehow?

No, I am suggesting that a company that makes a purely superior product can always outbid their competitors in advertising.

[psd1]

> a company that makes a purely superior product can always outbid their competitors in advertising

Ah, that's how we know that Oracle is better than Postgres!

Do you seriously believe this to be true? I'm willing to have my mind blown, if you can explain this point adequately.

[the8472]

Well, ok, let's assume for a moment that ads are valuable to some users, perhaps informing them of a solution to a problem they didn't even know had solutions. That still wastes the attention of everyone who doesn't actually need that thing. Making it worth everyone's time can be incentivized by taxing eyeball-pixel-seconds. The numbers reported to the tax authority must be consistent with those reported to the advertising customer and the site owner. This way one would only place ads when it's almost certain that there's some unmet demand.

[whatshisface]

>If something really is the best product, why aren't they the one with the largest advertising budget?

If they are already the company with the highest revenue, why would they need to advertise...

If these are the arguments in favor of ads then they really must be that bad.

[charcircuit]

>If they are already the company with the highest revenue, why would they need to advertise...

Because their potential customers may not be familiar with them. If a competitor makes themselves known they may just go with the competitor despite a better option, that they don't know about existing.

[hightrix]

> Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

The only good ad experience is contextual. There does not exist an experience that is enhanced by ads unrelated to the content being viewed.

If I want to search for a product and an adtech company wants to show me related products, great. If I want to watch a music video, but first have to watch a political ad or an ad for any product, get lost.

[rebeccaskinner]

> 1) I am a niche small business - how do I let people know that I exist? 2) I run a website and would like to monetize it - how can I get paid for the content that I produce?

The thing is, this isn’t my problem. The fact that someone wants to market their business doesn’t entitle them to my attention.

[brickteacup]

> doesn’t entitle them to my attention

if you're looking at someone's website then yes they are entitled to your attention. what gave you the idea that you're entitled to consume for free content that other people payed to produce and host?

[JohnFen]

> what gave you the idea that you're entitled to consume for free content that other people payed to produce and host?

The fact that they made it available to be looked at in such a way, perhaps?

[brickteacup]

They didn't, though, they made it available to be looked at alongside advertisements.

HN users just love twisting themselves in circles to justify their belief that they're somehow entitled to consume content from private websites without consuming the ads that support that content. (If you don't want to see ads, there's a really simple solution: don't look at websites that display them! No one's forcing you to!)

[hightrix]

> If you don't want to see ads, there's a really simple solution: don't look at websites that display them!

And as a user, if the person hosting the website doesn't want me to look at their content without also looking at their ads, there is a simple solution: don't serve me your content until after you force me to look at your ads.

You do not get to have it both ways. Either the content is available for free and you can hope that the user also views your ads, or the content is not available for free and you can force the user to view your ads.

[psd1]

An individualist perspective.

I believe that humans are social animals, and that a view on enshittification that ignores society is useless. Media is, IMO, holistically worse now than in the mid-90s. An individual cannot undo that. The negatives are not wished away by "no one's forcing you".

[livueta]

> what gave you the idea that you're entitled to consume for free content that other people payed to produce and host?

The fact that their HTTP server replied 200 OK. If they want to put up a paywall or use a different protocol they're totally free to do so, but permission was inherently granted by the act of serving the content.

Acting like anyone who views a webpage has any obligations regarding how they render or reproduce it is like putting a barbecue on the side of the road with a free sign on it after hiding a bill inside, then getting mad when you don't get paid. Trying to tack on riders that fundamentally alter the mechanics of the underlying protocol is fundamentally invalid.

[Aerroon]

You're right, permission was given. Your browser also gave all of that data to the webserver and happily shows you that ad. Both sides were voluntary.

[livueta]

In the case of an incorrectly configured browser, sure, but definitely not mine - which is the whole point. Once freely offered, conditions can't be imposed on use. If you don't want my browser to render content as it sees fit, don't serve the content over a protocol where that dynamic is inherent.

The reason very few actually take that route is because they want to have their cake and eat it too: the openness of www/http but the monetizability of AOL-esque pseudointernet schemes. If a publisher wants to fuck off to corponet with blackjack, hookers, DRM and WEI they're more than free to do so, but traffic may not follow them. Mine certainly won't.

[chii]

> If you don't want my browser to render content as it sees fit, don't serve the content over a protocol where that dynamic is inherent.

to play the devil's advocate, this is why google proposed the WEI (https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...). Be careful what you wish for...

[sershe]

I think the above comment is spot on, the level of hypocrisy here is quite off the charts. With "protocol" defense, would you view the content with adblock if the browser displayed a gate screen (that adblock didn't block - e.g. a separate page with a custom one-time link to content) saying "by viewing the content I created you consent to view ads. Yes / no" - yes serves HTTP 200 with no enforcement. You could argue "yes serves HTTP 200, protocol yada yada, they should have blocked it", but how, other than the amount of property lost, is it really different from e.g. someone jumping into your car when you step out for 10 seconds and driving away cause hey, you should have locked it?

I also use adblock, but I'm honest with myself - ads suck, and I'm a dick who doesn't care about most content creators. If they ask for money (e.g. on Substack), I pay them or stop reading them. If they use ads I block them cause I don't care. Kinda like speeding on a highway - probably not a right thing to do, oh well if they catch me I'll pay a fine... no need to invent some bogus defense about how speed limits are wrong.

[Barraketh]

Well kinda. The business wanting to market themselves certainly isn't your problem, but the "how does the website monetize itself" is exactly your problem, or rather, it's part of the interaction between the owner of the website you're visiting and you.

You could say "oh, they should just charge for their content", and some definitely do. But the ad model allows for really interesting price discrimination in terms of "who pays for the content". So, if someone buys say.. a Tesla through a website, that conversion subsidizes a million poor kids who don't have to pay anything. In some ways the ad-supported model is the most progressive way to pay content creators - the people who end up paying are the people who spend the most money online.

[zb3]

I'd prefer reading content written by people who are just interested in the topic and sharing their thoughts. I want genuine interaction, not commercial garbage.

[brandall10]

If you're not paying for a product in which you see the ad, it is your problem though, no? What's in the ad space is immaterial, just that is how the product is monetized.

[barbazoo]

Problem is though that everyone is being tracked, whether they use free products that show ads based on that data or not. I don't want to be tracked like that but I have very little power here other than blocking certain domains which is never perfect.

[amelius]

The freaking ad is making me pay twice. Once with my attention, and then again with my money if I buy the product (since the advertising cost is incorporated into the price).

[JohnFen]

And a third time with your data.

[pessimizer]

If everybody pays, the ads come right back. Paying customers are more lucrative to advertisers than deadbeats.

[ryandrake]

That's really the root of it. Unless I am actively searching for the exact something your small business offers, I don't care whether your business exists. I don't want to know about it. I don't want you to "reach" me. Your ability or inability to let me know that you exist is not my problem.

My browsing to a website (or watching a TV show, or driving along a road with billboards, or filling up my gas tank) does not entitle anyone to my attention.

[JohnFen]

> and comes fundamentally from a "web consumer" mentality

Not for me, it doesn't, For me, it comes from an "I don't want to be spied on" mentality.

If the online ad world would do everything that they currently do, but actually leave me out of it when I tell them to, I wouldn't consider them to be evil. But not only don't they do that, they put a lot of time, effort, and money into actively working around the various defenses I put up against them.

> I think that it would be valuable to reframe the question from the producers point of view

You're talking as if the problem is the ads themselves. It's not. It's the spying that's the problem.

> The ad-tech solution is actually quite elegant in theory

I don't assert that it's not elegant. I assert that it's deeply unethical unless informed consent has been obtained from the people the data is being gathered from.

> then people ask "where did the old internet go"?

People ask that right now, and adtech is one of the things that have killed it.

> it would be great if the people who criticize it came up with something other than "fuck the small businesses and content producers".

Plenty of proven alternatives are brought up all the time. Even the IAPP article here mentions the strongest one: have ads, but don't target them based on data extracted from unwilling participants. Target them based on the context in which the ads appear.

Just like newspapers, magazines, TV, etc.

The adtech world doesn't want to do that because they can make even more money by being bastards, instead.

[Barraketh]

> People ask that right now, and adtech is one of the things that have killed it.

I don't think this is actually true. When I think about the old internet vs new internet, a lot of it is about people running their own blogs / websites vs. platforms. And I think most of that is not really about ad-tech at all, but about the mechanisms of content and audience discovery. But the fact remains that if you want to say... publish videos of some kind, you are likely to make much more on YouTube vs uploading them to your own website, and that's at least partially because Google is able to show effective ads.

> Target them based on the context in which the ads appear.

Possible, but in some cases significantly less effective. As I mentioned above, ad-tech comes with some very interesting progressive effects, where the people who spend the most money are the ones who end up paying the most in aggregate for content. An interesting example is luxury goods, which are both high-value and niche. If you run say... a news site, or something else that's general purpose, you probably don't want to be showing Rolex ads to everyone. But rich people still read news, and if you could target your Rolex ads to them, that basically subsidizes everyone else.

[JohnFen]

> But the fact remains that if you want to say... publish videos of some kind, you are likely to make much more on YouTube vs uploading them to your own website

Yes, but you're only talking about people who are intending to make money here. There's a much larger world out there than that.

> but in some cases significantly less effective

True, but so what? At least doing it that way isn't abusive, and it would eliminate quite a lot of the anger people have about online advertising.

It's very disturbing when the response to "stop being abusive" is "but then we'll make less money."

[humanistbot]

> 1) I am a niche small business - how do I let people know that I exist? 2) I run a website and would like to monetize it - how can I get paid for the content that I produce?

You don't have a right to violate my privacy in exchange for this.

[Barraketh]

I think this is a genuinely interesting point, and I wish that we as a society had a more nuanced discussion about what that right is. AdTech is largely anonymous in the same way that crypto / web3 is anonymous - it shuttles around cookies / identifiers, but largely does NOT care about any information that is actually personally identifying. If the laws were regulating storage / transmission of information that is actually personally-identifying (addresses, emails, names, etc), that would be much more reasonable in my mind.

[JohnFen]

That would be insufficient for a number of reasons, including that even if you only collect non-PII (and don't let's get started on what "PII" actually is), if you collect enough of it and correlate it in databases (like ad companies do), then it's all personally identifying.

But I think that's not the main reason it's not sufficient. The main reason, in my view, is because it's still companies spying on me, my machines, and/or my use of my machines. Even if the data is genuinely anonymous, if you don't have my informed consent then collecting it is spying and unethical.

If we're going to have regulation (and it's increasingly looking like any solution will have to be), then the regulation should be about the collection of the data.

[Havoc]

>There seems to be a really strong disdain on HN for AdTech in general,

The ads aren't the problem, the targetting and the granular privacy invading data collection practices it implies.

It's not about "fuck small businesses" at all but rather that I'd love to scroll through some content without my 100ms pause over a specific post influencing what I see in future and thus shaping the reality I see.

That's how we got to a position where the various "factions" in society are seeing so different realities that to each the other seems unreasonable and they can't understand why the others don't see their (to them) obviously correct perspective. Adtech is actively contributing towards societal splits.

[indymike]

> There seems to be a really strong disdain on HN for AdTech in general, which I think is misguided, and comes fundamentally from a "web consumer" mentality.

I think the disdain is against surveillance and invasive content.

> The current movement to avoid tracking is an extremely powerful centralizing force.

No, this is just removing the third party. If I'm on a Meta property seeing an ad served by Meta targeted by my data from using Meta, then there's not third party.

[whoopdedo]

> if you can show ads only to the people to whom they are relevant,

Except that's not what is happening. The information brokers learned that there's no money to be made in selling to someone who already knows they want to buy that product. With the ad you're getting 90% conversion but without you're only down to 70% conversion.

The real value is in convincing someone who had no interest in a product to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise. And targeting makes this happening by giving the advertisers tools to custom make campaigns that create new engagements. The role of the advertiser is not to connect potential purchasers with the products they want, but to trick unwary consumers into buying irrelevant junk.

And on top of that, it doesn't help small businesses because they only spend money on small campaigns. A tiny micro-targeted set of ads always loses the auction to an algorithmic carpet bombing of manipulative clickbait. That is, they'll "win" a few impressions at first until their budget caps out and then the spam ads will fill in the rest. Which means someone in that cohort will in any period see more of the bad ads than the good ones.

There is no incentive for anyone in adtech to fix this because the "solution" right now is charging more money for better ads. Consumers disliking ads and being inundated with malvertising is the system working as intended.

[imchillyb]

> The AdTech system isn't ideal, but it would be great if the people who criticize it came up with something other than "fuck the small businesses and content producers".

Found the 'ad-guy...'

Look. We don't need to offer a solution in order to point out how broken adtheft is. They're stealing my time, my bandwidth, my cpu resources, my gpu resources, my memory resources, and my body's own motion by forcing me to click away or click gone or click click click.

Here's my solution: Take your ads and place them somewhere dark, moist, and smelly, preferably limited to your own person.

[Barraketh]

So, out my now 15+ year career, only about 4 were in AdTech, and I've been out of that game for more than 7 years. But fair enough - happy to play 'ad-guy' for the purposes of this discussion :)

I guess my main contention is that businesses really like ads. But that's usually ok - because it funds cool content! The majority of television historically was produced just to sell ads, but it still created awesome television. And if we make ads worse, well, the people who are gong to suffer are the businesses and the content creators. OR, like i mentioned above, we will just drive everyone to large platforms, which is essentially what's happening now.

Another way to frame the question - GDPR came out in 2016. Do you feel like the web is getting better?

[traverseda]

I don't think businesses really like ads. Businesses are forced to buy ads. On Facebook if you want to reach your entire audience you need to pay them, they gate off people seeing content they're subscribed to unless you pay. Google is terrible at surfacing relevant local events.

Ads are forced on small business because regular methods of discovery are intentionally nerfed.

[brickteacup]

> On Facebook if you want to reach your entire audience you need to pay them

Yeah, it's a private business, if you want to use them to reach people you need to pay. What exactly is wrong with that?

> regular methods of discovery

What are these "regular methods of discovery"? Do you think that small businesses didn't advertise before Facebook/Google/etc came along?

[traverseda]

Having a website, showing up in search results.

Being in the yellow pages.

Putting a flyer on a community board or telephone pole. My city has special poles just for flyers.

Word of mouth.

Newspaper ads.

---

Sure, some of those are advertising but they're not intrusive or unethical. There aren't as many options for ethically advertising online but that's very intentional, with companies doing the digital equivalent of limiting word of mouth and tearing down flyers.

[mocamoca]

Intrusion-wise I agree, those communication channels are more "pull" than "push"

Even though the search engine is ad-funded (I don't know any free search engine) and can be more or less intrusive (IE. Duckduckgo is not)

Which channels have been intentionally nerfed?

[iamdbtoo]

> The majority of television historically was produced just to sell ads, but it still created awesome television.

That's because there was an incentive to create awesome television to lure people away from other channels to watch the ads on your channel. Part of the discussion around the writers and actors on strike right now is the streaming services believe they can make worse content cheaper using AI and still retain subscribers.

[ok123456]

> Another way to frame the question - GDPR came out in 2016. Do you feel like the web is getting better?

In Europe, yes. User hostile ad-tech is forced to opt-out of those markets.

[Aerroon]

No it hasn't. All I've noticed is that I get more pop-ups than ever before and some of the sites I would like to visit block me with a 451 error code.

Phone browsing is a nightmare these days.

[pasc1878]

Also there are a lot of websites not meeting GDPR rules but major sites do even if it is block all visitors from Europe - cookie consent rules are also broken by many but that is an different law.

Usual problem with laws who enforces them.

[iamacyborg]

> GDPR came out in 2016. Do you feel like the web is getting better?

Yes, because the RTB ecosystem is being dismantled as a direct result.

[zb3]

Well actually fuck "professional content producers", there's always someone there who writes just because they want others to read, I'll just read them instead and it'd be good if the search engine let me find them instead of that SEO spam.

[dahwolf]

1. Especially for a niche business, contextual ads should be great. Appear in search results as well as content pages related to your niche. Relevant by default and requires zero personal data.

2. I'm afraid it's too late. The centralization has already happened. Most people consume content from a handful of mobile apps (youtube, social networks, etc). AI will escalate this even further. Small websites outside of big tech can't really monetize content reliably, exceptions aside. Likewise, your content has to be extremely special for people wanting to pay for it.

[footy]

I have long wondered how people who work in adtech live with themselves and this was illuminating.

[jrh3]

We tried funding the internet with banner ads and that didn't take. So early 2000s we sold our privacy to fund it. The "web consumer" mentality was built on the latter funding, which is now going away.

Small business is being hurt the most (because they benefitted the most from being able to buy targeted ads with a small budget).

I want my privacy private, and I'm not willing to share it. It is definitely interesting to see what AdTech can figure out next, especially for small business.

[TheIronMark]

A lot of Internet users don't want to pay for content and don't want ads. I guess they're hoping some deity will magically pay all the content producers.

[ssss11]

People should pay for products. Advertising should be static. There I solved it.

[skydhash]

> The AdTech system isn't ideal, but it would be great if the people who criticize it came up with something other than "fuck the small businesses and content producers".

The thing is that people do hear about products and contents. Trailers are ads, products announcement are also ads. Sponsorship is ads. What people do not want is intrusive ads. It feels like someone going through my bedroom and bathroom, then talking to people about my underwear. Next, these people shout to me when I'm going to buy groceries. This is what the adtech is like nowadays.

So content creators, paywall your content and add sponsorship. Small businesses, announce your product and sponsor articles on relevant forums. But stop interrupting people when they're doing nothing that's relevant to you.

[celestialcheese]

I don't get this. I find "passive" advertising like banners, mid-roll, etc so much easier to ignore/block/

The type of advertising that's invasive for me is the "sponsored content" or paid product placements, especially in movies. It feels like every big-budget movie I see these days is littered with "ads" for some car or electronics company. There's no way to block this, and sometimes its hard to tell if something is paid or just someones honest recommendation.

[Barraketh]

Well, this has been a fun discussion. A salient point that I haven't mentioned but that actually plays a big role is attribution. Many advertisers run ad campaigns not to get a clickthrough to their site, but to just keep their product 'top of mind', so that next time you go buy a car you buy a BMW. So from that point of view, if you see an ad and later go and sign up for a BMW test-drive, BMW would attribute that test drive to the ad that you saw. If you can't track attribution, it becomes really hard to figure out where you should be advertising in the first place. To everyone saying "use contextual advertising" - how do you know which contexts produce better results if you can't measure performance?

This is particularly relevant to mobile apps, because if you show the user an ad, they are extremely unlikely to switch contexts to go and actually click on it. If you can track users from the app to the purchasing site, then you can say "hey, I have a really valuable audience - you should pay me hella money to show them ads". This has been less GDPR and more Apple, but the result is the same - it makes ads generically less valuable.

And that is why I'm fundamentally pro ad-tech. I don't have any direct monetary interest in it, but I do want the digital economy to be growing and efficient, and in an ideal world decentralized beyond the 4-5 large platforms. People spending money online is GOOD. It's good for businesses, it's good for the people (under a rational agent model at least ;)), and it's good for me as a software engineer who wants to keep getting paid silicon-valley salaries.

[iamacyborg]

Ads aren’t less valuable, they’re now just not being over indexed by analytics products produced by advertising companies.

Marketing as a function will be better off once they wean themselves off of adtech attribution models.

[bee_rider]

“What about small businesses” seemed like a better counter-argument during the previous round of ad tech, the kind of annoying flash pop ups that and third party JavaScript that only sometimes contained viruses.

Nowadays it is a major funding keystone of the attention economy, which is spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories, destabilizing governments. Propaganda spread over Facebook helped enable the Rohingya genocide. This isn’t a little annoying thing anymore.

[tomjen3]

If you are a small business, sponsor a podcast relevant to the people you are targeting. I am still going to skip over you, but thats your best chance to get in front of people, and it involves zero privacy invasions.

[hakfoo]

It's not just the tracking concern. The disruption to traditional media economics is socially toxic.

In the Before Times of 1993, if you're in situation #1, you call the advertisement department of the local newspaper, who is in situation #2. You pay them $250, the newspaper keeps basically all of it, and you get a quarter-page ad in the Sports section. You can go and open the paper and see the ad, and know roughly that most of the people in town read the local paper. You can also feel good that the money you spent is largely being used to support a local institution that has strong community value.

Now, you go to Google/Meta/etc and set up a campaign. You pay for $250 worth of service. If you're lucky, you get some dashboards to get a vague idea where the impressions occurred. A collection of disparate webmasters get a grand total of $30 in CPM or CPC fees. Brin and Zuckerberg buy some new yachts.

So advertisers aren't actually saving much, but we've dismantled the old media economy.

* We're slicing same ad dollar across more and more publishers. It's cute that you can make $12 per month with AdWords on your blog, but it contributes to the death-by-a-thousand-cuts of local TV/radio/newspapers. When everyone is working on a $12-per-moonth revenue feed, all you're going to get is listicles and clickbait, or stuff designed specifically to game ad metrics (see: the 29-page slideshow article)

* Visibility is terrible but in exciting new ways. The 1993 question was how "many people actually saw your ad in the Sports section?" The 2023 version is "how many of those 'people' are bots, how many of the clicks came from incentivized questionable activity, how many of these ads appeared on sites that would actually contaminate my brand?"

* The middlemen have consumed a lot of margin. The fact that newsrooms are closing and media is getting more paywalled by the day suggests that the digital ad space have failed to deliver the same revenue that traditional platforms did.

It's possible to do without a lot of this-- direct placement for example would pretty much work as well today as it did in 1993-- but it would require a lot of data to convince people that the big AdTechs' yottabytes of profiling don't justify the price they're charging.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"The ad-tech solution is actually quite elegant in theory - if you can show ads to the people to whom they are relevant, then, as a small business you can let people know you exist without blowing your ad budget, and, as a content producer, the more valuable an ad-view is, the more you can charge for it."

Elegant. In theory. How about in practice.

What problem does this proposed "solution" solve. Once we have answer then we ask whether it is effective at solving it. Proposing "solutions" to problems where 100% of the time the solution uses a computer is easy. We're drowning in such "solutions". The question is whether they actually work.

If ad tech isn't very effective then is it even a "solution".^1 It could just be a very successful marketing gimmick.

The "if we regulate data collection, bad things will happen" is a lame argument used by the ad tech incumbents and ad tech startups. "You'll lose what you have." More likely, the person making the argument will lose what they have. This type of "argument" is made by self-interested parties. It's speculative and there is no evidence to support it. Fear mongering. Without regulation, these ad tech startups, if they ever begin to grow larger, will surely be acquired by the incumbents, ideally producing a massive windfall for the founders and investors. We know this because we have watched it happen over and over. It's like arguing "we need to let the next DoubleClick grow and thrive". Soon followed by "we need to stop the governemnt from blocking our merger with Google." The truth is, bad stuff is happening right now. That isn't speculation. It's fact.

There's a problem. Data collection. And people are looking for a solution. Not the other way around. (A data collection "solution" looking for a problem.) Letting unfettered data collection continue is certainly not a solution to the problem of data collection.

Another line of reasoning is "it's too late to regulate data collection for future generations because some data has already been collected". It's like suggesting "it's too late to regulate pollution because the environment is already polluted". Not sure I should even call this reasoning.

Yet another way that people defend data collection and tracking in the face of public discontent is misdirection. "Industry/Company X is doing it, too. And they are much worse than we are." In the case of comparisons to other industries, we may have to compare the regulation, if any, to which each is subjected.

HN could be "misguided" on its views of so-called "ad tech", if we accept such generalisations. But what about others, who are not "web consumers", outside HN. The OP is one example. There are others.

https://digiday.com/marketing/confessions-of-an-ad-exec-most...

https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/ad-tech-its-worse-than-we-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/technology/bad-digital-ad...

https://adage.com/article/digitalnext/ad-tech-worst-thing-ha...

https://martech.org/stop-calling-ad-tech-advertising/

https://tbtech.co/business/why-billions-of-dollars-are-being...

It's funny that so-called "ad tech" companies, as intermediaries (middlemen), claim that they prioritise "users", but then they do not like it when they see "users" commenting about so-called "ad tech" on HN. But what about the folks on the other side of the transaction that "ad tech" intermediates. Perhaps there are folks besides "users" who can see problems posed by the unscrupulous middlemen performing data collection.

NB. In this comment I have focused on (a) the "arguments" being made in the parent comment, and elsewhere, that defend so-called "ad tech" and (b) the viewpoints of others, namely marketers and advertisers, about so-called "ad tech". References to regulation of data collection can be assumed to also refer to regulation of data use by the collectors or any parties with which they share collected data. IMO, it's likely any regulation of data collection would also apply to data use, and this would address data collection that has already occurred before the regulation takes effect.

[Barraketh]

So, since you seem particularly upset about it, I'd love to know - what is the problem of "data collection"? I've still never seen an example of damage to a user by AdTech data collection. What I have seen are

1) Data leaks by companies that collect and store true PII - this is your Equifaxes of the world, and they didn't collect that data using cookies. 2) People are generally creeped out by the idea of their movements across the web being tracked.

And so, even though no ad-tech company has ever really had a data leak, and although the tracking across the web has never really resulted in any negative outcomes, people are using (2) to try and kill ad-tech for often disingenuous reasons.