[mossTechnician]

I personally don't buy into the notion that advertisement is inherently good or necessary. Especially when the "best" ads effectively manipulate emotions and remain in people's subconscious.

A corner store cashier does not have the raw processing power and money of an ad network. If they tracked one customer with as much of vigilance as the average ad network, they should probably get slapped with a restraining order.

[Alupis]

The article you linked to, regarding Target, is exactly what your corner store cashier is doing. There is literally no difference.

You are conflating two different things - stores retargeting existing customers and recommending products they think are relevant vs. ad networks like Google that track you across channels so that they may serve the most relevant ads to you based on your interests.

Neither are bad, and both are necessary. Tampon advertisements, for example, have no effect on men - men would find it annoying to see tampon adverts constantly because they are not part of the market.

Why would an advertiser want to advertise to people who will never make a purchase or care about their products? If you're a hiker though, it's really fitting to get advertisements for hiking gear and equipment.

[mossTechnician]

> Neither are bad, and both are necessary.

Ad networks that track you are necessary?

[Alupis]

Define track please. You seem to assume they're doing something nefarious or that they couldn't observe if you walked into a store.

To answer your question - yes. If you want relevant ads for items you might be interested in, then advertisers need to know what you are interested in. It's that simple.

Your own cited article about Target is evidence of why this is a good thing.

Your position that advertising is manipulative and unnecessary is disconnected with reality as well.