| > I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Show me a non-flawed study that shows you need vast amounts of user data and tracking, for each user, throughout their lifetime to deliver ads > No, it didn't. Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. > It does because contextual advertisement does not provide enough volumes and lower performance Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Example: Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent, and the outcome is indistinguishable from random noise, are you more effective? Example: if targeted ads are found to be somewhat more effective than contextual ads, is the lifelong invasive tracking of every user action a preferred tradeoff? (It's quite telling how people defending targeted advertising never address the elephant in the room) |
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent
The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms and passed in the programmatic advertisement auction chain in the form of TC strings.
The fact that you don't know this is also quite telling.
> [...] and the outcome is indistinguishable from random noise, are you more effective?
But it isn't, and if you are making claims, please provided sources.
Why would brands and agencies pay additional fees for data if they would provide no uplift?
> Example: if targeted ads are found to be somewhat more effective than contextual ads, is the lifelong invasive tracking of every user action a preferred tradeoff?
Are users prepared to pay for the difference?