[troupo]

> The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms

No. The users are tricked into giving "consent" through a plethora of dark patterns.

When dark patterns are removed, users refuse to give the information

> But it isn't, and if you are making claims, please provided sources.

Have you provided sources for any of your claims?

> Are users prepared to pay for the difference?

Still waiting for any source of your claims that:

- targeted ads are more effective

- ads require lifelong collection of any and all user data

- that without pervasive and invasive tracking ads are somehow prohibitively expensive

[LunaSea]

> No. The users are tricked into giving "consent" through a plethora of dark patterns.

Well you're free to bring this up to the various data privacy national organisations in the EU.

But I see that we're moving goalposts.

> Have you provided sources for any of your claims?

One of many available links on Google:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162...

> ads require lifelong collection of any and all user data

Data collected has an expiration date. This is also part of GDPR compliance.

> that without pervasive and invasive tracking ads are somehow prohibitively expensive

We're now going in circles, but essentially you're ad performance (brand attribution, clicks and conversion) will determine your expected purchase price per thousand impressions (CPM).

If your targeting isn't competitive, your inventory will not be bought or at a lower price.

This already happens for Safari and Firefox impressions.

[troupo]

> Well you're free to bring this up to the various data privacy national organisations in the EU.

> But I see that we're moving goalposts.

We are not moving goalposts. You literally claimed that users give consent to data collection. No, they do not. They are tricked into giving this consent because that's the only way ad industry can obtain consent to livelong invasive tracking.

> Have you provided sources for any of your claims?

> One of many available links on Google:

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162...

Let's see what the paper says:

--- start quote ---

Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments (i.e., 23,407 out of 45,440 audience segments on the right-hand side of the dashed vertical line in Figure D2 in Online Appendix D) require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting.

Approximately half of the audience segments on Spotify require a higher increase in CTR0 for the advertiser, suggesting they might be less profitable than no-targeting.

--

By highlighting the questionable profitability of many audience segments, this paper aims to help advertisers decide whom to target.

We suggest using our model to calculate the break-even performance for many segments and then order these segments by break-even performance from smallest to largest.

... our findings also reveal that untargeted campaigns may yield higher profits.

Our proposed model has limitations, as it relies on inputs that may not be readily available to all advertisers

--- end quote ---

So. Questionable profitability, untargeted yield higher profits unless you ignificantly increase performance of targeted ads, a suggestion of an unproven model relying on data that may not be available to advertisers.

Yes, this truly is a paper that proves the amazing great efficiency of targeted advertisement, especially when offset against lifelong invasive tracking and wholesale trading of user data.

> Data collected has an expiration date. This is also part of GDPR compliance.

1. GDPR isn't available worldwide

2. Ad industry claims "legitimate uses" for a bunch of data and end up with "oh, we'll maintain your precise geolocation for 12 years" https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

> If your targeting isn't competitive, your inventory will not be bought or at a lower price.

So what?

> This already happens for Safari and Firefox impressions.

Good.

[LunaSea]

> They are tricked into giving this consent because that's the only way ad industry can obtain consent to livelong invasive tracking.

No, they're not tricked. There are obvious cookie banners with the possibility to see the list of vendors and reasons for collecting the data and consent completely, partially or reject.

I'm sorry, if you don't know how advertisement works for news publishers there's not much to talk about.

> Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments (i.e., 23,407 out of 45,440 audience segments on the right-hand side of the dashed vertical line in Figure D2 in Online Appendix D) require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting.

This might be correct for Spotify, however it isn't for news publishers. Data costs usually represent 10% to 25% of media cost, which means that the uplift of targeting should be at least these values which are nowhere near 100%.

> 1. GDPR isn't available worldwide

Sure, but since a lot of sites have European users they usually stay in line of the strictest guidelines for all users which is generally the GDPR.

> Ad industry claims "legitimate uses" for a bunch of data and end up with "oh, we'll maintain your precise geolocation for 12 years"

Not "ad industry", "one bad adtech actor", but we're already used to incorrect takes.

If the legitimate uses are invalid (which I believe that they probably are) they can and most likely will be fought in court.

> So what?

So journalists don't get paid.