Hacker News Reader

Comment by jariel | Hacker News Reader

These conversations are always so one-sided on HN.

Not only is 're-targeting' immensely useful, it absolutely increases conversions.

Targeting in general helps quite a lot.

Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both sides. There's a huge market for products and services out there and it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.

Without tracking - the big winners will be the mega-brands that can run wide ad runs to most of the nation. It'll be cheaper to just tell everyone about McDonald's and impossible for the new snowboarding company to tell you about their new gear.

View on HN

it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.

Hogwash. Do you know what the "long tail" refers to? It refers to the whole network of independent retailers that extend the reach of a manufacturer. That connection is organic, if your products are any good.

The only reason companies are struggling with their long tail is because they want to have it all: they want ultimate control over their long tail instead of delegating it to the market, and finding that that's a hard thing to do.

AKA, "Companies that subvert the market are struggling to connect to their customers". News at 11.

This is false, bordering on anti-rationality.

Small and mid-sized companies 'make stuff or services' and want to get the message out to those who may be interested.

"The connection is organic" this is fantasy. It would take a decade for a small maker to make inroads in a long tail market to get national reach.

"they want ultimate control over their long tail instead of delegating it to the market,"

This statement is nonsensical.

Being able to advertise is part of 'the market system'. They want to get the word out.

Ironically - the 'market system' reaches considerably more efficiency with better, more targeted ads.

I'm tired of lack of understanding of how the 'selling side' works in any business here on HN, and doubly tired of the antagonism towards it.

People take an interest in very complicated algorithms which may not see the light of day, but then can't wrap their heads around these really obviously, daily common problems.

> Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both sides. There's a huge market for products and services out there and it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.

This is an optimistic viewpoint. It absolutely can happen like this, but it's not always the case.

Ad targeting can decrease relevance as you get chased around the web by ads for something you looked at once, market efficiencies go directly to the seller, so it's their choice to pass on to the customer or not. Customers don't inherently need to buy things with a few notable exceptions, so advertising is getting them to pay for things they may not need or may not want. And lastly, with the complex market for advertising, it's only large and/or technically savvy companies that can navigate the complexity, so they raise ad prices and mean that your average small provider neither understands the market nor can afford it.

This is the pessimistic case. Obviously it's also not all like this either, but I think there's truth to both and we need to find ways to get the best of both sides.

'Ads following you around' is actually necessarily a form of inefficiency, just the opposite. There may be a very good reason for you to see that specific ad, instead of and ad for some random for a pickup truck.

Consumer wariness does not translate to lack of surplus on their side. Products that truly provide no value tend to not find the light of day for long. It's actually the very last phase of 'demo/trial' or even 'trial post purchase' where customers really find out if they're going to like it, and most cases, the surplus goes to the consumer.

We live in a very different world than 100 years ago.

The value people get out of stuff they buy is immense - we live in a 'total surplus economy'. We get clean, cold/hot, drinkable water, in any volume - literally coming out of the wall. This is basically a 'magical product' to anyone in history. How much would people may monthly for potable water if we really wanted to increase the price? A lot. Possibly 10x more than they are paying now. That means all of the surplus of water has been socialised. For many other products, it's the same thing, the question for consumers boils down to 'where do we want to spend it'?

Unless, you know, by buying ads on snowboarding gear focused sites, as the industry has done for decades in the print industry.

Or on apps about snowboarding, or on fora related to snowboarding, or by paying snowboarding content creators, there's a wealth of opportunities out there. I don't give a damn about snowboarding when I'm browsing, say, twitter. (Which, incidentally, for some reason has borked itself into thinking I like rowing.)

Exactly

Instead of that they want to shove their new snowboard ads on every blog not connected to snowboarding you see because you searched "snow" once on Google

Or because you just bought a new snowboard on-line (and won't need another for years), so now you've got snowboard ads everywhere, despite being in the group of people least likely to need a new snowboard anytime soon.

My shopping habits must be somewhat unique on a local amazon-esque site that 80% of the time when I view something I have already bought (i.e. to check some detail before it arrives, or sometimes if I want to order more - I buy a decent amount of hardware and fittings for DIY projects on there) it has a little carousel at the bottom saying "Others who looked at this item also looked at:" and it's a list of 8 things, 7 of which I know I've looked at recently, or even bought.

This is the thing that “ad tech” people never want to acknowledge (because it makes their “secret sauce” a lot less valuable).

Not only would there be zero tracking required to show content-relevant ads, there’s zero creep factor. No one questions seeing an ad for a new blender or an online grocer when looking at a recipe site, there’s no question why you’re seeing those ads.

Seeing ads about something very specific that you looked for a few days ago, on completely unrelated sites is the epitome of creepy.

"You mean, we can actually buy ads on Snowboarding Websites, or in Print Magazines? We never thought of that, thanks for the deep insight HN commenter! Now the 'secret sauce' of digital advertisers is out of the bag! Right here on HN!"

I've been skiing all of my life and I've never bought a 'skiing magazine' and never visited a skiing website as far as I can mention.

(It's not 'creepy' to get ads for Snowboarding when you're on Twitter, than it is for anything else.)

There are very, very few venues for smaller companies to get the word out - the more efficient those communications channels, the better the products and services we would receive.

There is a massive 'mismatching' problem in modern economies, wherein consumer interests are not met by makers, because the 'matching', if you will is poor. If we could permanently line up people's interests with the right services and products at the right prices, unemployment would cater to zero.

> I've been skiing all of my life and I've never bought a 'skiing magazine' and never visited a skiing website as far as I can mention.

If you never visit skiing websites (and thus presumably also never search for skiing websites), and the likes of Google showed you an ad for ski gear, that would be the epitome of creepy.

> It's not 'creepy' to get ads for Snowboarding when you're on Twitter, than it is for anything else.

If you follow/view a bunch of skiing related accounts, its not unrealistic. If you don't follow/view any ski related accounts, then again, that is very creepy.

But twitter is essentially the model we're talking about: show the visitor ads based on what they choose to view (mostly, afaik), not based on what they searched for last week on a different site.

> the more efficient those communications channels, the better the products and services we would receive.

Well while we're using anecdotal evidence, I've never seen an ad and thought "yeah that's actually just what I want, <click>". If I want something, I got search for it specifically.

The pro-targeting argument always seems to forget the middle-ground of context-based ads.

This new snowboard company can advertise on snowboard-related websites, on snowboard-related google search

The magic "IA assisted silver bullet retargeting" that this snowboard company will be sold by yet another VC-founded adtech company almost always amount to "Oh this guy just bought a new snowboard, he probably needs another one right now, let's pay a mountain of cash to push him to buy another one on every website he visit for a week"

I wonder if those ads are counted as leading to a sale because they are shown right after someone buys one.

Someone goes to the online store of an outdoor shop:

* buys a snowboard (perhaps they were recommended it by someone, or the reviews look good),

* tracking leads to them being shown ads for snowboards in period X,

* tracking also adds the fact that they bought a snowboard in period X (albeit before the ads came),

* ad brokers algorithms, naively or maliciously, conclude that their ads led to the sale,

* companies buying ads conclude that targetted advertising is the most effective way to advertise.

> increases market efficiency

This is manifestly false. An efficient market based on rational consumers doesn't require advertising. Advertising serves to skew consumer opinion away from rational behavior (in the economic sense of maximizing utility divided by price), so in fact it can be argued that it will always make the market LESS efficient.

An ideal consumer would browse the market and read non-paid reviews, and choose the product they need. No use for advertising.

An ad-converted consumer will see advertising, and think that the advertised product is necessary even if it isn't, or think it's better than the competition even if isn't.

This is completely false and implies lack of understanding of market dynamics.

It's also insulting to the reality of any person or group who's actually created a business, and wants to get the word out about their product - as if the word magically just 'finds out' about it.

I'm shocked at the level of anti-knowledge and anti- rationalism on a forum of such intelligent people.

Of course advertising can 'skew' people's emotions, nobody doubts inefficiencies. If there were no ads, it would be tantamount to the banking disaster - it would go down like dominos.

Targeted ads are the only hope for a lot of small companies playing into long niches, as I say, without them, you get Nike, Apple and Ford for everything.

I'm not doubting the effectiveness of advertising, quite the opposite. Of course that if some players are advertising, anyone who isn't is at a major disadvantage.

But cigarettes were a very good study in what happens if you remove advertising from an industry - nothing much. They get to save a lot of advertising money, and the industry itself may shrink if there is no real need for it (for cigarettes, it reduces the rate at which people start smoking, even if it doesn't significantly reduce the rate at which smokers buy cigarettes).

Of course, people would still buy clothes and consumer electronics and cars if there were no advertising - these are all useful products. But most likely, the contrary of what you are claiming would actually happen: all these huge players would find themselves competing much more on price with small "no-name" producers if they couldn't sell an image of exclusivity, particularly in the case of Nike and Apple. Especially in fashion, most non-luxury brands are built entirely on advertising, as there is no real quality or style difference between them and by-the-pound clothing you get at thrift stores.

So yes, prices may fall like dominoes, but only because the market would become more efficient, bringing prices more in-line with costs, quality, and utility, rather than "prestige".

A few weeks ago my TV set died, so I bought a new one. At the same time I looked for a new motorcycle helmet.

Since then I get tons of adds for TV's and motorcycle helmets that are not available to buy in my country. Useless like a nail in the foot. I never buy something suggested by an ad even if I need such a product, so the ad industry is a huge waste of time, money and neurons.

Oh, and for some stupid reason Google is spamming me with dating ads for seniors. Lol, I'm not in that age group and I'm not having any fetish for old women. Google, you sick bastard.

"I never buy something suggested by an ad "

Many people think this, it's rarely actually true.

Have a look at the things you buy, you'll remember you've seen ads for them at some point. Now the question is - how much self awareness does it take to make the material connection between those things?

I am extremely strict with my purchases, I rarely buy anything not groceries or fuel and I ignore ads.

You can't ignore ads, they are all around you, moreover, many ads are effective even if you're not consciously paying attention. Look around your home and life at the products that surround you. You've seen ads for many of them. You've seen famous/important people talk about them.

For example, by the time you buy an automobile of a certain brand, you've probably witnessed a lifetime of ads for that brand.

Ads work on everyone. Some people more than others, some ads more than others, but none of us are immune.

Apple is giving users the choice. Do they want to trade their privacy for your listed benefits? It's up to them. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

If nobody decides to make that trade when given the choice... then I guess it will be a surprise to no one (including advertisers).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com