Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymous_sorry | Hacker News Reader

I know you joke, but this advert is surely completely untargeted?

It's definitely untargeted in the modern meaning (they don't pick which adverts to insert into the book when you buy it based on a profile of you). And even under any other meaning, I can't imagine German readers of Pratchet are much more bewitched by the charms of powdered soup than anyone else.

View on HN

Sure it's targeted, it's targeted at buyers of cheap pulp fiction. You say you don't think the readers are "more bewitched by the charms of powdered soup," but do you notice them selling river cruises through France? A Great Books history course? Rolex watches?

Advertisers understood the idea of a target market even back then.

The absence of brands which might be expected to target a very narrow market segment doesn't really help us understand if this ad for a mass-market product was targeted. But you're right, it probably was to some extent.

I guess my main point was that this is a completely different category from present-day individually targeted ads. Bank then Rolex didn't need to invade anyone's privacy when choosing to advertise in "More Money Than Sense Monthly"

I wouldn't be so sure about the second bit; in my experience there's a significant overlap between Pratchett-readers and consumers of instant soup.

shoop

According to Cohen the Barbarian

It’s even more deceptive because if an author you like recommends a thing, you are much more likely to try it. So deceptively convincing the author or even worse just sneaking it in is breaking trust.

Interesting. But in which direction does the arrow of causality point? Were they* advertised to because they* like instant soup, or do they* like soup because they* were advertised to?

* Oh okay then, "we".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com