Perhaps even more scary for Facebook and all the ad sellers selling targeted ads is if the collapse of their entire business model in the iOS arena doesn't cause havoc, and the emperor suddenly appears naked in public.
I've always had serious doubts about the efficacy of targeted ads - I tend to see them primarily after I've bought an item (and am no longer in the market).
I suppose if you're the type who hems and haws and takes days or weeks to make a purchase this could have an effect on you, but once I've decided to pull the trigger I go in, visit a few sites, and simply do it.
It's not like all those targeted ads get you a better deal or something.
Similar things have been said about billboard or TV advertising. There's no direct interaction to get to the product purchase so they appear ineffective. Billboard and TV ads know very little about the viewer and they will show Gillette ads to women, female hygiene products to men. If the TV or billboard knew some info about the viewer and could adapt the ad to the most suitable audience, at the very least it would be more cost-effective as the advertiser isn't paying for ad impressions for an audience that will never buy the product. It can cut ad costs significantly, even if it doesn't increase the number of buyers.
There will be cases where it makes little to no difference such as showing ads for games on a game site. The ad context alone is a huge step in narrowing down the target audience and DuckDuckGo has said that tracking isn't necessary to show effective ads as they base it on the search terms. However, the places where ads are shown don't always have that context. A persistent profile from tracking allows ads to be more effective everywhere they are shown.
It seems like there there should be more effective ways to achieve the same goal though and tracking people online should be either made illegal or restricted. If government agencies have to get approval to access browser history, there's no reason ad companies should be able do what is close to surveillance so easily.
People would likely prefer ads to show them deals on products they are looking for. Perhaps there could be an open standard device API that allows users to build a profile themselves and they can enter actual products they are looking for. At Christmas, they can put in that they want headphones, PS5, pressure cooker, Mac software and the ads on mobile apps and the web can adjust to what they are actually looking for. There are always deals on things ( https://www.retailmenot.com https://www.groupon.com ) but they are hard to keep track off at the time of purchase. Users would be able to choose how detailed or not they wanted it to be and companies would be allowed to add their own user data to it if the user agrees to it. This profile would likely have less volume than tracking everyone but a higher conversion rate. Someone could put in that they want Airpods Max but only at $450 and ads will show deals when it matches their price or comes close or they show competing products.
There will be dozens of wishlist type apps but they won't be linked to advertisers on a large-scale or standard way and the wishlist/profile wouldn't need to be sent to the server, the server can send the ad-list to the client to match the closest ads and choose randomly if there's no match. The device profile can be as detailed as needed and for kids, it can have their age so websites can comply better with regulations.
As far as Facebook is concerned, they only care about the revenue they make, not the businesses who use their services. The following suggests they make around $30 per user per year on ads:
Ad-supported services are necessary for there to be things like Youtube, social networks, forums etc. People just aren't willing to pay for the services, mostly because they serve average quality, crowd-sourced content and they are monetizing kids who have no easy way to pay. But they could have a system that allows people to topup or subscribe to remove all ads online and use tokens for revenue. They'd need to charge a flat fee like 0.1c per context so $5 would get 5,000 ad-free contexts (pages), which should be around 2 months of browsing without ads. They can have family plans that kids can use. The browser context would be able to alert misuse, if a context charges for ad-removal and the client detects ads, it can flag misuse and avoid sending tokens. News sites can use the same setup. It can be bundled into a broader subscription so people don't just see it as an ad-removal payment.
Facebook is treating this like an attack on their business but ad companies have to start acting respectfully towards users. Their public appeal to be able to track users without their consent is crazy. There's no reason they can't get consent from users to understand what they want to buy and put the privacy controls in the hands of the users. It's long past time for governments to start reigning in what ad companies are allowed to do with people's private data.
Perhaps even more scary for Facebook and all the ad sellers selling targeted ads is if the collapse of their entire business model in the iOS arena doesn't cause havoc, and the emperor suddenly appears naked in public.
I've always had serious doubts about the efficacy of targeted ads - I tend to see them primarily after I've bought an item (and am no longer in the market).
I suppose if you're the type who hems and haws and takes days or weeks to make a purchase this could have an effect on you, but once I've decided to pull the trigger I go in, visit a few sites, and simply do it.
It's not like all those targeted ads get you a better deal or something.
Similar things have been said about billboard or TV advertising. There's no direct interaction to get to the product purchase so they appear ineffective. Billboard and TV ads know very little about the viewer and they will show Gillette ads to women, female hygiene products to men. If the TV or billboard knew some info about the viewer and could adapt the ad to the most suitable audience, at the very least it would be more cost-effective as the advertiser isn't paying for ad impressions for an audience that will never buy the product. It can cut ad costs significantly, even if it doesn't increase the number of buyers.
There will be cases where it makes little to no difference such as showing ads for games on a game site. The ad context alone is a huge step in narrowing down the target audience and DuckDuckGo has said that tracking isn't necessary to show effective ads as they base it on the search terms. However, the places where ads are shown don't always have that context. A persistent profile from tracking allows ads to be more effective everywhere they are shown.
It seems like there there should be more effective ways to achieve the same goal though and tracking people online should be either made illegal or restricted. If government agencies have to get approval to access browser history, there's no reason ad companies should be able do what is close to surveillance so easily.
People would likely prefer ads to show them deals on products they are looking for. Perhaps there could be an open standard device API that allows users to build a profile themselves and they can enter actual products they are looking for. At Christmas, they can put in that they want headphones, PS5, pressure cooker, Mac software and the ads on mobile apps and the web can adjust to what they are actually looking for. There are always deals on things ( https://www.retailmenot.com https://www.groupon.com ) but they are hard to keep track off at the time of purchase. Users would be able to choose how detailed or not they wanted it to be and companies would be allowed to add their own user data to it if the user agrees to it. This profile would likely have less volume than tracking everyone but a higher conversion rate. Someone could put in that they want Airpods Max but only at $450 and ads will show deals when it matches their price or comes close or they show competing products.
There will be dozens of wishlist type apps but they won't be linked to advertisers on a large-scale or standard way and the wishlist/profile wouldn't need to be sent to the server, the server can send the ad-list to the client to match the closest ads and choose randomly if there's no match. The device profile can be as detailed as needed and for kids, it can have their age so websites can comply better with regulations.
As far as Facebook is concerned, they only care about the revenue they make, not the businesses who use their services. The following suggests they make around $30 per user per year on ads:
Ad-supported services are necessary for there to be things like Youtube, social networks, forums etc. People just aren't willing to pay for the services, mostly because they serve average quality, crowd-sourced content and they are monetizing kids who have no easy way to pay. But they could have a system that allows people to topup or subscribe to remove all ads online and use tokens for revenue. They'd need to charge a flat fee like 0.1c per context so $5 would get 5,000 ad-free contexts (pages), which should be around 2 months of browsing without ads. They can have family plans that kids can use. The browser context would be able to alert misuse, if a context charges for ad-removal and the client detects ads, it can flag misuse and avoid sending tokens. News sites can use the same setup. It can be bundled into a broader subscription so people don't just see it as an ad-removal payment.
Facebook is treating this like an attack on their business but ad companies have to start acting respectfully towards users. Their public appeal to be able to track users without their consent is crazy. There's no reason they can't get consent from users to understand what they want to buy and put the privacy controls in the hands of the users. It's long past time for governments to start reigning in what ad companies are allowed to do with people's private data.
Marvin, there was (maybe still is?) Google Contributor which had the goal of removing ads from your favorite websites in return for a monthly fee. Few people are willing to pay for it tho, so most websites weren't opting in even tho the intent was admirable.
The only way I can see it being viable is if there's not any other good options. People in general want free IMO, even those who say they'd happily pay for it. If they can't see an obvious cost to the "free" then it's fine. End of story.
Perhaps even more scary for Facebook and all the ad sellers selling targeted ads is if the collapse of their entire business model in the iOS arena doesn't cause havoc, and the emperor suddenly appears naked in public.
I've always had serious doubts about the efficacy of targeted ads - I tend to see them primarily after I've bought an item (and am no longer in the market).
I suppose if you're the type who hems and haws and takes days or weeks to make a purchase this could have an effect on you, but once I've decided to pull the trigger I go in, visit a few sites, and simply do it.
It's not like all those targeted ads get you a better deal or something.
Similar things have been said about billboard or TV advertising. There's no direct interaction to get to the product purchase so they appear ineffective. Billboard and TV ads know very little about the viewer and they will show Gillette ads to women, female hygiene products to men. If the TV or billboard knew some info about the viewer and could adapt the ad to the most suitable audience, at the very least it would be more cost-effective as the advertiser isn't paying for ad impressions for an audience that will never buy the product. It can cut ad costs significantly, even if it doesn't increase the number of buyers.
There will be cases where it makes little to no difference such as showing ads for games on a game site. The ad context alone is a huge step in narrowing down the target audience and DuckDuckGo has said that tracking isn't necessary to show effective ads as they base it on the search terms. However, the places where ads are shown don't always have that context. A persistent profile from tracking allows ads to be more effective everywhere they are shown.
It seems like there there should be more effective ways to achieve the same goal though and tracking people online should be either made illegal or restricted. If government agencies have to get approval to access browser history, there's no reason ad companies should be able do what is close to surveillance so easily.
People would likely prefer ads to show them deals on products they are looking for. Perhaps there could be an open standard device API that allows users to build a profile themselves and they can enter actual products they are looking for. At Christmas, they can put in that they want headphones, PS5, pressure cooker, Mac software and the ads on mobile apps and the web can adjust to what they are actually looking for. There are always deals on things ( https://www.retailmenot.com https://www.groupon.com ) but they are hard to keep track off at the time of purchase. Users would be able to choose how detailed or not they wanted it to be and companies would be allowed to add their own user data to it if the user agrees to it. This profile would likely have less volume than tracking everyone but a higher conversion rate. Someone could put in that they want Airpods Max but only at $450 and ads will show deals when it matches their price or comes close or they show competing products.
There will be dozens of wishlist type apps but they won't be linked to advertisers on a large-scale or standard way and the wishlist/profile wouldn't need to be sent to the server, the server can send the ad-list to the client to match the closest ads and choose randomly if there's no match. The device profile can be as detailed as needed and for kids, it can have their age so websites can comply better with regulations.
As far as Facebook is concerned, they only care about the revenue they make, not the businesses who use their services. The following suggests they make around $30 per user per year on ads:
Ad-supported services are necessary for there to be things like Youtube, social networks, forums etc. People just aren't willing to pay for the services, mostly because they serve average quality, crowd-sourced content and they are monetizing kids who have no easy way to pay. But they could have a system that allows people to topup or subscribe to remove all ads online and use tokens for revenue. They'd need to charge a flat fee like 0.1c per context so $5 would get 5,000 ad-free contexts (pages), which should be around 2 months of browsing without ads. They can have family plans that kids can use. The browser context would be able to alert misuse, if a context charges for ad-removal and the client detects ads, it can flag misuse and avoid sending tokens. News sites can use the same setup. It can be bundled into a broader subscription so people don't just see it as an ad-removal payment.
Facebook is treating this like an attack on their business but ad companies have to start acting respectfully towards users. Their public appeal to be able to track users without their consent is crazy. There's no reason they can't get consent from users to understand what they want to buy and put the privacy controls in the hands of the users. It's long past time for governments to start reigning in what ad companies are allowed to do with people's private data.
Awesome post. Some really great ideas here. I love the idea of having an opt-in profile to just tell the ad companies directly what I want to see, instead of them trying to figure it out from all my personal information. Great solution.
Kinda wondering how we could get the industry to adopt this. I wonder if Apple could push something like this. Eg. When the user has the message to opt-in or not to the tracking, an additional option asking for that list of things you’re interested in at that point. Something like:
Option 1: allow tracking so that the internet can build an automatic profile of you.
Option 2: Disallow tracking. And then: “ok no automatic tracking. Do you want to build a manual profile to help you get ads you’re interested in instead of random useless stuff?”
Of course the answer to that question should be reversible at any time.
Perhaps even more scary for Facebook and all the ad sellers selling targeted ads is if the collapse of their entire business model in the iOS arena doesn't cause havoc, and the emperor suddenly appears naked in public.
I've always had serious doubts about the efficacy of targeted ads - I tend to see them primarily after I've bought an item (and am no longer in the market).
I suppose if you're the type who hems and haws and takes days or weeks to make a purchase this could have an effect on you, but once I've decided to pull the trigger I go in, visit a few sites, and simply do it.
It's not like all those targeted ads get you a better deal or something.
Similar things have been said about billboard or TV advertising. There's no direct interaction to get to the product purchase so they appear ineffective. Billboard and TV ads know very little about the viewer and they will show Gillette ads to women, female hygiene products to men. If the TV or billboard knew some info about the viewer and could adapt the ad to the most suitable audience, at the very least it would be more cost-effective as the advertiser isn't paying for ad impressions for an audience that will never buy the product. It can cut ad costs significantly, even if it doesn't increase the number of buyers.
There will be cases where it makes little to no difference such as showing ads for games on a game site. The ad context alone is a huge step in narrowing down the target audience and DuckDuckGo has said that tracking isn't necessary to show effective ads as they base it on the search terms. However, the places where ads are shown don't always have that context. A persistent profile from tracking allows ads to be more effective everywhere they are shown.
It seems like there there should be more effective ways to achieve the same goal though and tracking people online should be either made illegal or restricted. If government agencies have to get approval to access browser history, there's no reason ad companies should be able do what is close to surveillance so easily.
People would likely prefer ads to show them deals on products they are looking for. Perhaps there could be an open standard device API that allows users to build a profile themselves and they can enter actual products they are looking for. At Christmas, they can put in that they want headphones, PS5, pressure cooker, Mac software and the ads on mobile apps and the web can adjust to what they are actually looking for. There are always deals on things ( https://www.retailmenot.com https://www.groupon.com ) but they are hard to keep track off at the time of purchase. Users would be able to choose how detailed or not they wanted it to be and companies would be allowed to add their own user data to it if the user agrees to it. This profile would likely have less volume than tracking everyone but a higher conversion rate. Someone could put in that they want Airpods Max but only at $450 and ads will show deals when it matches their price or comes close or they show competing products.
There will be dozens of wishlist type apps but they won't be linked to advertisers on a large-scale or standard way and the wishlist/profile wouldn't need to be sent to the server, the server can send the ad-list to the client to match the closest ads and choose randomly if there's no match. The device profile can be as detailed as needed and for kids, it can have their age so websites can comply better with regulations.
As far as Facebook is concerned, they only care about the revenue they make, not the businesses who use their services. The following suggests they make around $30 per user per year on ads:
Ad-supported services are necessary for there to be things like Youtube, social networks, forums etc. People just aren't willing to pay for the services, mostly because they serve average quality, crowd-sourced content and they are monetizing kids who have no easy way to pay. But they could have a system that allows people to topup or subscribe to remove all ads online and use tokens for revenue. They'd need to charge a flat fee like 0.1c per context so $5 would get 5,000 ad-free contexts (pages), which should be around 2 months of browsing without ads. They can have family plans that kids can use. The browser context would be able to alert misuse, if a context charges for ad-removal and the client detects ads, it can flag misuse and avoid sending tokens. News sites can use the same setup. It can be bundled into a broader subscription so people don't just see it as an ad-removal payment.
Facebook is treating this like an attack on their business but ad companies have to start acting respectfully towards users. Their public appeal to be able to track users without their consent is crazy. There's no reason they can't get consent from users to understand what they want to buy and put the privacy controls in the hands of the users. It's long past time for governments to start reigning in what ad companies are allowed to do with people's private data.
Marvin, there was (maybe still is?) Google Contributor which had the goal of removing ads from your favorite websites in return for a monthly fee. Few people are willing to pay for it tho, so most websites weren't opting in even tho the intent was admirable.
The only way I can see it being viable is if there's not any other good options. People in general want free IMO, even those who say they'd happily pay for it. If they can't see an obvious cost to the "free" then it's fine. End of story.
That’s a reasonable comment but I’m sure there are some people who would choose to pay for ad-free.
A lot of apps and games on the app stores are ad-funded but have a in-app purchase option to remove ads. There are enough people buying those in-app purchases that that business model hasn’t faded out, so the same concept for websites etc. should w be reasonable.
Agreed, many people want free - especially kids of course. So not everyone will go for it. Maybe only a small percentage of users. But surely providing the choice for even the few/some who would choose it is a good option? I for one would choose it in most cases.
Perhaps even more scary for Facebook and all the ad sellers selling targeted ads is if the collapse of their entire business model in the iOS arena doesn't cause havoc, and the emperor suddenly appears naked in public.
I've always had serious doubts about the efficacy of targeted ads - I tend to see them primarily after I've bought an item (and am no longer in the market).
I suppose if you're the type who hems and haws and takes days or weeks to make a purchase this could have an effect on you, but once I've decided to pull the trigger I go in, visit a few sites, and simply do it.
It's not like all those targeted ads get you a better deal or something.
Similar things have been said about billboard or TV advertising. There's no direct interaction to get to the product purchase so they appear ineffective. Billboard and TV ads know very little about the viewer and they will show Gillette ads to women, female hygiene products to men. If the TV or billboard knew some info about the viewer and could adapt the ad to the most suitable audience, at the very least it would be more cost-effective as the advertiser isn't paying for ad impressions for an audience that will never buy the product. It can cut ad costs significantly, even if it doesn't increase the number of buyers.
There will be cases where it makes little to no difference such as showing ads for games on a game site. The ad context alone is a huge step in narrowing down the target audience and DuckDuckGo has said that tracking isn't necessary to show effective ads as they base it on the search terms. However, the places where ads are shown don't always have that context. A persistent profile from tracking allows ads to be more effective everywhere they are shown.
It seems like there there should be more effective ways to achieve the same goal though and tracking people online should be either made illegal or restricted. If government agencies have to get approval to access browser history, there's no reason ad companies should be able do what is close to surveillance so easily.
People would likely prefer ads to show them deals on products they are looking for. Perhaps there could be an open standard device API that allows users to build a profile themselves and they can enter actual products they are looking for. At Christmas, they can put in that they want headphones, PS5, pressure cooker, Mac software and the ads on mobile apps and the web can adjust to what they are actually looking for. There are always deals on things ( https://www.retailmenot.com https://www.groupon.com ) but they are hard to keep track off at the time of purchase. Users would be able to choose how detailed or not they wanted it to be and companies would be allowed to add their own user data to it if the user agrees to it. This profile would likely have less volume than tracking everyone but a higher conversion rate. Someone could put in that they want Airpods Max but only at $450 and ads will show deals when it matches their price or comes close or they show competing products.
There will be dozens of wishlist type apps but they won't be linked to advertisers on a large-scale or standard way and the wishlist/profile wouldn't need to be sent to the server, the server can send the ad-list to the client to match the closest ads and choose randomly if there's no match. The device profile can be as detailed as needed and for kids, it can have their age so websites can comply better with regulations.
As far as Facebook is concerned, they only care about the revenue they make, not the businesses who use their services. The following suggests they make around $30 per user per year on ads:
Ad-supported services are necessary for there to be things like Youtube, social networks, forums etc. People just aren't willing to pay for the services, mostly because they serve average quality, crowd-sourced content and they are monetizing kids who have no easy way to pay. But they could have a system that allows people to topup or subscribe to remove all ads online and use tokens for revenue. They'd need to charge a flat fee like 0.1c per context so $5 would get 5,000 ad-free contexts (pages), which should be around 2 months of browsing without ads. They can have family plans that kids can use. The browser context would be able to alert misuse, if a context charges for ad-removal and the client detects ads, it can flag misuse and avoid sending tokens. News sites can use the same setup. It can be bundled into a broader subscription so people don't just see it as an ad-removal payment.
Facebook is treating this like an attack on their business but ad companies have to start acting respectfully towards users. Their public appeal to be able to track users without their consent is crazy. There's no reason they can't get consent from users to understand what they want to buy and put the privacy controls in the hands of the users. It's long past time for governments to start reigning in what ad companies are allowed to do with people's private data.
Marvin, there was (maybe still is?) Google Contributor which had the goal of removing ads from your favorite websites in return for a monthly fee. Few people are willing to pay for it tho, so most websites weren't opting in even tho the intent was admirable.
The only way I can see it being viable is if there's not any other good options. People in general want free IMO, even those who say they'd happily pay for it. If they can't see an obvious cost to the "free" then it's fine. End of story.
Yup, I’m afraid that horse has already bolted. Folk are used to getting this stuff for free, and are unlikely to want to pay for it now. Personally, I would pay for a Facebook-type service that didn’t include ads, didn’t track my usage, and didn’t flood my timeline with shit I don’t care about. The problem is that such a service would be useless unless I could convince my friends and family to move on to it as well.
Comments
There will be cases where it makes little to no difference such as showing ads for games on a game site. The ad context alone is a huge step in narrowing down the target audience and DuckDuckGo has said that tracking isn't necessary to show effective ads as they base it on the search terms. However, the places where ads are shown don't always have that context. A persistent profile from tracking allows ads to be more effective everywhere they are shown.
It seems like there there should be more effective ways to achieve the same goal though and tracking people online should be either made illegal or restricted. If government agencies have to get approval to access browser history, there's no reason ad companies should be able do what is close to surveillance so easily.
People would likely prefer ads to show them deals on products they are looking for. Perhaps there could be an open standard device API that allows users to build a profile themselves and they can enter actual products they are looking for. At Christmas, they can put in that they want headphones, PS5, pressure cooker, Mac software and the ads on mobile apps and the web can adjust to what they are actually looking for. There are always deals on things ( https://www.retailmenot.com https://www.groupon.com ) but they are hard to keep track off at the time of purchase. Users would be able to choose how detailed or not they wanted it to be and companies would be allowed to add their own user data to it if the user agrees to it. This profile would likely have less volume than tracking everyone but a higher conversion rate. Someone could put in that they want Airpods Max but only at $450 and ads will show deals when it matches their price or comes close or they show competing products.
There will be dozens of wishlist type apps but they won't be linked to advertisers on a large-scale or standard way and the wishlist/profile wouldn't need to be sent to the server, the server can send the ad-list to the client to match the closest ads and choose randomly if there's no match. The device profile can be as detailed as needed and for kids, it can have their age so websites can comply better with regulations.
As far as Facebook is concerned, they only care about the revenue they make, not the businesses who use their services. The following suggests they make around $30 per user per year on ads:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average-advertising-revenue-per-user/
Ad-supported services are necessary for there to be things like Youtube, social networks, forums etc. People just aren't willing to pay for the services, mostly because they serve average quality, crowd-sourced content and they are monetizing kids who have no easy way to pay. But they could have a system that allows people to topup or subscribe to remove all ads online and use tokens for revenue. They'd need to charge a flat fee like 0.1c per context so $5 would get 5,000 ad-free contexts (pages), which should be around 2 months of browsing without ads. They can have family plans that kids can use. The browser context would be able to alert misuse, if a context charges for ad-removal and the client detects ads, it can flag misuse and avoid sending tokens. News sites can use the same setup. It can be bundled into a broader subscription so people don't just see it as an ad-removal payment.
Facebook is treating this like an attack on their business but ad companies have to start acting respectfully towards users. Their public appeal to be able to track users without their consent is crazy. There's no reason they can't get consent from users to understand what they want to buy and put the privacy controls in the hands of the users. It's long past time for governments to start reigning in what ad companies are allowed to do with people's private data.
The only way I can see it being viable is if there's not any other good options. People in general want free IMO, even those who say they'd happily pay for it. If they can't see an obvious cost to the "free" then it's fine. End of story.
Option 1: allow tracking so that the internet can build an automatic profile of you.
That’s a reasonable comment but I’m sure there are some people who would choose to pay for ad-free.