What I don’t understand is how Youtube targets ads. They keep sending me the same ads that I skip over and over again. I would think at some point they would try a different ad.
It's because you are not specifically targeted. You're lumped in a bundle of AdvertisingID numbers so removing ads offered to your group as a whole can take a bit.
Related: Google regularly offers me "simplified pages" in Google News, meaning all ads removed from the original web page, but with the link in place in case someone might think they want to see what the ad was. That would be nobody.
I think it’s a weird feature for the average consumer because it leaves weird blank areas in your layout.
However when implemented as an accessibility feature, it does make sense. People with ADHD, autism, mental disabilities and more could benefit from having a more distraction-free experience.
For the average consumer I’d say improve the Reader functionality to scrape and reinterpret pages more intelligently and perhaps allow for retaining links and buttons (navigate as if you were browsing normally), which is not easy to do when the web semantics aren’t there.
With any luck, it will reappear in a later update. Maybe rebranded. I'm not a Safari user, so it doesn't affect me either way, but it seems like it would have been a nice feature.
I think companies delude themselves on the effectiveness of their advertising. Too much of it is non focused, even on sites that use algorithms and track users data. It's gotten so bad that 99% of it is completely irrelevant to me. The most ignorant thing about online ads is hitting people with ads for a product AFTER they have looked something up. Too late, they have already made a decision. It is things like this as to why I do use ad blockers on some sites.
If online ads weren't effective, they would have disappeared by now. The hit rate is probably very low, lower than 1%, but it's still cost effective for the advertiser.
Getting an ad for a product after you look it up is probably even more effective because you have just signaled some interest in the product and I'd bet that additional advertising nudge gets a quite a few people to go ahead and purchase it. Again, the practice wouldn't continue if it wasn't successful.
Maybe, maybe not. Advertising can get caught up in a snowball effect where some level of success begets more and more advertising, until there’s too much. By that point, reeling it back becomes difficult, because it’s hard to convince advertisers that they should pay more to run fewer ads.
Like many others, I dropped my local newspaper because the conglomerate that bought it cut staff, produced less, more generic content, and loaded up their online edition with so much advertising clutter that it became too difficult to find and read what little of value was left there to read.
The cost-cutting makes clear that their advertising strategy wasn’t actually working, but none of the bean-counting MBAs in some far-off headquarters were willing to take the risk of reversing course. Spending more to generate content people would read, and charging advertisers more for fewer well-placed ads is the solution, but that runs counter to the beliefs of the bizness lemmings headed for the proverbial cliff. The advertising department grunts at the newspaper conglomerate are incentivized to sell more ads, and the ad buyers are incentivized to get them placed on more web pages. Neither are incentivized to rethink any of it.
There are many business practices that continue long after their success is diminished and nullified.
Ironically, the most egregious and disruptive advertising (IMO) is in Apple News - a service I pay a monthly fee to use, yet still have full-page ads breaking up the text flow.
Ironically, the most egregious and disruptive advertising (IMO) is in Apple News - a service I pay a monthly fee to use, yet still have full-page ads breaking up the text flow.
I wouldn't say it's the most egregious I've ever seen. but it's definitely up there. Number 1 reason why I cancelled it.
Comments
Related: Google regularly offers me "simplified pages" in Google News, meaning all ads removed from the original web page, but with the link in place in case someone might think they want to see what the ad was. That would be nobody.
However when implemented as an accessibility feature, it does make sense. People with ADHD, autism, mental disabilities and more could benefit from having a more distraction-free experience.
For the average consumer I’d say improve the Reader functionality to scrape and reinterpret pages more intelligently and perhaps allow for retaining links and buttons (navigate as if you were browsing normally), which is not easy to do when the web semantics aren’t there.
I wouldn't say it's the most egregious I've ever seen. but it's definitely up there. Number 1 reason why I cancelled it.