6 ms·

But it can easily be argued that it's been a zero-sum game, where one actor has been forced to use more targeted ads because others have been more efficient (ch

But it can easily be argued that it's been a zero-sum game, where one actor has been forced to use more targeted ads because others have been more efficient (cheaper) by doing so. It's not like ads spending has increased; unless you're arguing that consumption has increased due to targeted/invasive ads?

esrauch 9y ago
It is difficult for me to see how it would be zero sum. Instead it seems very likely to me that the total amount spent by users online is higher with invasive ads than non-invasive ones: if no ad you see is relevant to you then you are less likely to buy anything online at all.
- musage 9y ago
  Zero sum in the sense that in so far marketing engages in the arms race of pushing the buttons of consumers rather than focusing on the products and honest descriptions of them, that is at the cost of ads that don't do that. With any individual ad you make you have the choice to go one way or the other, like two poles on a spectrum. If you are 80% of the way towards one pole, you are 20% of the way towards the other, you know the distance from both by knowing the distance from one. > if no ad you see is relevant to you then you are less likely to buy anything online at all. Only if you don't actually need that type of product after all, so I'd consider that another plus.
- strken 9y ago
  There's an argument I've seen - no idea whether it's correct - that users acclimatise to new advertising technology and eventually regress back to the mean. I suppose this would mean that newer and more invasive ads cause a spike in consumer spending, which drops over time until the next innovation.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    I've never seen someone make that argument for better targeting, which is what they're saying cookies enable. You're not going to acclimate to being more interested in the ads you're seeing.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      The argument for better targeting is simple: targeting works (whether directly or just through being a novelty), and those who engage in it get ahead of those who don't. The argument for getting used to ads is mostly psychology/neuroscience.

esrauch 9y ago

It is difficult for me to see how it would be zero sum. Instead it seems very likely to me that the total amount spent by users online is higher with invasive ads than non-invasive ones: if no ad you see is relevant to you then you are less likely to buy anything online at all.

musage 9y ago
Zero sum in the sense that in so far marketing engages in the arms race of pushing the buttons of consumers rather than focusing on the products and honest descriptions of them, that is at the cost of ads that don't do that. With any individual ad you make you have the choice to go one way or the other, like two poles on a spectrum. If you are 80% of the way towards one pole, you are 20% of the way towards the other, you know the distance from both by knowing the distance from one. > if no ad you see is relevant to you then you are less likely to buy anything online at all. Only if you don't actually need that type of product after all, so I'd consider that another plus.
strken 9y ago
There's an argument I've seen - no idea whether it's correct - that users acclimatise to new advertising technology and eventually regress back to the mean. I suppose this would mean that newer and more invasive ads cause a spike in consumer spending, which drops over time until the next innovation.
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  I've never seen someone make that argument for better targeting, which is what they're saying cookies enable. You're not going to acclimate to being more interested in the ads you're seeing.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The argument for better targeting is simple: targeting works (whether directly or just through being a novelty), and those who engage in it get ahead of those who don't. The argument for getting used to ads is mostly psychology/neuroscience.