zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
I know in HN there is a big "personalized advertising" is bad sentiment, but I don't get what the problem is.

I mean, if I am looking for a notebook, I rather have FB/IG (or Google or whatever), show me adds of a notebook that I might end up buying, instead of the generic poker/porn adds that we had on the beginning of the internet.

It is almost impossible to have a free internet without ads. So on one side, people want everything free, on the other side, we don't want ads, so there is a clear problem here.

Can someone explain to me what the problem is? Honest question. Thanks.

>>kwanbi+07
Ads are almost universally trying to convince you to do something you shouldn't do. At best, they will convince you to but a subpar product, at worst they'll convince you to buy a product you don't need at all.

Personalized ads are better at convincing you personally, so they are worse for you than random ads, or even than content-based ads. Additionally, they depend on building a detailed profile of you, which most people are fundamentally uncomfortable with when they are aware of.

>>tsimio+q9
That's entirely untrue. I'm a photographer (though I'm largely quitting after this year) and advertise on Facebook/Instagram. If someone was in my area and got newly engaged, they might see my ad. They probably need a wedding photographer, and they're only going to actually go with me if they like the look of my photos better than everyone else and my price is within their budget. Without advertising, they might not be exposed to my work and end up with someone that would take worse photos for them.

I also used to 'boost' my high school senior posts to other 16/17/18 year olds in whatever area they're from. Not only did that work as advertising for me, all of the likes that the images got from that probably really boosted the kid's self esteem. Within the past year they made it so that I can no longer target people under the age of 18 by area.

>>AuryGl+701
> They probably need a wedding photographer, and they're only going to actually go with me if they like the look of my photos better than everyone else and my price is within their budget. Without advertising, they might not be exposed to my work and end up with someone that would take worse photos for them.

Because you had the money to advertise, they wound up exposed to your photos; they liked them and they were able to afford you, so they booked you.

However, the cost of your services necessarily accounts for you spending money on advertising. Someone who doesn't advertise may have had the same quality and style of photography and a better price, but because of your advertising, the couple were tricked out of finding the best vendor. You distorted the wedding photography market in your area, and your customers actually got a worse deal than they maybe could have.

Or, perhaps you are actually the best photographer in your area, and no one else would have come close for that couple. You still lost money because you paid for advertising.

Even worse, someone who is worse than you at photography may come along with a huge advertising budget and become the only visible photographer in the area, scamming both you and the couple from a better deal.

If instead there had been some open local directory of wedding photographers, which may charge some fee for services but otherwise present all phtogorpahers neutrally, the couple would have still found the best deal, and you would have been able to either offer lower costs, or made higher profits.