zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
Personalized advertising should never have been allowed without a specific opt-in.

I know lots of advertisers think they can't live without it --- because promoters have told them so.

>>jqpabc+X1
Best one I heard was people claiming products will be more expensive if personalized advertising is banned. Because then it’ll cost more to promote them.

>>mantas+A7
Interesting line of reasoning. :-)

That would imply, that (globally) we spent significantly [EDIT: remove -less-, insert:] more on advertising before the advent of personalized targeting.

>>repels+n9
Not necessarily, cost reductions can increase, decrease or have no effect the total expenditure on goods. The total effect is quite ambiguous depending on the income and substitution effects.

>>spaceb+cd
I agree. I've always heard "charge what the market will bear."

Why would a reduction in advertising costs equate to lower consumer pricing — if there's a better margin to be had instead?

>>aesh2X+Mk
Because for most products brand fidelity isn't keeping competition away. Higher than necessary margin does not last long in a competitive market.