zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. deely3+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-25 05:51:26
> Attribution is necessary for advertising to work at all.

Something strange. So, radio advertisement, billboards, video panels, and absolutely any other type of advertisement is a scam that exists for few decades and still going good?

replies(3): >>arghwh+lc >>hamand+1d >>K0nser+Gh
2. arghwh+lc[view] [source] 2023-07-25 07:43:49
>>deely3+(OP)
Those ads existed regardless of observers. The buyer of a billboard can go see that the ad is on the billboard, or that it plays on the radio.

This is quite different than the current design of online ads, where which ad to show is only decided when the ad loads and reloads.

Not that it matters that much - online ads are a total scam anyway. Particularly google's search ads, which 9 times out of 10 is just a copy of the first search result - but now in a version where they get money for the click.

replies(1): >>zo1+Tp
3. hamand+1d[view] [source] 2023-07-25 07:49:29
>>deely3+(OP)
Radio and TV have ratings and viewership estimations, billboards and video panels presumably have a knowable amount of vehicle/foot traffic. These things are independently verifiable to anyone so inclined.

When buying internet ad space, though, the information asymmetry is vastly different.

replies(1): >>deely3+gZ
4. K0nser+Gh[view] [source] 2023-07-25 08:33:22
>>deely3+(OP)
Not really so, I have a friend who did lots of complicated modelling to estimated the effectiveness of ads in the real world for the their job.
◧◩
5. zo1+Tp[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-25 09:50:48
>>arghwh+lc
So it's a conveniently self-imposed "problem", because websites could also just "sell adspace" like a billboard that anyone could confirm was displaying what was paid for. But instead of that, they created a problem of showing ads "dynamically" thereby necessitating the need to track users. Interesting.
replies(2): >>arghwh+IM >>warkda+Ut2
◧◩◪
6. arghwh+IM[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-25 12:50:55
>>zo1+Tp
Partly true - but it might also have been seen as a better way to utilize the "random" ad spaces available.

I do recall it being common for internet ads to be sold directly like billboards back in the day, before the action model took over, especially for higher value sites that could be likened to the prime real estate of a billboard on a city square or key highway with their guaranteed literal traffic.

But such direct deals probably didn't scale well, and definitely left smaller sites wanting to earn some extra revenue in the dust. There was a time when ads weren't as shit as they are now - most wouldn't worry about a banner ad or two on their favorite forum.

◧◩
7. deely3+gZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-25 13:55:36
>>hamand+1d
As far as I understand nothing prevent us from introducing independent verification for online ads?
replies(1): >>hamand+G66
◧◩◪
8. warkda+Ut2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-25 19:25:21
>>zo1+Tp
How would you, the ad buyer, confirm that the websites are really showing your ads to all, not just to you?
replies(1): >>deely3+G16
◧◩◪◨
9. deely3+G16[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 17:37:38
>>warkda+Ut2
By verifying it using public resources?

I agree that it convenient to be able to see each ad information, but that doesn't mean that it should be this way.

◧◩◪
10. hamand+G66[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 17:52:49
>>deely3+gZ
How? Sure, you can go look for yourself, but that will never tell you if the other million users are seeing the same ad.
[go to top]