What if we just got rid of digital advertising altogether in the US? How many issues of privacy, health and personal finance would disappear or be greatly reduced?
It's hard for me to imagine what that would look like or the downsides other than to the digital advertising industry itself.
Advertising plays an important role in the sale of digital goods and the physical sale of goods through digital means. It's the only way you can really drive traffic to unknown markets.
Without advertising You're going to be relying on YouTube videos or Google Play store or Apple store to get any sales. Any free online services would probably be a thing of the past. Small businesses would have trouble competing with larger entities can already put products in your face.
It's not impossible to remove digital advertising and replace it with something else but I'm pretty sure the something else would be worse than what we have already
Targeted advertising, which requires collecting personal information without people's knowledge, is what makes online advertising the absolute worst kind of advertising. That could be addressed on a way that could allow other less malicious forms to exist.
Opie did not say targeted advertising OP said get rid of all advertising I was responding to that
Yes, OP said all advertising. You mentioned the main problems with ditching all advertising. I added to the conversation with a poasible middle ground that addressed the worst parts.
You’re going to find that the appetite for un-targeted advertising to be much lower than that of targeted. The ROI for un-targeted blast is much lower than a smaller more focused targeted campaign.
As such, you’ll either see even more ads on the same content (in order to obtain similar level of revenue for the publisher), or, as the other user suggested, free ad supported service be a thing of the past.
Neither of which are good for the mass audience. People already aren’t willing to pay $1 to remove ads on most free ad supported apps, you’re going to find small businesses collapse left right and centre as result of the change.
That's fine. I will either continue to use adblockers, pay, or stop using the internet outside of what is required to function in society. I already refuse to use anything that has decided to go ad supported without the ability to block ads and has a price I'm not willing to pay.
If small (or large) businesses require the mass collection of personal information by malicious advertisers to exist, then they don't derserve to exist.
My prediction is different: I think that, in the long term, banning targetted ads will have almost no impact on the viability of ad-supported services, or the amount of ads per page.
Advertisement is an arms race; everyone needs to use the most efficient technique available, not just to increase their sales but to prevent them from decreasing - as your competitor using that technique will get the sales instead.
But once a certain technique is banned, you aren't the only one who can't use it; your competitors can't either.
And the price of the ad slot is intrinsically tied to that. When targetted ads were introduced, advertisers became less willing to pay for non-targetted ads; decreased demand led to lower prices, and thus lower revenue to people offering those ad slots on their pages, forcing those people to offer ad slots with targetted advertisement instead. Banning targetted ads will simply revert this process, placing the market value of non-targetted ad slots back where it used to be.
I go through significant efforts to block digital advertising at multiple levels. Yet, I do not find it difficult to discover new things to buy (from both small and large businesses).
For myself, I suspect most of that is supported through online communities related to my interests and hobbies. Those purchases feel more informed and often more intentional too.
That is a very well placed observation from a consumer standpoint. Now consider it from a flower shop in your neighborhood trying to compete with the grocery store and FTD.com
How are you going to get your foot traffic other than word of mouth and people seeing you in a stripmall?
Targeted digital ads let you get in front of people in your area. There are very very few local websites anymore.
I block most ads too, but there's no denying that occasionally on facebook, some semi-local brewpub goes hey, check out our new menu items and it turns out to be a win for them and for me.
Advertising is dicey, in a lot of cases, it's in the hands of the enemy but the economy, especially small business doesn't float without it.
The way I see it when it comes to physical ads I see them, I walk past, they're gone. Online targeted advertising is more like if there were a bunch of flying TV screens outside that constantly follow you around and try to take up 90% of your vision while you're trying to cross the road, and some stores become impossible to enter without an ad-blocker because the doorway is literally jammed with flying TVs.
We really need limits on how much advertising can be on the screen and places you can advertise and how often you can be advertised to that would make a hell of a lot of sense. When you have shitty web pages like an index card sized recipe drawn out to 15 pages long to make you click through tons of ads. The advertiser should be able to detect people doing that s*** and not pay them.
But targeted advertising is also a single ad on a social media site for a brew pub or a florist in your neighborhood advertising a mother's Day special or a new cheap arrangement they just made out of an accidental over-order.
When ads go wrong they really go wrong.
Don't threaten me with a good time
Not only that, but advertising pays the bills for the majority of websites. It's a necessary evil unless people want to pay every website host to see their content.
I'm not sure how true this perception is in more recent years. Many popular sites, with enormous traffic volumes that could drive digital impression ad revenue, are instead pushing subscriptions or other monetization models.
For instance, the New York Times makes — by far — more money on digital subscriptions than digital advertising. Digital advertising revenues are also declining for them.
Another example is Spotify, where ad revenue from their ad-supported tier did not cover their operational costs and now represents around only a tenth of their revenue compared to subscriptions.
The exceptions to this are generally search and social media sites, where the product for sale on these sites are the users themselves. They're just advertising platforms, which of course make their money from digital advertising.
So I'd say one issue with digital advertising is that it often does not pay the bills for the site owner. Its value is tied to its ability to convert visitors to buyers, but it has to be ramped up to such an extreme level it instead only creates bad experiences.
I should have phrased it, helps pay the bills. For the end user if you don't want to pay a monetary fee, then ads are the option. I would never go to some pages if I had to have a subscription to view content, and i assume many others wouldn't either. Ads, as gross as they are, keep the Internet running for now
No one is forced to use our advertising technologies – they choose to use them because they’re effective.
Like an antlion saying "ants aren't forced to fall into my trap! They choose to!".
Google's advertisement monopoly is directly associated with its other monopolies: browser monopoly, search, mobile OS, video sharing. It can use each of those monopolies to change the rules of the game ever slightly, to prevent competitors from entering or remaining into the market.
"You don't have to add ads to your webpage, but if you don't nobody will find you using our search engine"
They be making everyone "choose" to add their ads/trackers to their website
This will be interesting to watch and I’m not against it. I just wish they were investigating Royal Dutch Shell, Phillip Morris, Koch Industries, or Goldman Sachs with the same fervor. While Google has certainly done some evil, they aren’t even in my top 100 for evil actors that are exploiting us all to enrich themselves.
I'd argue they're in the top 2 or 3.
What they've done is far more insidious than anyone else - much of the world willingly gives everything about their lives to Google, who uses that information (and provides it to whoever they choose) in all sorts of ways.
We know they've given data to the police which has affected innocent people.
There's also a question about it's origin possibly being from the NSA, etc.
This poses as much a threat as anything, and yet most people are completely unaware (and even when they are aware they don't seem to mind because "convenience"), whereas most people have some awareness of the modern-day version of Dutch East Indies company, they just don't think they can do anything about it (unlike Google and the rest of FAANG)
"> driving out rivals, diminishing competition, inflating advertising costs, reducing revenues for news publishers and content creators, snuffing out innovation, and harming the exchange of information and ideas in the public sphere."
I feel like it is going to be hard to prove that Google's anti-competitive actions have inflated advertising costs. Also, did news publishers lose revenue because of Google or was it Craigslist and jobs sites that killed their classified business?
Google is definitely a monopoly and has acted badly, but proving the harm in this way is going to be tricky. The government should go after them for privacy, the place where they have clearly abused their relationship with the public. Google normalizing spying on users has created the data economy that has resulted in us being spied upon us all the time and having all of our personal data being leaked over and over again.
Don’t threaten us with a good time
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
