CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads. So likely the publishers will increase the number of ads per page to maintain the same eCPM yield. Also the ads will optimize for top of the funnel (clicks) than bottom (conversion). So we will start to see aggressive & intrusive ads. (remember the "punch the monkey" ads from the early 2000s?)
> CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads.
Only because they're viewed. If we can get everyone to install an ad blocker, that price will plummet, and business models that aren't based on abusing users will be allowed to succeed.
This means that the only way to make money is via subscriptions or cross promoting something that makes you the real money. The walled gardens, being able to both avoid Adblock and sell targeted ads, will do quite well.
If your goal is the open web of yore, that doesn’t exactly sound like a win.
How do you think web rings worked exactly? Before SEO, you'd land on some person with a niche interest's page who'd generally know of someone else in that niche space. Those two would link to one another, effectively syndicating each other.
It wasn't until everyone started fighting SEO-wise that you ran into the issue of fraud pages of nothing but links and sketchy ads that were the byproduct of reverse engineering Google's PageRank algorithm of the time. In fact, before SEO, there really wasn't that much of a niche for "Social Media" proper. A creator's web page and web ring were basically the social networks of the time, and arguably much less addictive or prone to scraping in the sense most back and forth was BBS/IRC/Email/Forum.
I remember the first time I overheard someone pitching SEO while eating lunch with the lunch pool from the office. If I were more the type to barge in at that time I'd have called them out as the fool they were being for corrupting a seachable index. Little was I expecting at the time that engineering indexes was the New Big Business and that the Web I knew was in the process of being obliterated and replaced with the shark infested botnet and data hoard-i-tron we have today.
Imagine a world without ubiquitous IP geolocation. One without rampant browser fingerprinting. Without everyone and their brother wanting you to subscribe for a recurring revenue stream. Without widespread collusion amongst industry actors to embed DRM circuitry or backdoors into every General Purpose piece of hardware under the sun.
It was a completely different world and tone to computing. It was your tool, and it was there to empower you; not to shovel crap through your bloody hardware whether you wanted it or not.
Examples of walled gardens that many people use are Instagram, FB, even Reddit to some extent which hamstring their mobile sites and push you to an app.
I couldn't get out of all these either but I keep them strictly separated in Firefox tab containers. I think it works because Facebook always suggests friends to me whom I don't know at all, and its ads have no relevance to me (only to the 1 or 2 topics I use FB for).
I'm still not convinced that's a bad thing. Does this not ensure profitable sites will be around because they provide enough value to their users to charge a fee, everything else will be stuff like passion projects.
I really just feel that 1. Advertising is manipulative and evil in its' modern form, and 2. Targeting further multiplies its' ability to do evil.
I'm not convinced that what we receive in exchange for empowering 1 and 2 is in any way worth it.
That is only true because targeted ads are possible.
In a world where there is no targeted ads, companies still need to get clients and compete. The marketing budgets of companies would not miraculously go down if targeted ads ceased to exist, the money would just go to other means, and non targeted ads are a very good candidate (also they can be extremely hard to block as they can be served first party if needed)
> The marketing budgets of companies would not miraculously go down if targeted ads ceased to exist
If marketing returns drop, all other things being equal, budgets being cut is the natural consequence, because less spending will be possible before declining marginal returns result in negative net returns to further spending.
Yes. TV advertising is actually much more targeted than web advertising. (In the sense than TV advertisers know precisely their target audience and its response.)
The various annoying remarketing schemes are a tiny part of advertising technology and really only exist because of the well-meaning but poorly thought-out ideas about privacy on the web.
Most of the internet ads are direct response. As long as companies get back more than they spend they keep spending. So there is no set "budget". If direct response goes away there is not enough brand budget to buy all the ad impressions so the prices go down a lot.
Is content-based targeting really so much less effective than user-based, or is this more of an arms race between ad providers where even a small difference gives them a large edge? Youtube doesn't need to know someone is a snowboarder in order to show them snowboarding-related ads. They can just show those ads on snowboarding videos and they don't need to invade the user's privacy to do that. The targeting is not as accurate, but it's how ads have basically always worked, how they worked on the internet before the ad networks and tracking, and how they still work in other media.
But does the money go to the publisher? I’ve read somewhere that most of it (like 90%) goes to the ad tech middlemen. If the ad does not track, there is no ad tech, so more money goes to the publisher.
