
Tackling the Internet’s Central Villain: The Advertising Business - walterbell
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/technology/internet-advertising-business.html
======
wallacoloo
I find movements like "responsible ads" or Adblock Plus's "acceptable ads" to
be totally missing the point. Ads are, _by design_ , intended to manipulate
you. Most of us don't tolerate people or things that so blatantly manipulate
us in the physical realm. If a salesman comes to my door unprompted, I'm
perfectly happy to cut him off mid-sentence by closing the door. When he tries
to sell something to my grandmother that she doesn't want or need over the
phone, _I have a right to be angry at him for trying to manipulate someone I
love_.

How is it that so many people agree with me here, but then eagerly _defend_
online advertisers' rights to manipulate them? They claim that so long as the
ads are unobtrusive, then no problem - even though the ads still have the same
goal in the end. These people _want_ to be manipulated. How is any of this
rationalized?

~~~
jacquesm
What is even more disturbing is that people in general have only a fraction of
an idea of what is going on behind the scenes. It is _much_ worse than most of
you think it is.

~~~
book_mentioned
Can you point to more details available publicly? (Do you have time to flesh
this out a bit?)

~~~
jacquesm
You could do worse than to start with reading the open exchange spec, that
should give you an idea of what's happening under water.

------
aplorbust
Internet not same as web. Public web is just one type of internet usage.
Almost all ads are on web, triggered from web or html email, leaving rest of
internet ad-free. Certainly there are incumbents who want users to think
internet and web are synonymous.

Radio and TV were "passive" mediums where broadcasters were in control and
audiences passively consumed what was offered. Ads were included. Web has
traditionally been more interactive. Users had control of what to consume and
when, through specific, focused (HTTP) requests.

 _No web user intentionally requests ads._ Think about this.

The user requests a specific resource.

Then how is advertising being "included"?

Answer: Popular web browsers load resources (ads) automatically, by default.
Requests for ads are made by the browser, not the user. Companies that sell
ads write these browsers and try to dominate the "browser market". Other web
browsers (that might avoid loading ads) are discouraged. Web developers take
advantage of the popular browsers written by ad sales companies to manipulate
the pages users request, filling them with ads.

Going back into the history of the www and browsers, the intent of auto-
loading resources may have originally had nothing to do with advertising. But
today, it has _everything_ to do with advertising (and tracking).

------
RestlessMind
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, digital adtech seems to
have gone too far with intrusive tracking, micro targeting, shitty user
experience etc.

On the other hand, users have revealed their preference again and again in
favor of ad-supported free services (see relative unpopularity of Patreon,
Youtube Red etc). Users benefit a lot from free search, emails, messaging,
video communication, maps and other services. How many would be willing to pay
for these services? Based on my industry experience, a very small slice of the
global internet population (though I'd be very happy to be proven wrong).

Finally, I am hesitant to root for government intervention. While regulations
are great in some cases (eg. EPA, CDC etc), I just fear regulations for
internet companies would end up hurting small players and would entrench
oligopolies of Google, Facebook et al (eg. German regulations about online
news ended up benefiting Google News and hurting smaller players, or "right to
be forgotten" in EU, while good in intentions, has just set up another barrier
to entry for a new search engine).

------
prostoalex
> cheap and effective persuasion machine is also available to anyone with
> nefarious ends

In theory, once it’s discovered to be persuasive, then it’s no longer cheap,
as advertisers start bidding up the limited inventory.

~~~
jacquesm
There is no shortage of inventory. Unless you are going for some obscure
niche, if all you want is to reach people en masse there are plenty of
channels to do so cheaply. It is targeted advertising that can get expensive.

~~~
prostoalex
The recipient attention is still scarce. The article throws out numbers like
“were seen by nearly 150 million Americans” without elaborating on
interactions, conversions or retention rate. Feels like we’re back to inflated
extrapolated audience numbers of billboards and TV networks.

------
cerved
This article has some relevant points but it exaggerates the effectiveness of
online adverting. Generic display ads have a CTR of 0.05%. With good targeting
it's bumped up to 0.1-0.2%. Newsfeed is somewhat stronger in the 0.5-2% range.

There are issues with online advertising that need to be addressed but let's
not pretend it's some sort of supremely effective form of manipulation.

------
dzink
The advertising system is really bad on all three sides. For users it’s
obviously spammy and scammy.

For content creators there is absolutely no incentive to be accurate and sell
on performance if you are writing your own content (most content ads just
don’t perform that well), and even worse so - the way you write content and
the content you choose to write is heavily influenced by google keywords and
algorithms, instead of usefulness. Even if you take the time to do quality
content the algorithms flush you down as soon as automatically generated bad
content looks more recent.

For ad networks the volume of fake clicks and redirects flushes any decency
left - they make money when advertisers see this as a casino with variable
rewards based on your luck or presumed skill more than a store where you buy
results. Advertisers are left to swim in this and experiment while paying for
their assumptions. They don’t know what actually works, overpay for fake
clicks, and have a constant toll on their business because even if they
perform better for customers, those who play the casino games still get the
top placement.

Google and facebook and anyone who is upstream in the user attention game
(Apple and Android for example)can collect rent on anyone who has a business
in a competitive industry or has a consumer reach not viral enough to be used
and remembered daily.

The system is not going to change on its own.

The change will come from a better system for consumers that doesn’t monetize
attention and doesn’t charge per use and one is coming. Facebook and Google
are too dependent on advertising and will not be able to switch fast enough to
keep their investors. Their increasingly worsening experience will eventually
be overthrown by a much better one for users.

I have been iterating and digging deep into alternatives. Ping me if you are
working on this problem.

~~~
isolli
The fact that you are not willing to share a single element of your
revolutionary alternative makes me slightly suspicious...

------
jcoffland
The problem with regulating current ad systems is that we are asking company's
like Facebook and Google to act as censors, deciding what is acceptable and
what is not. Crypto-currencies and the IRA are out but ask-your-doctor drug
ads and fast food are in. Corporations are not the people to decide this for
the rest of society.

I believe any form of advertising where the recipient has not specifically
chosen to view the ad should be considered a rights violation and banned. This
would force advertisers to produce ads people wanted to watch. It would also
put an end to billboards, TV commercials, banner ads and most kinds of inline
ads. Basically everything that is currently foisted upon us against our will.
This would be a radical change but it is the only change that could solve the
problems we currently face with advertising today.

------
imron
I'd just rather be done with advertising on the web completely. Bring on
Brave's Basic Attention Token.

~~~
DoreenMichele
So, blockchain advertising? This is a fix?

I'm a blogger. Everyone bitches about ads, but removing ads did not cause an
uptick in tips. I later added Patreon.

Ads are the magic that allow services to be given away for free to people who
have zero willingness to pay for said services. The bills need to be paid
somehow. Working for free doesn't keep people fed.

I am still trying to figure out how to provide quality content that I think is
meaningful and also monetize it. I would prefer to remove ads from my sites.
But I am really sick of being poor, which no one has any sympathy whatsoever
for, and every single time these discussions come up on HN, the overwhelming
consensus is that people hate ads but are simply not willing to support
content providers.

So if I can figure out how to get enough traffic to get ad money rolling in,
but can't figure out some other effective monetization scheme, I will go with
that and not lose any sleep. Because I have been told for years that people
_value_ what I do, but, no, they don't want to _pay me._ And I am sick of
that.

~~~
blub
It could be that your blog content is of high quality, interesting and yet is
worth no money at all. Some things just can't be "monetized".

I can't think of any blog that I would pay to read... I pay for books.

~~~
DoreenMichele
So, another convenient justification for not supporting internet content while
absolutely consuming it regularly.

How novel.

/s

~~~
blub
Well, you asked and I've answered.

Like I said in another reply, I pay for what I value, but there is no
guarantee that what I value includes a specific blog or website.

Yes, maybe I'll read it and certainly I will block ads and tracking, because I
don't like spyware nor malware. And if the content creator decides to block me
or disappears I will read something else. Maybe if they had an easy way for me
to pay them per article I would do it, but there is currently no such easy way
that I know of. If my browser allowed me to pay websites somehow it would be
ideal (and also a security nightmare).

It may be harsh, but that's how it is. When I publish stuff I just give it
away, I know I am somewhat privileged to be able to do this, however I see it
as giving back to society in a small way.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_Maybe if they had an easy way for me to pay them per article I would do it,
but there is currently no such easy way that I know of._

That's what I keep hearing over and over. And that's why I created a PayPal
tip jar and wrote up instructions for other people to follow. Most people have
PayPal and you can leave as little as a dollar.

It hasn't magically transformed my income and no one seems interested in
adopting it.

Everyone talks about wanting micro payments of less than a dollar and
something that is less hassle than paying a tip via PayPal. I am at a point
where I genuinely believe this is just an excuse and, no, they absolutely
don't want to support it.

The HN crowd in particular tends to make good money. They could afford to kick
in a few bucks. My impression from web traffic is they use ad blockers at a
very high percentage and their position is always that writers can write for
free, simply to express themselves.

This is a form of classism. Developers generally have comfortable incomes. If
they blog, it is to express themselves and possibly enhance their professional
life and make them more employable.

I consistently hear that writers just basically should do it for free. That is
the very definition of slave labor. This same crowd has nothing but terrible
things to say about content mills, one of the few ways a writer can get paid
for their writing consistently.

~~~
blub
To put it bluntly, online content creation is not a feasible income source. As
you've discovered, ad-free content is almost impossible to sell. Ad-based
content has a too big social cost, which we're only now starting to talk
about.

Society should support everyone to live a dignified life, and have a decent
income. It shouldn't leave them to fight for an income and make deals with the
devil to get it.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I don't think UBI makes sense. I also think positing that as the answer is
essentially another dodge because it is some hand wavy imagined future, not
something we can really act on in the here and now.

Ads are paying the bills now. We don't like where that has taken us. But most
people don't want to address the issue in the here and now of how else to
cover the bills if not via ads.

Every single discussion I have seen of this issue boils down to:

1\. People want ads to go away.

2\. They still want content to be free.

3\. Content producers need to eat? Oh, well, not my problem. Sucks to be you.

~~~
blub
1\. Yes, ads need to go.

2\. It doesn't matter much what people want, but what the new reality absent
ads will be: there will be enough free content done by people who do it for
the fun of it, as is the case now. Highest quality stuff will be available for
pay, with some exceptions. Any other content will either disappear or be made
free - the potential customers have decided it's not worthwhile enough to pay
for it. I do not see any problem with the above, the human race doesn't suffer
from a lack of digital content. It's a minor issue, that's on reason why
people don't pay for it.

3\. No one should have their living depend on creating stuff online, this is a
major social failure. We, individual members of society pay our taxes so that
everyone has some degree of social support; some of those taxes will be used
to help out people in need until they get back on their feet and get a job.

Ad-supported content creator is not a job, it is an accidental revenue stream
that will likely disappear.

UBI could be a solution, but that's not what I had in mind: affordable state-
supported medical care, financial support for the unemployed, retraining and
trainings paid by the unemployment office. This is reality right now in some
European countries and it could be possible in the US.

~~~
DoreenMichele
The internet exists. It takes work to keep it going. To some extent, even
developer salaries are paid for by ad money. Google employs a lot of
developers. Google makes most of its money via ads. Those developers are being
paid via ad revenue.

This is not just small mom and pop shops and it is not just content creators.
Acting like content creators _need to get a real job_ completely overlooks how
big the internet is, how many real jobs are involved in its ongoing existence
and that a large portion of that is supported via ad revenue.

Facebook is supported with ad revenue. It's a large company. You may think it
sucks, but it employs many coders, it isn't likely to go anywhere any time
soon and it is ad supported.

~~~
blub
The internet existed before ads and will continue to exist after they gone,
likely in a nicer form.

If the googles, facebooks and other ad companies would disappear over night,
the world will be fine.

Humanity is not obliged to support any particular company or business model.
Those google and fb employees will likewise be fine, I hear there's always
complaints in the US about a lack of qualified engineers...

