I know Twitter isn't known for being the best at advertising, but it was made exceptionally clear to me that online advertising is a massive bunch of lies when I did my GDPR Twitter data export and it included me in a bunch of incorrect, non-sensical and contradictory ad targeting groups.
Twitter claims I:
* Own a cat, dog and other animal (I don't)
* Have between $100k- $999k liquid investible assets (I don't)
* Have a net worth between $1 and $1m (cool - I own *something*)
* Am highly affluent (/shrug)
* Am a high spender (okay...)
* Am a frugal spender (...but how can I be both a high spender AND frugal)
* Own a house (I don't)
* Have multiple families (I don't)
This is expected. It's not desirable, but it is expected.
The problem is your comparing it to an absolute. I.e. to perfect.
If advertisers had that choice, they would love it. They generally don't. Remarketing is kinda close, but limits the scale.
Rather, the only other scalable options are far worse. Think about it. What are the marketers other choices?
The one that should come to mind, and the one they spend most of their money: TV.
With TV you pick up a huge amount of waste. Say you buy a spot on Big Bang because you want people thinking of buying a new iPhone. Not a big stretch, right? At the same time thinking of all the other people they have to buy, who watch the ad, and aren't buying an iPhone. It's waste.
And that waste is huge relative to what you're talking about above.
So you're asking the wrong question here. It's not how good is the targeting in terms of precision/recall. The question is what's better?
The waste here is generally known & its priced accordingly.
> I was very disappointed that the Google and Facebook data exports don't contain this data.
It's in my Facebook export. Under "Information About You" did you uncheck "Ads"?
That's where the information is contained & it's checked by default.
You can also view it here for both FB & Google, as well as opt of both:
Is it really worse than "this article is about X, Y is related, let's show some ads for Y"?
I bet from the point of view of the advertisement middlemen it is not. Because they capitalize mostly on showing ads of products that people already decided to buy or are very near deciding. But that is yet another racquet that only decreases the value of the industry. My question is, from the point of view of the real advertisers (the ones selling something), is it really worse?
So you'll end up having to try to monetize something that has little no no related things that are profitable to advertise.
Advertise on a tech site, 80+% will be interested in tech.
Advertise on a dog community site is probably pretty spot on if you want to target dog owners...
Far better than what, 5% ? This isn't rocket science, we sold everyones integrity for pennies.
> who watch the ad, and aren't buying an iPhone. It's waste.
No, advertisements like that are more about selling the brand than selling iphones. Something TV is probably pretty good for.
That would probably target dog enthusiasts or dog hobbyists or dog fanatics, which are all subsets of dog owners.
I think that one of the things that makes social media ad targeting so attractive to advertisers is that they can target the dog owners, instead of just the enthusiasts/hobbyists/fanatics.
Big brands struggle with UGC. Witness the events of YouTube & brand safety.
But even without that, what you're saying just isn't scalable. What community site can reach even 50% of dog owners -- let alone what a primtetime sitcom or YouTube can reach?
> No, advertisements like that are more about selling the brand than selling iphones. Something TV is probably pretty good for.
What? Sure, they have campaigns running for awareness, recall, perception.
But you're really saying Apple doesn't dramatically increase its spend when a new phone is released? That's poppycock.
> But you're really saying Apple doesn't dramatically increase its spend when a new phone is released? That's poppycock.
When is the best time to sell the brand? When your flagship is a year old and still costs as much as on launch day and when the competition has surpassed you? Hardly.
If you buy ads, you want them displayed to the non-fanatics that is not influenced by experience and vulnerable to brand exposure.
But the only one who cares is the middleman. They are the only ones that benefit from the scale.
Give me a list of dog community site to target 1 millions dog owners.
Now tell me how expensive it would be to show ads on theses websites.
Plenty of dog owners are on Facebook, much easier to target 1 millions dog owner there instead.
Did I forget to mentions that it's for a dog shop in Montreal? Good luck!
Again, I guess this is because Twitter sucks at advertising.
All the things FB has done to extract things like resturant data etc are product development they undertook. Twitter spent 10 years moving form 140 characters to 280 instead.
There is no reason why Twitter couldn't have done the same 5 years ago. And no reason that they can't do it now.
(Also people are just as likely to follow and talk about things like tv shows and music and politics on Twitter as FB)
IOW, Twitter followers may be total strangers to many IRL, unlike Facebook followers.
I think advertisers have been chasing a chimera via targeting, because not only doesn't it work well, but there is a trade-off to maintaining a brand.
I try to buy quality goods because cheap stuff doesn't last. That means spending more up front to spend less in the long run. So frugal, but also maybe high spender?
My mom always says: if you're poor, you can't afford to buy cheap.
I don't think they pay off long term, at least it seems heavily dependent on the product type. That's because we are playing a lottery game, even if this product breaks in 0.1% cases vs 5% cases for a much cheaper product, we're not buying large numbers of them, we're buying just one and while the probability to break on me is smaller it can still happen and the monetary loss would be much larger than if I were to buy the cheaper product. That is, the warranty doesn't scale with the price (the expensive top quality TV is $2000 and the cheaper one is $500 and both have 1 year of warranty), for the same money I can buy 4 of those $500 TVs and would last at least 4 years (but very likely to find at least one that will work much longer, since I'm buying up to 4 of them).
* Your age bracket;
* The fact that your net worth is positive (not deep in debt);
* Whether you live in a city / suburb / countryside;
* Which part of country is that;
* Your gender;
* Your race / ethnicity, broadly?
* Yes, but the age bracket for me is _very_ wide (it says "alive and not in need of new knees yet probably", but not much more)
* They didn't have this info
* This was wrong
* No, they didn't have this (although the country itself was correct)
* They did not have this
It's a bubble!
I think it is an intentional stretching the interests way to far to look better for advertisers.
In more details:
Maybe it was all the clicking on CafeMom.com (mommy blog with tons of trackers and ads) while I was testing the Pi-Hole set up. :-)
Facebook has it available, if not in their Download Your Information tool. Go to Settings -> Ads -> Your Information -> Categories.
But interesting page. Looking at the "advertisers who have added your details to their targeting list" it again shows how bullshit this industry is:
* Playstation in 19 countries
* Musicians which I definitely don't listen to, like Keith Urban, Post Malone, Jack White, YBN Nahmir, and Ziggy Marley, whoever these people are.
* Pages like "Top Kickstarter Watches" and "Top Kickstarter Inventions"
* A bunch of restaurants that I've never been to, but are in the same complex that I used to live in (thanks whoever sold/'shared' my email, literally probably my former real estate agent)
I also see a lot of PlayStation related ads on my news feed... I haven't used a PlayStation since I got an Xbox one!
Also, one can be high spender and frugal. A person who buy one pair of very expensive shoes and wear them for 10 years rather than buying 10 pairs of inexpensive ones would be such person.
Facebook does have demographics and targeting data. Go to Setting -> Ads -> Your Information -> Your Categories. I haven't found a way to export it.
On the categorization side, Facebook does a half decent job considering I don't upload anything on FB or any other sister sites.
Twitter on the other hand might be running algorithm which tries to extrapolate too much from the available data.
Twitter is just entirely incompetent at everything, so no surprise they get their advertising product wrong too.
The fact that you choose to purchase certain items over other equally suitable items is largely because of advertising.