all 68 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 59 points 23 hours ago* (10 children)

Fortnine actually made a video explaining how Google's ads are a scam.

In a nutshell, they don't convince people to buy things. They predict that someone is about to buy something, shows ads for it and then take credit for the purchase.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

    A coworker scrolling mentioned double stuffed Oreos, something she hadn’t had in a while. Boom, next ad: double stuffed Oreos. “They” really are listening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 15 hours ago

    I had a phone call with a friend of mine, who told me that a person we both knew had lupus. We talked about it for a minute or two, because I’d only heard about it on house and didn’t know what it involved. Starting that afternoon, I got ads for lupus for about two weeks. I know I hadn’t received those ads before because I play a word game for which “lupus” is a really useful word, and I had not seen its spelling before then.

    This was about 15 years ago. It could be a coincidence (but I’m not the age or race most predisposed to lupus), but I’ve been a believer in phones listening to you since.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (2 children)

    That isn't how it works, listening to conversations would need too much bandwidth or processing power to be useful.

    More likely that whatever prompted your coworker to think about those cookies also triggered the ad.

    Or they have been getting those ads without thinking twice about them until they noticed when they were thinking about them.

    Or it is just plain coincidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 58 minutes ago (1 child)

    Nope. I worked as a marketing director before I remembered that I have a soul. A radio advertising rep tried to sell me passive listening ads.

    According to that rep selling this service, it worked like this: All of these devices, including your phone, passively listen for keywords that get repeated frequently enough in a short enough window. They feed those words back to the mothership. An ad is then delivered across all ID associated devices targeted toward that keyword. This process is delivering an ad within 45 minutes.

    For example, you talk about needing a new tent, you're gonna say tent and camping a few times in that convo. Camping/tent get beamed up. Within 45 minutes, you're seeing tent/camping ads in your apps and on websites across all of your devices because of your advertising ID.

    It is not coincidence. They are literally selling this feature to their clients.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 45 minutes ago*

    Yep. Guy I know cut off his finger using a table saw. They were able to sew it back on, and he was fine. But while he was recovering in the ER, his phone was served up ads for Sawstops (for those who aren’t into woodworking, these are table saws with advanced safety features that would have prevented this injury).

    At that point he hadn’t even typed in on his phone yet what happened, but obviously people (himself, doctors, nurses, intake folks, etc) had been discussing the accident around him for hours at that point. It was pretty obvious that on some level his phone was listening to what was talked about. This was in 2012…

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

    The actual truth is the people paying for ads are rubes.

    When it came out that Facebook’s “pivot to video” numbers were all fake nobody batted an eye. Marketing departments have failed to apply any statistical rigour for decades and all fall prey to the the idea that if you target ads well enough they work.

    If you even have a marketing department they exist to spend money, so as long as they have charts and graphs they’ll ignore the users and keep asking for budget.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Read a great article by a guy who was questioned as to why the company's advertising spend wasn't resulting in sales. He had the IT chops to dig in, found 77% of "clicks" were bots. He laid out his testing and results very nicely.

    I am amazed that companies keep throwing money at internet advertising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 17 hours ago

    Yup. It's human storage in pointless jobs doing feckless shit to justify those jobs. They'll pump the numbers (and/or blame other teams on any flagging sales) in an endless cycle of bullshit. Marketing works strongest internally at most companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

    My dad asked me the other day if I had seen some commercial for something and I was like "I block ads on the net and don't watch regular TV. How would I have seen it?"

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

    I'm happy to not be able to relate to someone wanting to talk about an ad. Especially if the focus of the conversation isn't on how annoying ads are. I get that they can sometimes be funny or clever or whatever but that just isn't a facet of humanity that I care to celebrate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 17 hours ago (1 child)

    I had a teacher in middle school that told our class how he liked to watch the Super Bowl "for the ads." I thought that was silly then, and I still think that's silly now.

    I know - companies throw money at the ads they'll air at that time, and I suppose some people consider the results to be acceptable entertainment. But to me, ads are still ads. Fuck 'em all, even the fancy, expensive ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago

    I don't even see the ads I see. If an email or text message looks like an ad then I'm probably not reading it either. Nonstop spam ads caused me to be this way. I sure as sh*t am never clicking on an ad to buy anything. I don't think I have ever clicked on an ad and bought something through the ad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    When did advertising become so evil? It's always been there, but today it's ridiculous. Even the targeted ads are useless.

    Imagine if all these companies spending billions on vast networks of advertising actually used that money and energy on something, anything, useful. This meme is on point.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 19 hours ago (1 child)

    He’s not fully responsible by any means, but the impact Edward Bernays had on modern advertising and public relations is rather profound. It’s gotten more evil in the past couple decades, but it’s always been a force for coercion and manipulation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 19 hours ago

    You have to remember that the people in charge of advertising spend are c-suite executives, and c-suite executives are the absolutely dumbest rung of society. Invasive advertising makes them feel important, and nothing else in the world matters more than their feelings.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

    I do those Google survey things for Google Play money.

    Google, the biggest spyware company ever to exist.

    99/100 of the things it sends are "Have you been to any of these places recently", and none of them are even in my state.

    I don't understand. You have my location. Why are you asking me about shit in Texas?

    In the end I get a dime for my time and sometimes I spend it on some game.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

    look there's this HEB with a sushi bar, tortilla press, and a bakery twice the size of the largest house i've lived in.

    have you been there? fresh tortillas = best tortillas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    Advertising is a perk

    Control is the goal

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 18 hours ago

    I agree that that is the goal, but also think that the control was much tighter before the internet. When all the information was centrally broadcast and curated. Now they may create a more personalized control feed, but I can still go outside of the feed. Until that is closed too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 22 hours ago

    When your generation isn't advertised to anymore, it's a strange feeling. My uncle who is in the boomer range, they stopped advertising to them and he and my aunt really took it hard. Like I said, it's a weird thing to go through.

    When they stopped advertising to my generation when I was early 20s, I watched them start trying again around the late 20s. I was kind of in the fuck you phase at that point.

    My point is, if you're in a booming type generation, you probably don't know what it's like to have no advertising towards you anywhere. Some generations, no one cares what you think.

    Note: Not a bad thing to be not advertised to, but it's a shock when it happens. You realize how much of it is out there.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Imagine if you and a friend entered a large, empty cafeteria, got your meal, sat down, and started eating. It would be so quiet your voices would echo. Then two more people come in and do the same thing. They start talking and it gets just a little bit more difficult to hear your conversation, so you and your friend start talking louder. Then more and more people come in start talking and the background noise gets louder than the foreground sound until you need to wear earplugs just to hear yourself chew.

    That is the state of advertising. If only one player in a market advertised, they might derive some advantage but now people have to pay advertisers to scream the name of their product just because their competition does and no one can even hear the name of the product because everyone is screaming.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago)

    This, and coupled with the fact that businesses cross state and international lines. They’re not just competing with local businesses (which get drowned out in the noise created by the volume of money spent by big business) but they’re competing sometimes with national and international businesses. So 50 years ago you probably had to put up with mostly local stuff but maybe a national business like a car maker or airline, now it’s everyone that can do business where you live or might be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 hour ago

    If it ever comes to pass that I can't learn or figure out a way to block ads, I'll stop visiting sites that show ads. Obviously, that will severely limit my choices, but probably that's a good thing.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

    I play this single player mobile football game that has pop up ads. I just turn off the wifi when play instead of paying 5 bucks to remove ads.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    This is true, but it I can't escape the fear that it is far more fragile than we realize. What happens when they start coming after adblockers harder?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 23 hours ago

    More like precisely targeted ads of stuff I've already bought and don't care about anymore...

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 51 minutes ago

    They've basically dismantled society so Amazon can think I'm some kind of toilet seat and/or chainsaw collector. Clown shit.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

    They wouldn't waste money on ads if they didn't work enough to at least break even on them. They work. People with adblockers or who do not click on ads are not the norm. Not that I like this, but here we are.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    I'm no longer convinced by this line of reasoning. They wouldn't waste money on meetings if they didn't break even. They wouldn't waste money on physical offices if they didn't break even. They wouldn't use chat bots if they didn't break even.

    What we have isn't an efficient rational market. It's just a bunch of superstitions from business school.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 54 minutes ago

    They just raise prices to compensate for the advertising budget. Sounds easy to justify when you make the assumption that reaching more people would generate more return. Perversely customers wind up paying more for the very thing that pays for the ads that get shoved in their faces.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 56 minutes ago

    Somewhere along the path from the boardroom to the consumer's eyes, advertising still works. If they stop advertising, they sell less, that's a metric they can measure and I'm sure they do, or at least have. Exactly how it works may be more art than science and not as well understood as they like to claim, but the numbers don't lie.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 hour ago

    Actually, data suggests that over 50% of internet users are using some kind of adblockers. Looking at ads is absolutely “not the norm.” Using adblock software just makes one part of the largest consumer boycott in history.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 23 hours ago (10 children)

    I don’t own a smart tv. I have no streaming services. I use Firefox with Ublock. I have an ad block on the one game app I play (Scrabble). If a podcast tries to play an ad I will drop everything to hard focus on the phone and hit the ff until it’s back. I don’t even have an Amazon sub. What do they hope to accomplish?

    Granted, I’ve done some home maintenance for a relative and there’s zero effort there to avoid ads. Not even a mute as they play YouTube ads via their smartTV. So, maybe that’s everyone else.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    That is most everyone else.

    You'd be surprised how few people go even slightly out of their way to avoid ADs.

    ... And it makes sense we're the minority, cause if we weren't I guarantee you the industry would be much more rabid in stopping us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

    If a podcast tries to play an ad I will drop everything to hard focus on the phone and hit the ff until it’s back.

    I decided to try getting into podcasts the other day. I started listening to one, hit an ad, and immediately shut it off.

    Until I figure out how to get some kind of "SponsorBlock for podcasts" (I looked into it a little, but the solutions all seemed to involve a selfhosted middleman instead of something built directly into an app on my phone), no podcasts for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago (3 children)

    I don’t think it’s possible. Trevor Noah reads his own ads, how do you block that? Stewart, reads his own ads. Others, like Behind the Bastards, straight commercials. It’s pretty common.

    For now, audiobooks are clean. The library is clean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    I don’t think it’s possible.

    Do you know what SponsorBlock is? It's a thing that crowdsources identifying the embedded ads in Youtube videos and manually marking them to be skipped over.

    The solutions I found are literally "SponsorBlock, but for podcasts" -- either by using Youtube Sponsorblock to remove the embedded ads from the Youtube copy of the podcast and then repackaging it in an RSS feed for your podcast app to download, or by forking SponsorBlock and running it against Spotify instead of Youtube.

    potential solution why I rejected it
    Pinchflat+Sponsorblock (https://lemmy.world/post/30510539) requries a selfhosted service separate from the podcast app
    https://github.com/ericmedina024/podcast-sponsor-block requries a selfhosted service separate from the podcast app
    https://spotsponsorblock.org/about/ browser extension for use with spotify.com, not an app

    Basically, I'm holding out until I can get Sponsorblock integrated directly into AntennaPod (or some other podcast app available from F-Droid).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (1 child)

    I’m guessing it’s a paid sub? I use ublock for free, on Mozilla, and that deals with YouTube.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 13 hours ago*

    "Paid sub?" What?

    No, uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock are both browser extensions (and both free in terms of cost and freedom). uBlock blocks the ads that YouTube inserts into the stream as separate files. SponsorBlock blocks the ads that the Youtubers themselves embed into the video before uploading. Even if the Youtuber is reading out a sponsor message himself without so much as a jump cut, SponsorBlock can block it as long as somebody else who saw the video before you marked the start and end timestamps. (It also lets users categorize what kind of segment it is, so it can skip self-promotion, intros, "like, comment, subscribe", etc.)

  • source
  • parent