Dutch national broadcaster saw ad revenue rise when it stopped tracking users

https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/03/stop_tracking_increase_revenue_effectiveness/

by paol • 6 years ago

349 156 6 years ago

smabie2• 6 years ago

Presumably because the ads are already hyper targeted, because the site is written in Dutch! Now imagine you run an English ad for say, a local micro brewery in LA. It's totally obvious that you don't want to waste money on people who don't drink, don't live in America, or are 12 years old.

Clearly there's significant diminishing returns to how specifically you target, but it's completely ridiculous to claim that untargeted ads are even a fraction as good.

Retric3• 6 years ago

It better for the people buying advertising is not the same thing as better for people selling advertising.

amadeuspagel2• 6 years ago

Yes it is. The people selling advertising aren't stupid.

mfontani• 6 years ago

I think the implication is that using the context of the page to serve ads to users (i.e. you're reading an article on beer, so I'm serving you an ad about beers) is better than using context about the user to serve ads (i.e. you're reading an article about beers, and I'm serving you ads about that one item you've searched on Amazon last week).

aequitas2• 6 years ago

and I'm serving you ads about that one item you've searched on Amazon last week)

As a side note, Amazon is not that big yet in the Netherlands so it would probably be something searched on Bol.com.

The problem I'm having with ads nowadays, besides that they are indeed often out of context, is that they are far to late and outdated. Because most times advertisements for a product start to appear when I already bought said item. So for me if they do tracing in a sense I'd rather have them double down on it and provide real 'value' to me in their ads. But I still prefer no tracking at all.

nicoburns• 6 years ago

I think the implication is that using the context of the page... is better than using context about the user

I think this is largely true. My favourite ad-supported site is The Online Photographer, a blog on photography which has ads about... camera equipment. No tracking or 3rd party script required.

[0] https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photogr...

C1sc0cat5• 6 years ago

Ah not really alcohol related adds and content is heavily regulated - much more so in the USA as a result of its puritan background.

I work in this area and we spend lot of time jumping through hoops - to avoid problems.

jariel2• 6 years ago

There are no primary exchanges for targeting content.

You can't 'put your ad near an article for beer' at any real scale.

In the old days, if you were paying $$$ for a spot in a magazine, you might be able to control where your ad was going to be placed, and certainly today, if you want to do that, you can find ways. Certainly you could buy ads on a 'beer blog'.

But by and large, this doesn't exist at any meaningful scale where you can just go out and buy 'a bunch of ad spots in articles about beer'.

Second - it's something, but still arguably not more effective than individual targeting. Most products and service have baseline demo. targets and that's quite important.

If you're L'OREAL you really don't want to be hustling your new eyeliner to middle aged men, that's pretty much a 'first order concern'.

Targeting does mostly work, we should not be in denial about that.

afiori4• 6 years ago

Also if I were to see ads for something unrelated in my city on a small LA brewery web site I would feel a bit suspicious. Instinctively I still consider websites as publishers of their own ads, so if they show ads for things completely unrelated to their service/page I judge them negatively for it.

learnstats2• 6 years ago

Are you trying to say that the 24 million Dutch-speaking people are all adults who drink?

eru3• 6 years ago

Some of them are children who drink.

(But they can only drink in private with eg their parents. Purchases are limited to 18+ year olds.)

simias2• 6 years ago

The Nederlands are obviously tiny compared to the USA but an untargetted ad for a micro-brewery in Rotterdam is going to have a massive miss ratio.

"People who speak Dutch" is in no way "hyper targeted".

C1sc0cat5• 6 years ago

Exactly you have to consider Flemish speakers in Belgium and you might even have a nl-nl page and be-nl page.

Flemish doesn't have it's own language code BTW

treeman79• 6 years ago

Often hyper targeted ads are effective but the ad manager can’t spend their budget due to small audience size.

Also anti bot tactics will cut down on ads served.

Sometimes manager is willing to lose efficiency for more overall exposure.

contravariant• 6 years ago

There's a pretty significant difference between tracking and targetting. It's pretty easy to limit an ad to a geographic area and target audience (to some degree of accuracy), you don't need to store any personal information to achieve this. However that is very different from tracking someone's identity to figure out their date of birth, nationality, and whether they drink alcohol.

brnt• 6 years ago

The Netherlands are small, but not that small ;) Not all New Yorkers will be lumped in a single group either, right?

levosmetalo• 6 years ago

If top HN comment completely misses the point on targeting and shows zero understanding what does it mean, and also considers "site is in Dutch" as "hyper targeted" what chance have an average marketer to properly set targeting goal for an ad?

Average site can profit more from untargeted ads than from the wrongly targeted ads set by the "ad experts", especialy after saving the costs of hiring such "experts".

libertine7• 6 years ago

Funny or not, you have to take into account HN context (ah!), where the great majority of users thinks marketing is a scam and hate advertising (here comes the downvotes...) - and they have reasons to feel like that. We've been flooded by bad professionals that give a bad rep to the craft.

They can profit more because they don't need any third party tech provider that take bites out of their inventory margin, or are not being forced into bidding their inventory and they set the prices they want.

It's smart on the publisher part, but they end up falling into 3rd parties because of the times they have inventory not being monetized (money lost).

renewiltord• 6 years ago

HN has poor understanding of ad-tech. If you aren’t in the industry, a quick coherence check is “if you’re right, you could be a millionaire next year by starting an ad agency this year, so why aren’t you doing it”.

Ads are like politics, sociology, or parenting. Everyone has what they think is an informed opinion but very few are informed. If one were to ignore every statement on ad tech posted on this site they’d be more informed than I if they read any.

Except that Mani Gandham fellow, who anyone else in ad tech will recognize as knowing the industry. I don’t know him personally except through his posts here.

edoloughlin• 6 years ago

Presumably because the ads are already hyper targeted, because the site is written in Dutch!

Presumably the site was also written in Dutch before they stopped tracking users?

rightbyte• 6 years ago

You need to take into account what Google charges for giving you the opportunity for somewhat accurately targeted ads. Clearly, it can be cheaper to just show ads for everyone if Googles fees are to high for the value Google provide.

Spooky233• 6 years ago

Why would it be a waste of money? If the market is such that there is an ROI for telling a global audience about your microbrewery, why not?

Most of the tracking issues are IMO about making more inventory available to platforms and have little to do with advertiser needs. I'm not in the business, but I remember in the olden days, the content-centric nature of Google AdWords was the magic.

In a perfect world, I'd see ads for brewpubs in my town. The reality is usually some sort of lame Amazon/Ebay/etc retarget attempt. These ads are low value and low revenue -- they are the equivalent of the Karate Dojo in a rundown stripmall.

itsoktocry• 6 years ago

It's totally obvious that you don't want to waste money on people who don't drink, don't live in America, or are 12 years old.

This is a problem when you're trying to advertise in the garden of the advertiser's own making (ie Facebook). Otherwise, you're not going to be advertising your microbrewery on a children's blog.

but it's completely ridiculous to claim that untargeted ads are even a fraction as good.

Advertising has never been truly "untargeted". I think the onus is on the targeted marketers to produce the data that their results are orders of magnitude better.

Deukhoofd• 6 years ago

I'd really need to see actual numbers for this, especially as this is kind of contrary to the yearly report Ster released two weeks ago. In this they stated that while the first couple months of 2020 were more or less in line with their budget, they dropped to below budget after corona. I have some trouble believing they made a budget based on a 60% increase from the preceding year.

https://www.ster.nl/media/2ssmp5p5/ster-jaarverslag_2019.pdf

Phemist2• 6 years ago

Also noteworthy is that the Dutch government has decided to seriously limit the amount of ads on NPO TV channels and websites. No ads before 8 PM on TV, no ads at all on the websites.

deugtniet• 6 years ago

I don't think they implemented the `no ads before 8PM on tv` yet. I'm actually surprised about how open they are about advertising costs per second for each block on the npo1 channel [1].

[1] https://www.ster.nl/media/rrifn3t0/npo-1-juni-2020-gewijzigd...

b-zee• 6 years ago

According to the report, online advertising revenue accounts for 5.351.000 EUR while TV did so for 144.365.000 EUR (2019). Thus the impact of online ad revenue rise seems relatively small.

mbesto• 6 years ago

Also, I don't know all of the details here but selling hyper targeted ads requires to pay for a direct sales team. This adds to the cost and lowers the profitability. There's a reason FB/Google ads are so lucrative.

daneel_w2• 6 years ago

Why does the NPO, the Dutch equivalent to the PBS, even run commercial advertisements? Aren't they funded by the people's taxes?

polytely• 6 years ago

Wikipedia tells me it's mainly funded by tax money 800 millions euros, coming up to about 45 euro per Dutch citizen, with supplemental income from ads (200 million),

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

fr2null• 6 years ago

They are partly funded by people's taxes. Commercials have more restrictions on them than on non-public channels. A maximum of 10% of airtime can be a commercial (on a yearly basis), with a 15% max per day. Commercials can only be before or after a program, not within. And just like commercial channels, you cannot sponsor news programs.

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-o...

timwaagh• 6 years ago

because otherwise we'd pay ourselves blue.

daneel_w2• 6 years ago

With 17 million citizens I think that's unlikely.

mcv2• 6 years ago

Yes, but the government doesn't want to spend too much tax money on it, so it operates semi-commercially. I'd rather they cut commercials, cut one of the three channels, and focus on content that the commercial channels can't or won't broadcast with the same level of quality.

Fragoel2• 6 years ago

I'd need to see the site before and after to confirm but maybe it is due to the faster page load speed? Tracking scripts these days are quite heavy and really affect loading times (especially on mobile)

soared• 6 years ago

If tracking scripts are correctly set up they’re asynchronous and don’t affect load times.

ricardo81• 6 years ago

They load over the wire quickly though the rendering of them and the jitter they can cause on the page gives the impression the page hasn't loaded.

C1sc0cat5• 6 years ago

Most of them are not though - I see a lot of unminifed JS and CSS

libertine7• 6 years ago

STER says that non-personalised ads are "just as effective", measured by number of clicks an ad attracts, though the click-through is not a complete analysis of effectiveness.

The fight against Google and Facebook (and soon Amazon) is still strong in the trenches.

How to fight the massive data hoarders that have no competition, and have their data locked down so no publisher can access it? Well you try to dismiss the value of data.

Then they make the mistake of evaluating the effectiveness of ads by the number of clicks and CTR... yeah... big red flag there.

It's easy to see a publisher get more money out by cutting out players in the value chain, and probably dropping the bidding of their inventory (doesn't matter if it's on cpm or cpc).

The problem always ends up with the inventory left out to be monetized, greed is a hell of a thing...

krisgenre• 6 years ago

> data locked down so no publisher can access it?

Maybe I didn't understand but are you suggesting hoarded data shouldn't be locked down and any publisher should have access to it?

libertine7• 6 years ago

I'm saying that at some point in time, MAYBE, there was the discussion of large media groups to pressure policies to make that data available to them.

Thankfully it never happened, and things like GDPR came forward instead.

osobo• 6 years ago

If they measure the number of click-throughs as an absolute and not a percentage, it might very well have been that more ads have been served because there were more online productions or they simply drew in more visitors. I think this is a matter of correlation implying causation.

libertine7• 6 years ago

Clicks and Click-Through-Rate are measures for direct marketing efforts, not advertising as a whole. You can have an effective branding ad and you don't even consider clicks as a main KPI.

mrweasel2• 6 years ago

It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about. Sure, you may be interested in buying fishing gear, but not while reading an article about Tour De France.

One of the reasons Google have been able to make a ton of money on ads on google.com is because they are able to deliver contextual ads based on you search. Google isn't using targeted ads on google.com. Think about that for a second. The worlds most visited site and largest ad company is NOT displaying ads based on tracking users on their own main site. They are showing you contextual ads.

Search for "cement" on Google, you're not getting ads for the washing machine you looked at on another site yesterday. Google most likely have the data to target you and show you washing machine ads, but they choose to show you an ad relevant to your search.

Are we really surprised that contextual ads might generate more revenue?

koonsolo• 6 years ago

Not to mention that even after you bought the thing, you still see ads everywhere.

mojuba• 6 years ago

Retargeting is one of the stupidest things on the Internet that actually works, there's statistics on that. The only thing that's stupider is email spam where one hit justifies a million misses.

Something similar happens here as I understand it: in one out of N cases you may have added the thing to the shopping cart but didn't pay. Another possibility is that you might actually want to buy another one. Though this leads to comical situations like [1] but advertisers have no time figuring out which items are less likely to be purchased repeatedly. But then you might think of purchasing another toilet seat for your other bathroom after all, so... :)

[1] https://twitter.com/GirlFromBlupo/status/982156453396996096

viraptor• 6 years ago

Google isn't using targeted ads on google.com.

They sure are targeted. The ads depends on your location, demographic, past browsing, past ad interaction, and many other things. https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1704368?hl=en

They have more context of what you're after and what's more effective + the ad keywords limit the audience. But in your situation if there's any crossover between washing machines and cement that will bring clicks, you can be sure they know about it and will serve it.

mrweasel2• 6 years ago

That's a fair point, the ads are almost always localized at least. Still they're also not random, they are related to your search.

You don't really need much more that a GeoIP database to figure out where in the world you user is coming from, and that should be enough to deal with the location targeting. I'm not sure you'd need much more information about the users than that.

annoyingnoob• 6 years ago

RTB "is a cancer eating the heart of legitimate media, and a business model for the bottom of the web."

RTB is actually a huge waste of power too.

code4tee2• 6 years ago

I’ve always thought that the “advanced tracking” touted by some in AdTech was:

1. Generally not that advanced (yes I searched for hotels in Florida and so yes I’m probably taking a trip to Florida... don’t need fancy ML to figure that out.)

2. Not that smart. (Hey we actually got back from our Florida vacation two months ago... don’t need to keep seeing hotel offers for Florida!)

It totally makes sense that just “dumb” targeting (show people adverts related to the content on the page they are currently looking at, which requires no tracking) might actually work better than all the black magic products companies promote.

afiori4• 6 years ago

The best argument for the usefulness/profitability of deep tracking is simple statistical inference.

As in if there are 10000 people that with browsing patterns similar to yours and non-trivial fraction of them one day show interest in a discount/service/trip then you are also likely to be interested.

It is the official explanation of how facebook/google can magically listen to conversation IRL that they were not supposed to hear: we simply are not as unique/unpredictable as we would like to think.

baybal2• 6 years ago

I think it's one of the best argument against.

It was at least 5 years ago when I started to notice businesses "A/B testing themselves to death"

— "It makes no common sense, but increases sales,"

and then it does until it doesn't, and you are left with no idea what your client actually wants, and no idea how to get out of that "A/B tested to absurdity" situation

code4tee2• 6 years ago

I see that but I think the broader point (and the point of the article) is that too often “success” in finding some less obvious link actually comes at the cost of overlooking the simple stuff. In the end there’s an argument that while neat the fancy ad targeting actually fails to meet the core business objective of maximizing ad performance.

lowwave• 6 years ago

This is exactly kind of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" that turns me off about AI/ML community.

rhizome• 6 years ago

Just add 300 DNS queries and wait for the RTB to complete!

Swizec• 6 years ago

My girlfriend is currently experiencing the dark side of smart tracking. Female who hit 30 and is in a stable relationship.

The ML just can’t figure her out. One day every ad is for dating sites, the next day it’s all babies and pregnancy, then engagement rings, wedding locations, more dating sites, a few days of houses to buy ... it’s like the algorithms can’t decide what life stage she’s in.

ceejayoz• 6 years ago

it’s like the algorithms can’t decide what life stage she’s in

Or, it's working on figuring that out.

harry8• 6 years ago

That's what you want. You don't want these assholes knowing your business. The classic example is when they start advertising a whole lot of pregancy stuff to someone who doesn't want to be pregant and for whom that might be a serious personal problem - advertising seen by others who she does not want to see that.

Dumb algos means freedom and privacy. Smart algos that actually work stuff out are dangerous and vile. Nobody gave them permission for that. Nobody complains about seeing ads not specifically tailored for them.

lmkg• 6 years ago

Confounding all of the targeting is one simple fact: Ad selection is based on what the advertiser is willing to spend, not on what the consumer wants to see. If a jewelry shop has extra ad budget and their target market is saturated, then the ad network starts serving ads to people who are married. Either that or they tell the jeweler to stop giving them money.

Traubenfuchs2• 6 years ago

Watch out... Maybe the algorithm knows EXACTLY what she is thinking during any given surfing session?

harikb2• 6 years ago

This kind of page-content-based ad targeting did exist way before fine tuned retargeting (say, search or audience/segment retargeting). There are whole bunch of companies that serve this exact market. The reason a more complicated retargeting was created is proof that there is value in it, for advertisers. I am not claiming this is good for people - I am talking only about the business side of things.

don’t need to keep seeing hotel offers for Florida

This is not for the lack of smartness in code - it is that the conversion funnel is so narrow that "saving that $30 per month, by not showing you the ad, on a $1m campaign" is not worth tracking and excluding. Although I do believe companies should take the extra effort to avoid the annoyance and be a good citizen - particularly once they have identified "the one real person who actually bought something" among 99 other bots/crawlers/untraceable entities. Not all ad companies appropriately value the real person and the annoyance caused to them. Some do.

mumblemumble3• 6 years ago

Ad companies being able to figure out that I just reserved a hotel room, so they can stop advertising hotels to me, might reduce the annoyance level. But I'm also pretty sure that, if I found out that they had done this, I would never patronize that hotel again.

valgaze• 6 years ago

@harikb, what about something like this: https://i.imgur.com/LYU6NBb.png

Surrounded by content on advice "blue light"-- gets targeted for Blue-tooth lightbulb

wastedhours6• 6 years ago

The reason a more complicated retargeting was created is proof that there is value in it, for advertisers

I'd argue the value was in it for media buyers. A lot of retargeted inventory is spent targeting people who are going to come back anyway. The agency then spins the numbers and presents it as if they were the only step in the process.

Some even take it a step further and conflate their retargeting with their prospecting numbers - there's a lot more uneducated advertisers out there for agencies to rip-off than educated ones.

Other than your standard ecommerce flows, online advertising is still an area of very murky attribution.

Traubenfuchs2• 6 years ago

Amazon showing me a selection of typical buy-once products of the kind I just bought is a depressing sight. They have infinite money and his is the best they can come up with?

grandmczeb6• 6 years ago

I don’t understand why this is such an obviously bad strategy - lots of people buy an item, cancel or return it, and then buy a similar item.

oh_sigh2• 6 years ago

The worse is they keep showing me, say a stereo receiver even after they know I bought one, and it makes me feel like maybe I bought the wrong product when I see other products with better features/price advertised. These ads literally give me buyers remorse for the product that they themselves sold me.

zaroth• 6 years ago

In essence they cut out adtech middlemen who rake up to 70% of the ad revenue for themselves to run the real-time bidding which underpins tracking-based ads, and sold less effective content based ads but, by taking the revenue all for themselves, ended up way ahead.

deleted_account5• 6 years ago

This article discusses the Dutch national broadcaster NPO's switch from targeted ads to _contextual_ advertising, placing advertisements based on the content of the publisher site instead of user features of the person reading the page.

STER mentioned in the article is NPO's ad agency. The whitepaper is available on STER's site: https://www.ster.nl/onderzoek/een-toekomst-zonder-advertenti...

I haven't read the whitepaper (waiting on the English language version.) Where the increased revenue is coming from isn't really clear. It seems really unlikely they're increasing revenue by charging more per impression.

Cutting out the ad network could make up for it, but then this seems like a case of STER setting itself up as supply platform. It works great for large publishers, but doesn't really scale.

Totally related: expect to see more if these articles. The demise of third-party cookies is coming and groups like W3C's Web Advertising Business Group [https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/] and efforts like Chromium's privacy sandbox [https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb...] are picking up steam.

wastedhours6• 6 years ago

I still struggle to understand why people seem surprised when contextual advertising works better than targeted.

Targeted works on social media because that's the context, the user is looking for a distraction and ads can be as effective a distraction as your aunt's cat. Showing me ads for a new car when I'm reading about a terrorist attack is just the stupidest thing I can imagine. There's no context, no intent.

If I'm on a car site reading about the best new hot hatches and you show me an ad for your new hot hatch, then that's a whole different scenario.

It doesn't "scale", but advertisers get higher intent traffic, publishers can charge a higher premium, and the ads feel native so the customers might actually appreciate them. The extra effort is worth it.

abakker• 6 years ago

OOC, what does "Scale" even mean here? is the OP saying you cannot infinitely serve ads because a given piece of content only attracts a finite number of viewers? or that there are a finite number of subject for a piece of content that can have relevant ads served?

To borrow your terrorist example, presumably there are no advertisers (that we permit and condone) who would like to advertise terrorism related products?

Do we have any reasonable numbers for what portion of actual web traffic is related to either product/service research or future purchase plans? My impression of my own browsing traffic is that it is probably about 50% by number of page loads.

deleted_account5• 6 years ago

...'cause _historically_ contextual advertising doesn't work better than targeted. And contextual targeting is hard, because determining context is hard and it can fail catastrophically (I recall the apocryphal story about a washing machine manufacturer's banner smack dab in the middle of a macabre news story about a toddler abandoned in a clothes dryer. Brand safety FTL.)

Your example on the "car hatches" is a really simple case and there's only so many niche publishers out there catering to specific audiences. That's how you end up with media companies like Vox and Gizmodo. And in terms of scale...well, go look at the Digital Media comscore rankings: https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings

As for "advertisers get higher intent traffic", that simply isn't true. I'm not refuting your intuition 'cause it absolutely sounds right, but in terms of tracking and targeted ads knowing stuff like, "You left product in your checkout cart." is a waaay higher signal of intent.

Mirioron• 6 years ago

How do contextual ads deal with language and geographic location? If reddit were to use only contextual ads does that mean that someone from, say Latvia, will never see ads that are locally relevant to them? I imagine most Latvians on reddit don't hang around the Latvian subreddit and advertising a local Latvian service on r/hairdressing isn't going to work. You also have to consider that if you just assume people's language then you'll end up with a lot of pissed off people, because you keep serving them content in Russian.

In other words: it's all well and good for the Dutch national broadcaster, but what about everyone else that gets an audience from a variety of countries?

halflings• 6 years ago

I don't get why people are viewing user-based and content-based signals as two totally separate things.

Aren't most ad providers using both to serve ads? Some people here are saying of course basing ads on the page will work better, and hence tracking cookies (or for some, even ML/AI) are useless... if that was the case, why are all these different players building all this infrastructure and developing these complex models? Just for fun?

Clearly, knowing that this is an article about pets helps. But knowing that you've been specifically reading articles about dog food gives you that extra information to serve particularly relevant ads (rather than say, display hamster cages).

wolco• 6 years ago

As an old time adsense publisher I remember when they made the switch. Everyone revenue/click rate dropped. I thought perhaps in time this would improve but it kept dropping. I guess google believed they could sell more to ad buyers with an ml approach regardless of the results.

JJMcJ• 6 years ago

"Targeted ads" - hmm. Real galaxy brain stuff.

Not me but read a few days ago, someone (male) did a search for pages on the Battle Of Quatre Bras (part of the Battle Of Waterloo).

You guessed it, now he is seeing ads for brassieres all the time and someone is paying for those ads to appear.

teekert• 6 years ago

My favorite Dutch blog, tweakers.net, also does personal ads. I never ever clicked on them, I don't know what they are smoking to conclude that I'm interested in what they offer. They also have a "pricewatch" section, and boy have I clicked on their recommendations often. They are usually spot on! Of course they are contextual and geared to what I want to buy and searched for. If only they'd do the same with their news articles.

jeffbee• 6 years ago

Everybody knows that bad targeting and bad ad quality results in a temporary bump in revenue. This is because there are short-term quality assumptions baked into the advertisers' bids. Eventually the bad quality cycles back through the market and prices fall.

Within Google I saw several post-mortem reports where the "impact" was extra revenue, not lost revenue. As in, due to an outage of the xyz subsystem, we booked an extra $$/minute of ads revenue. Everyone knows this is bad, not good.

egypturnash• 6 years ago

I don’t understand what is going on with the graph they present at all. What is the cyan line? What are the bubbles with percentage changes in them? Why is there a “+18%” bubble right after the huge dip in the cyan line past the “Covid market shock” label?

I think the bubbles are maybe “revenue increase per month” but what the hell is the cyan line?

LABEL YOUR GRAPHS PEOPLE

orijing• 6 years ago

If this were true, why would anyone choose the option that generates lower revenues?

Barrin92• 6 years ago

hype and a huge amount of fancy jobs at stake who know how to keep themselves employed. Take another example, Cambridge Analytica's "psychographic targeting". There's no solid scientific evidence that it actually works. Yet the media and press, as well as CA themselves have somehow convinced themselves that they're the real world version of James Bond's spectre

Dutch national broadcaster saw ad revenue rise when it stopped tracking users

Related Stories