You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Why ad tracking is bad: it puts democracy in jeopardy”.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Why ad tracking is bad: it puts democracy in jeopardy”.
Yes. Early GMail ads (contextual and relevant and “tracked” by machines reading emails – which they do, regardless of what anyone thinks they want) were actually useful to real people, real customers. When GMail was in beta, a colleague and I tested this by emailing about our need for a vacation: somewhere warm, near a beach, where we hoped to be served drinks by handsome “cabana boys” and learn to surf. But neither of us knew how to surf and of course we’d need gear… and we were a bit budget conscious.
GMail to the rescue, and boy did they do well – we almost forgot we were testing and booked the trip! Airfare to San Diego; the Del Coronado Resort; a surfing school SPECIFICALLY run by and for WOMEN!!; a nearby tog shop and supplier of surfing gear (much of which we could rent rather than buying… Dang, they were GOOD. Once upon a time. Back in the 1990s.
Now, all advertising feels aggressive and adversarial, if not in-your-face and outright fraudulent.
I heard that they were good, and that’s a heck of an example. Back then, I thought, ‘Well, if they’re going to offer it for free, and give that much storage, then fair enough that they make some dollars with those ads.’ It shows how Google had a good product and messed it up. If they vetted at a high standard, then the market-place would be a lot cleaner, in my opinion. Those low-market ads would remain on low-market sites and most of the world need not bother with them.