this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
441 points (98.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43915 readers
1291 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The cost of digital advertising cannot be justified by its effectiveness (or rather lack there of). We've collectively spent hundreds of billions of dollars creating the infrastructure for invasive hyper targeted ads that do not get better results than simple billboards and terrestrial TV ads even now. We've created a global economy of marketing, media, advertising and sales solely reliant on technofeudalist overlords who've provided very little actual improvement of anything.
Maybe if those invasive highly targeted ads were the least bit accurate I would buy some shit from them. Instead half the time I can't find the product I want without wading through a sea of crap even when I give them a search with specific parameters.
Yep and in order for these companies to grow they must continue to increase the volume of ads being shown, which only makes them less effective, which they try and counter by making them ever more invasive.
And that's where this article comes in.