<story><title>GDPR will pop the adtech bubble</title><url>http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/05/12/gdpr/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rebuilder</author><text>For the frugal&amp;#x2F;high spender conflict, I can kind of see how that might happen.&lt;p&gt;I try to buy quality goods because cheap stuff doesn&amp;#x27;t last. That means spending more up front to spend less in the long run. So frugal, but also maybe high spender?&lt;p&gt;My mom always says: if you&amp;#x27;re poor, you can&amp;#x27;t afford to buy cheap.</text></item><item><author>madeofpalk</author><text>&amp;gt;  By and large, it doesn&amp;#x27;t, very well.&lt;p&gt;I know Twitter isn&amp;#x27;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.&lt;p&gt;Twitter claims I:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    * Own a cat, dog and other animal (I don&amp;#x27;t)
    * Have between $100k- $999k liquid investible assets (I don&amp;#x27;t)
    * Have a net worth between $1 and $1m (cool - I own *something*)
    * Am highly affluent (&amp;#x2F;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&amp;#x27;t)
    * Have multiple families (I don&amp;#x27;t)

&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
I was very disappointed that the Google and Facebook data exports don&amp;#x27;t contain this data. Maybe it&amp;#x27;s for their best.</text></item><item><author>rossdavidh</author><text>Oddly, I think the article underestimates the size of the change coming.  I think one side affect of the surge of IT into advertising, is that it has become easier to measure exactly how well advertising works.  By and large, it doesn&amp;#x27;t, very well.&lt;p&gt;I am reminded of this, from Paul Graham, about his time at Yahoo: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;yahoo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;yahoo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...The reason Yahoo didn&amp;#x27;t care about a technique that extracted the full value of traffic was that advertisers were already overpaying for it. If Yahoo merely extracted the actual value, they&amp;#x27;d have made less.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure that, the more we learn about how well advertising works, the less money people will be willing to pay for it.  What&amp;#x27;s happening to billboards and newspapers right now is probably coming to several other industries soon.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>d1zzy</author><text>All things equal (features that I need from the product) I like to buy high quality things because they make me feel good (they look well built, they give me this warm feeling inside that I got my money&amp;#x27;s worth). But I realize this is all emotional and rationally I shouldn&amp;#x27;t, in most cases.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think they pay off long term, at least it seems heavily dependent on the product type. That&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;re not buying large numbers of them, we&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;m buying up to 4 of them).</text></comment>
<story><title>GDPR will pop the adtech bubble</title><url>http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/05/12/gdpr/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rebuilder</author><text>For the frugal&amp;#x2F;high spender conflict, I can kind of see how that might happen.&lt;p&gt;I try to buy quality goods because cheap stuff doesn&amp;#x27;t last. That means spending more up front to spend less in the long run. So frugal, but also maybe high spender?&lt;p&gt;My mom always says: if you&amp;#x27;re poor, you can&amp;#x27;t afford to buy cheap.</text></item><item><author>madeofpalk</author><text>&amp;gt;  By and large, it doesn&amp;#x27;t, very well.&lt;p&gt;I know Twitter isn&amp;#x27;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.&lt;p&gt;Twitter claims I:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    * Own a cat, dog and other animal (I don&amp;#x27;t)
    * Have between $100k- $999k liquid investible assets (I don&amp;#x27;t)
    * Have a net worth between $1 and $1m (cool - I own *something*)
    * Am highly affluent (&amp;#x2F;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&amp;#x27;t)
    * Have multiple families (I don&amp;#x27;t)

&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
I was very disappointed that the Google and Facebook data exports don&amp;#x27;t contain this data. Maybe it&amp;#x27;s for their best.</text></item><item><author>rossdavidh</author><text>Oddly, I think the article underestimates the size of the change coming.  I think one side affect of the surge of IT into advertising, is that it has become easier to measure exactly how well advertising works.  By and large, it doesn&amp;#x27;t, very well.&lt;p&gt;I am reminded of this, from Paul Graham, about his time at Yahoo: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;yahoo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;yahoo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...The reason Yahoo didn&amp;#x27;t care about a technique that extracted the full value of traffic was that advertisers were already overpaying for it. If Yahoo merely extracted the actual value, they&amp;#x27;d have made less.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure that, the more we learn about how well advertising works, the less money people will be willing to pay for it.  What&amp;#x27;s happening to billboards and newspapers right now is probably coming to several other industries soon.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pishpash</author><text>That almost never works for the reason you describe. For any quality item that lasts M times as long as the cheap item, you can almost always find N &amp;gt; M such that you can buy N copies of the cheap item for the price of one quality item. You do not spend less in the long run, though you can convince yourself of that. The primary effect of buying cheap is not financial, it&amp;#x27;s that you&amp;#x27;re dealing with less quality over the entire usage lifetime (hence getting less utility out of it) and the replacement effort has cost (but which for poor people is very little by definition).</text></comment>