Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Think about it this way. Let's say I'm trying to buy a pair of night vision goggles that could see through people's clothes. Well let's say I search google and I get spammed with night vision goggles of poor quality and that can't see through people's clothes. Theoretically speaking, if the manufacturer of a night vision goggle knew how perverted I was, they'd be willing to pay Google to get the right information in front of me. This is because they know with that key perfectly targeted information they can make a sale with me. I want to see through people's clothes, the manufacturer makes money off me. WIN WIN!

That is my definition of perfect targeting. And it also explains why Google wants to get more information out of us. Obviously more information means better targeting. But this better targeting also means better ads that are more relevant. Relevant doesn't mean ads close to what I want but not really what I want. Relevant means genuinely relevant. And I REALLY believe Google is trying to achieve that perfect genuine relevancy.

Sure Good search results are there, but there is still noise. Good search results still requires us wafting through the crap. But with paid well targeted ads, the right information has the potential to come to you by circumventing the things that cause the noise. Companies who know they have an advantage on pervert night vision goggles can pay for that highly targeted area and get the information to the right people.

Oh I do get the theory. I just don't think that's how it is likely to play out in the majority of cases.

Look at current advertising, it doesn't generally help you find the best product that suits your needs, instead it shouts at you that for a small fee you can learn the simple secret to perfectly white teeth.

In your above example no company could legally say that it is making pervert x-ray vision goggles. So what happens is the company with the best marketing strategy (and probably useless non-xray goggles) devises a campaign which alludes to the non-existent x-ray properties of their useless goggles. Google helps them target it at you and do so JUST as that cute neighbor next door is raking up the leaves in her annoyingly baggy gardening wear and BAM you're buying some junk which doesn't fulfill your need.

No doubt in some cases consumers will be provided with a product which fulfills their needs via googles adverts, but generally they will get worse value for money and I suspect they'll also get worse products.

Well if the comapny advertising outright lies, that's a whole different issue. I'm just saying that there is a model for advertising where it's win win for both parties, and I think it's google's goal to achieve that.

A lot of advertising is inefficient but if you stop thinking about advertising in it's current form you can see how a more efficint system can serve a beneficial place in society.

Such an efficient model would show me very few ads indeed, as there is very little I need that I don't already have, and I resent being encouraged to spend wastefully.

Advertisers don't want to spend wastefully either. So if they know you won't spend, then you shall get less ads.

Eventually all the ad dollars will be spent changing you into someone who does want to spend more money.

That's propaganda, brainwashing, whatever you want to call it. But by my definition (the one I'm talking about; I didn't create it) it's not advertising, and I think Google is working to achieve my definition of advertising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com