this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
776 points (98.9% liked)

Comic Strips

20254 readers
2507 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

There is actually an argument that advertisers like Google are abusing micro targeting to extract advertising revenue from clients while, at least in some cases, delivering few actual new customers.

Here's the process.

  1. Google sees that your profile (browsing habits, demographics, search patterns, etc) suggest you are interested in product A.
  2. Google blasts you with advertisements for product A, essentially marking your browser session and claiming you as a recipient of their advertising. Ever look at a particular product and find you are being advertised for that product incessantly for a while?
  3. If you happen to buy product A around the time that your session was shown an advertisement for that product, Google claims you as a conversion and gets paid for convincing you to buy the product. Advertising works!

So if Google's algorithm thinks you are already going to buy product A, they show you an ad for product A constantly because it means they'll claim you as an advertising success and get paid extra.

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ever look at a particular product and find you are being advertised for that product incessantly for a while?

No, I use uBlock origin and I only see online ads when I'm forced to look at someone else's computer.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I literally had bets on whether or not someone would respond exactly as you did, bragging about never seeing ads because of ad blocking.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Extra jack session today, the literal bet was clearly with themself.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The left hand won this round.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It is like encouragement for the thing you were already likely to do, which is the goal of targeted advertising.

Now if you purchased something, then got the ads afterwards and they counted it retroactively then they would be abusing it. I'm 99% sure they do that.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

It is like encouragement for the thing you were already likely to do, which is the goal of targeted advertising.

It's the claim of targeted advertising. The person I saw talking about this actually ran the numbers, comparing two very similar geographic markets. In market A they paid for advertising, but in B they did not.

When comparing market A to market B, market A had a marginal increase in sales for the advertised product vs. market B. However, they were charged for orders of magnitude more conversions than the actual increase in sales.

The idea is that when compared to something like actual click-through purchases, where a user literally clicks on an ad and then buys a product, it's extremely deceptive.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Now if you purchased something, then got the ads afterwards and they counted it retroactively then they would be abusing it. I'm 99% sure they do that.

That explains everything!

No doubt their ads are monthly/quarterly purchases. So Google reports the end of month "conversions" when in reality it's ads shown during the month but happened after the sale.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 1 week ago

Me: "I am going to the grocery store."

Google: "Groceries, go go go!"

Me: "I've bought groceries."

Google: "Another win!"