https://anotherangrywoman.com/2023/07/05/scams-upon-scams-the-data-driven-advertising-grift/ Skip to content [cropped-aaw] Another angry woman Thoughts and rants from another angry woman Menu and widgets * About * Comment policy * Contact * Fuck you, pay me I'm on Mastodon Me on the twitternet Tweets by stavvers Yes I have a FB, too Yes I have a FB, too Archives * July 2023 * January 2023 * December 2022 * November 2022 * January 2022 * May 2021 * April 2021 * March 2021 * January 2021 * December 2019 * May 2019 * January 2019 * December 2018 * November 2018 * October 2018 * August 2018 * June 2018 * May 2018 * April 2018 * March 2018 * February 2018 * January 2018 * December 2017 * November 2017 * October 2017 * September 2017 * August 2017 * July 2017 * June 2017 * May 2017 * April 2017 * March 2017 * February 2017 * January 2017 * December 2016 * November 2016 * October 2016 * September 2016 * August 2016 * July 2016 * June 2016 * May 2016 * April 2016 * March 2016 * February 2016 * January 2016 * December 2015 * November 2015 * October 2015 * September 2015 * August 2015 * July 2015 * June 2015 * May 2015 * April 2015 * March 2015 * February 2015 * January 2015 * December 2014 * November 2014 * October 2014 * September 2014 * August 2014 * July 2014 * June 2014 * May 2014 * April 2014 * March 2014 * February 2014 * January 2014 * December 2013 * November 2013 * October 2013 * September 2013 * August 2013 * July 2013 * June 2013 * May 2013 * April 2013 * March 2013 * February 2013 * January 2013 * December 2012 * November 2012 * October 2012 * September 2012 * August 2012 * July 2012 * June 2012 * May 2012 * April 2012 * March 2012 * February 2012 * January 2012 * December 2011 * November 2011 * October 2011 * September 2011 * August 2011 * July 2011 * June 2011 * May 2011 * April 2011 * March 2011 Scams upon scams: The data-driven advertising grift Digital advertising is a scam from top to bottom. In fact, it's several scams stacked on top of each other, wearing a trenchcoat, and some of the foundations of fibs are so effective that otherwise reasonable people entirely buy into them. Data-driven ads are anything but I'll start with a few examples of the data which is definitely held on me, and just how entirely bad my targeted advertising is. Facebook know my age and date of birth. They have had this data since I signed up for the website, 15 years ago. They know exactly how old I am. They also know where I live. Hell, sometimes I used to check into places with my location on. Despite knowing I am way north of 30 and way south of Birmingham, they are incredibly keen on advertising me events explicitly limited to people under the age of 30 in the Birmingham area. Google knew I wanted to buy a mattress. They knew this because I googled it. And I clicked through to a brand selling mattresses, and I bought myself a mattress. The brand know I googled said mattress. Google know I clicked through. From Google's own analytics, they ought to know I bought the mattress. Since buying that mattress, I've been constantly advertised mattresses, especially the one I already own and they know I already own. Some might claim that in fact the advertisers are being incredibly smart and they're advertising me activities for women under 30 in Birmingham so I go and tell my friends who are under 30 in Birmingham to go and do that. But of course, Facebook would also know that I don't have any friends in that demographic. Or maybe that mattress seller is trying to tell me to refer a friend to buy that mattress by reminding me that I own a very nice mattress. In which case, why isn't it advertising the referral programme, which I know they have because I received several emails and a physical leaflet about it with the fucking mattress? The more simple answer is that the advertisers aren't being data driven at all. They're ticking default boxes or casting wider nets. I'm getting advertised mattresses because I have ~an interest in mattresses~. I'm getting activities for women under 30 in Birmingham because I'm under 40 and on the same island as Birmingham. For all the buzzwords about "data-driven" and "smart" and whatever else you want to call it, the advertisers are just going "eh, sounds about right" and letting a robot automate their job. This, then, is the first grift in the chain. Despite claiming to their boss that they're using "data-driven" advertising, they're targeting their ads even less than taking out a quarter page in the local newspaper. The product: they could spy on you (but don't) Everyone is rightly nervy about the sheer quantity of data that big companies hold on us. Social media companies know all about your demographic information, social connections and interests. Amazon knows exactly when you have an outbreak of aphids because you buy things to kill the nasty little beasties, and it probably also knows when you've had a nasty breakup because nobody listens to Fleetwood Mac's Rumours on repeat at 3am when they're in a good place. Google basically knows everything about you. At least that's the theory. And that's the product that they're selling to advertisers. They have an enormous dataset from which everything an advertiser could ever dream of about a person can be garnered. They're the world's biggest, bestest spy network, which means they have quality data to help your business be the biggest, bestest business reaching the biggest, bestest customers. At least that's what they say. Actual spying requires actual spies. There's a reason intelligence agencies are such big employers: they have all of their fancy spy computers, but they know they need to hire humans to actually deduce patterns and sort signal from noise. They're aware that a human brain is always superior to a computer in figuring this out, so they get humans to do the work. Meanwhile, tech companies break into hives at the thought of getting a human to do a job. Their ethos is that if a human can do a task, a machine can do that task better, and not cost them anything such as salary, pensions or or a basic level of respect. Tech companies are fatally allergic to getting a human to do a human job, so content moderation is largely an algorithm looking for the word "boobies". A tech company would go into anaphylactic shock at the very notion of employing a human to analyse their vast dataset. So it's all machine learning, and the machines are very, very stupid. Have you ever looked at your list inferred interests on a social media platform? If you ever tweeted "I don't like Game of Thrones, it's not for me," you'll be classified as interested in Game of Thrones and possibly get served ads for it. These machines may also attempt to deduce your age, gender, and so forth based on half-baked crap fed into them, and it seldom comes up right. Maybe that's why it thinks I'm under 30 and in Birmingham. Perhaps I internet in a Brummie accent. It's no wonder that on multiple occasions, big tech has been caught out completely making things up when communicating with advertisers, and they continue to do so. Facebook was famously found to have inflated or outright fabricated video metrics. GA4 very quietly admits that the data is padded out with machine learning. The data is a lie, and a lot of it is because they literally haven't the first clue on what to do with it, they just need to steeple their fingers and act all evil so advertisers think they have it. Advertisers, then, are getting served a steaming turd on a plate rather than the medium-rare filet mignon they were promised. And meanwhile, the spies don't even need that data, because your posts are public anyway. But enough about that. The problem is this grift is, too, built upon a grift. Marketing science is a grift I work in marketing, for my sins. This is mostly why I'm so entirely down on the marketing industry and many of the people who work in it. I also happen to have an MSc in psychology - actual psychology! - with a focus on behaviour change. On day 1 of your class about behaviour change in a science course, you learn that behaviour change is not a simple matter of information in, behaviour out. Human behaviour, and changing it, is big and complex. Meanwhile, on your marketing courses, which I have had the misfortune to attend, the model of changing behaviour is pretty much this: information in, behaviour out. The thing with the entire "science" of marketing is the underpinning theory base is basic common sense which has been treated with a bit of a brand makeover, turned into a couple of overcomplicated diagrams with some neologisms obscuring meaning. Digital marketing has become very popular because baked into it are a whole bunch of metrics so you have something to show your manager that you're not spending the entire day tending your geraniums, but do the metrics really mean anything? The metrics that marketers are told they need are marketed to them by the marketing department of a company that specialises in making products for marketers. And that company was probably started up by someone who worked in marketing. Marketing theory is never tested rigorously. The [S:common sense:S] incredibly sound scientific view based on heaps of scientific evidence view - showing your ads to people more likely to buy your product is more efficient because they're more likely to buy your product anyway - is entirely untested. There's an anecdote that a glitch with Facebook led to ads no longer being targeted over a period of several weeks. And absolutely nobody noticed because the metrics all looked normal, the engagement and purchasing was just the same. There isn't any evidence to suggest that an ad targeted to 35 year old men with children with an interest in football is any more likely to result in sales of Football Dad socks than a poster for Football Dad socks at a bus stop. But an entire industry is based on pretending that this is the case. tl;dr Facebook will try to sell you Football Dad socks even if you're a 55 year old childfree woman who posted once about hating football, because that data is utterly useless. Spies are probably reading your posts though, no matter how boring. _ Enjoyed what you read? Consider becoming a Patron or leave a tip Share this: * Facebook * Twitter * Tumblr * Reddit * Like this: Like Loading... Related Posted on July 5, 2023Author stavversCategories Uncategorized One thought on "Scams upon scams: The data-driven advertising grift" 1. [79a75d] Jamie says: July 5, 2023 at 6:40 pm Oh, every word of this, yes! The problem is then made worse by the clients who are buying the adverts in the first place. They're always happy to say "we want to directly reach women who are 4'9'' with an interest in used mangles who live in Arbroath" and it's easy to tailor a Facebook (etc) advert to reach this type of a weird demographic - and (I'd be crucified on Mastodon for saying this) is sometimes even welcomed by the viewer of the ad. You go back to the client and say "righty-oh, that advert will run to 6 people, at PS20 per person". The client comes back: "we want to reach more than that." Yeah, but that's the grand total of all the people who match your target market. So the client looks again at their targets - not at that their product, not at their strategy, not at anything that would be useful - and says something like "widen the audience until it hits half a million for 20p each." And that's how female-focussed adverts for secondhand mangles designed for 4'9'' users that must be collected from the warehouse in Arbroath are put in front of 6'3'' cis-men in Truro. Obviously that doesn't explain the algorithmic advertising that has convinced Amazon that the kettle I bought in November 2021 means I collect kettles and need to be shown a parade of kettles every. single. fucking. time I go to the site - that's a different sort of fuckwittery that I don't understand - but I feel a sense of victory for at least working out the other stuff. Not that it brings me any joy, since I'm often the one buying the ads on Facebook for secondhand mangles designed for 4'9'' users that must be collected from the warehouse in Arbroath and being told by the client that a wider audience is required. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here... [ ] Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: * * * Gravatar Email (required) (Address never made public) [ ] Name (required) [ ] Website [ ] WordPress.com Logo You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) Facebook photo You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change ) Cancel Connecting to %s [ ] Notify me of new posts via email. [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Post navigation Previous Previous post: How to give advice on the internet without being an utter menace Next Next post: Can you steal an election with targeted ads? You don't need to! A WordPress.com Website. * Follow Following + [croppe] Another angry woman Join 12,294 other followers [ ] Sign me up + Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. * + [croppe] Another angry woman + Customize + Follow Following + Sign up + Log in + Copy shortlink + Report this content + View post in Reader + Manage subscriptions + Collapse this bar %d bloggers like this: [b]