No, tracking and surveillance are not an essential part of digital advertising
Ad contrarian Bob Hoffman argues that despite what the ‘digi-weasels’ might say, online advertising that does not rely on tracking is a real possibility.
This week, as the GDPR gets closer to implementation, we can expect to hear a lot of noise from digi-weasels here in the US explaining to us why we need to allow wide data collection as a fair “value exchange” for the free access we get to online services.
This argument is total bullshit.
Bob is renown for being anti-digital and it comes as no surprise here that he doesn’t understand how the industry works
Agree Face Palm,
Bob has no bloody clue about anything digital! He’s like an old man yelling at cloud. Absolutely irrelevant in this day and age.
Would have some cracker stories about raucous industry lunches from the 80s though!
I love it when someone rebutts an argument that literally no-one has made. And the name calling is pure class. And the “surveillance” . . . this guy should be on Alex Jones.
Does Bob think Google and Facebook advertising is just about mass market reach? The similar spray and pray approach to TV? Perhaps he doesn’t realise that digital marketers can and do use online advertising to target niche markets – and personal data is required to do that.
There’s a legitimate debate about how that data is used and how much is collected. Bob seems to be debating something else: that personal data is not needed at all. I suspect few people who actually do digital marketing for a living would agree.
i enjoy the way bob writes these articles from a consumer perspective and not as a digital marketing wonk
this is a perspective that most digital marketers either completely ignore, discredit, or simply don’t care about as evinced by the first 3 comments
I agree, I like his approach and his views.
Measurement (TV ratings, as someone pointed out below), are used simply to help the industry and is not in and of itself a revenue stream.
Targeting and data collection through advertising (not all, but some) could be used for more nefarious or self serving purposes.
The question of the consumer ‘value exchange’ is a valid one, IMO.
I don’t think Bob is bitter, although I don’t know him personally (if I did, I think we’d get along great), I just think he is a little frustrated.
A serious question: Bob why are you so bitter? If your approach to advertising works better, then surely clients would be flocking to your methodology and you wouldn’t have to worry about this awful digital people. Put up or shut up, f
Would like a definition of what constitutes “surveillance” in Bob and the general public’s mind and how well that matches up with the reality of digital ad targeting.
For quite a few brands I’d argue that broad location (price match the state you live in), likely gender (tampons aren’t for all of us) and approximate age (would YOU care to go on Contiki? Now?) ARE essential, but these are hardly unique to digital. Search terms are very essential. Content interests and shopping cart history are very useful, but not technically “essential” to the industry.
Yeah I share your opinion here…
Is Bob genuinely arguing here that collection of data to better inform advertising is not also a part of the way traditional media works?
Surveillance and spying may indeed be convenient to the selfish needs of marketers and their agencies but they must never be allowed to supersede the privacy rights of individuals.
Hope he knows there is a thing called TV rating too…..
“Surveillance and spying may indeed be convenient to the selfish needs of marketers and their agencies but they must never be allowed to supersede the privacy rights of individuals.”
Come down from that high horse, please. You were no better.
We can turn off tracking. We can turn off most online ads. We can’t not see a billboard in a public space. We can’t unlearn the harmful tropes your generation imprinted upon us between cartoons every morning.
You spent millions on focus groups testing the psychological impact of your television propaganda. Congratulations, Bob. It worked. We’re all fat, anxious and in debt.