If It’s Advertised to You Online, You Probably Shouldn’t Buy

[Tennesseer]

If It’s Advertised to You Online, You Probably Shouldn’t Buy It. Here’s Why.

If you saw a Facebook ad recently for Jeremy’s Razors, which bills itself as a “woke-free” razor for men, you may well be a father of school-age children who likes Ultimate Fighting, Hershey’s chocolate, hunting or Johnny Cash. This is according to Facebook’s ad library, which describes the audiences to which marketers target their advertisements.

I can see why Jeremy’s Razors is focusing its ad dollars on men who might appreciate its hypermasculine message. But the reverse is not as clear: Are these men better off for having been pitched an “anti-woke” razor?

In the traditional media world, ads are sold in context of the area in which publications are sold: Perhaps Jeremy’s Razors might favor advertising in Deer & Deer Hunting magazine, for example. But online, many ads are sold based on the many details that advertisers have gleaned about your behavior and interests from your online activity.

Tech firms track nearly every click from website to website, develop detailed profiles of your interests and desires and make that data available to advertisers. That’s why you get those creepy ads in your Instagram feed or on websites that seem to know what you were just talking about.

The ability to track people has turned out to be an unbeatable advantage for the online ad industry, which has grown to a $540 billion market worldwide, according to the media agency GroupM, dwarfing all other forms of advertising, including TV, radio and newspapers. It has propelled the massive growth of Google and Facebook as well as hundreds of so-called ad tech firms that serve as intermediaries between the buyers and sellers of targeting information.

But the rise of microtargeting has come with a staggering price tag. “There is limited evidence to suggest that the efficiency and efficacy gains to advertisers and publishers of this system outweighs the societal impact,” concludes a 274-page study published by the European Commission this year. It calls for reforming the surveillance business model.

Already, we know that web tracking has decimated publishers. This has been particularly devastating for traditional news outlets: Global newspaper revenue plummeted from $107 billion in 2000 to nearly $32 billion in 2022, according to GroupM. This is a blow to democracy: Studies show that voting decreases and corruption increases in communities without strong news outlets.

Microtargeting has also enabled advertisers to discriminate in ways that are hard for regulators to catch. It is illegal, for example, for advertisers to use language in their ads suggesting that jobs, housing or credit opportunities are being offered to people of a certain race, gender or age or in other protected categories. But ad targeting means that advertisers can hide their preferences in the algorithm. Facebook has repeatedly been shown to have enabled discriminatory advertising. (The company has consistently argued in court that it is not liable for the choices advertisers make on its platform and has since agreed to change its ad delivery system.)

Microtargeting also allows politicians to deliver divisive messages directly to niche groups. In 2019, President Donald Trump’s campaign team flooded Facebook with targeted ads bearing inflammatory messages. In 2016, a Senate inquiry found that Russian operatives spread ads on Facebook targeting Black Americans that were aimed at discouraging them from voting.

On top of all of this, it turns out that targeted ads aren’t helping consumers, either. Last year, researchers at Carnegie Mellon and Virginia Tech presented a study of the consumer welfare implications of targeted ads. The results were so surprising that they repeated it to make sure their findings were correct.

The new study, published online this week, confirmed the results: The targeted ads shown to another set of nearly 500 participants were pitching more expensive products from lower-quality vendors than identical products that showed up in a simple Web search.

The products shown in targeted ads were, on average, roughly 10 percent more expensive than what users could find by searching online. And the products were more than twice as likely to be sold by lower-quality vendors, as measured by their Better Business Bureau ratings.

“Both studies consistently highlighted a pervasive problem of low-quality vendors in targeted ads,” wrote the authors, Eduardo Abraham Schnadower Mustri, a Carnegie Mellon University Ph.D. student; Idris Adjerid, a professor at Virginia Tech; and Alessandro Acquisti, a professor at Carnegie Mellon. They posited that targeted ads may be a way for smaller vendors to reach consumers and that “a sizable portion of these vendors may in fact be undesirable to consumers because they are of lower quality.”

Quality seems to be an issue with Jeremy’s Razors, which spent the most on Facebook advertising during the 30 days ending March 26, spending more than $800,000. When I checked Jeremy’s Facebook reviews, many customers said they liked the product’s political message more than the razors. “If you like razors that feel like someone is pulling your facial hair out with a tweezer one at a time, then Jeremy’s Razors are your razors,” one wrote. The razor has a 2.7 star rating (out of five), based on more than 280 reviews.

The government may finally be starting to take action to curb commercial surveillance. Congress is considering a comprehensive privacy bill, the Federal Trade Commission is writing new privacy regulations, and an unlikely coalition of senators, including Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren, just last week proposed a bill that would end conflicts of interest among ad tracking companies.

The ad industry is gearing up for war. “Extremists are winning the battle for hearts and minds in Washington, D.C., and beyond,” David Cohen, the chief executive of the digital media and marketing trade association, declared in January at the industry’s annual swanky retreat on Marco Island, Fla. “We cannot let that happen.”

In March a coalition of trade organizations and companies, including advertising groups — which calls itself Privacy for America — sent a letter to Congress warning that any harm to the “responsible data-driven” surveillance business model could cost consumers $30,000 in economic value each year.

However, the $30,000 number comes from a study published in 2019 in which researchers asked participants to consider losing access to internet services like search engines, digital maps and email. Then participants were asked how much they would pay to keep access to those services for a year. Participants were willing to pay more than $17,000 to keep access to search, more than $8,000 to keep access to email and more than $3,000 to keep access to maps, the study found.

Search, maps and email don’t make the case for creepy ads. Search and maps are primarily funded by contextual ads — ads that are related to the query that users type into the search engine or the map. Meanwhile, most email services are free for limited usage but make money by selling additional features. There are some ads in free email, but it’s not a huge part of the advertising ecosystem.

So it turns out that this $30,000 number is a better argument for the value of contextual advertising than of surveillance advertising.

Jeremy’s Razors doesn’t need to know your family structure, your favorite sport or the name of your favorite singer. Jeremy’s could simply place its anti-woke ads near anti-woke content.

Isn’t it time that we considered a future that didn’t involve companies spying on us?

If It’s Advertised to You Online, You Probably Shouldn’t Buy It. Here’s Why.

[grumpyhermit]

Beside the fact that Jeremy's Razors just looks like a branded drop shipping company. Wouldn't shock me to learn there was also a Larry's Lefty Razors, shipping the same blades with different logos. 

[laterbloomer]

What is a woke razor like?

[Tiny]

Jeremy’s Razors, which bills itself as a “woke-free” razor for men

I'd say that kind of advertising just causes people to "interpret" the branding how ever they want...

It's just like the "Fat Free!" labeling on high calorie "empty" foods.
It's just like the "Low Carb" labeling on high calorie "empty" foods.

It's just like all the other snake oil kinds of things that people buy. It's just like all the other "magical" thinking that people buy into.

I'm guessing "woke-free" razors means they better for a manly face - no lotions, no bendy handle, and only come in "silver" or "black" colors. And will leave you with some raw spots and cuts if you "don't know how to shave".   Oh, and I bet they cost more, too.  It's more important to cost more - because that is a sign of quality and exclusiveness.   


On this same theme  (the marketing is such that it's up to the consumer to give the marketing meaning so it will be relevant to the customer -- that's a trick trump used to get elected) 

I've had "health conscious" friends and relatives buy into all sorts of stupid stuff...

I remember the day a friend who was purchasing some coffee drink with skim milk because they thought it was "better for them" and "lower in calories" than other coffee drinks discovered that the beverage had 900 calories per purchased drink (it still had sugar and extra flavored syrup and whip cream and who knows what else.) Yeah, it about 100 less calories than the same drink made with full fat milk... anyway the friend was flabbergasted and upset discovering her Healthy morning beverage was basically 900 empty calories.

I remember a friend who was focused solely on low/no fat or thought that low carb foods would also be lower in calories and who complained about how expensive "eating healthy" was... and how hard it was to lose weight - even through they were "eating healthy".

People are weird. Their brains work in weird ways. They trust advertising but won't trust actual facts.

[Tennesseer]

I play an online game called Word Jam first thing every morning. Wakes up my brain.

For a while a weight loss pill advertisement was the ad shown almost 7-8 times a day. The ad would state you could lose 50-60 pounds in three weeks and the experts agreed it worked.

The experts in the ad were Oprah Winfrey and the Shark Tank crew. Some medical experts.   And I doubt they knew their images were being used.

I always thought to myself that anyone losing 50-60 pounds in three weeks should probably be hospitalized.

I guess some people actually fell for that crap and bought the pills.

[grumpyhermit]

On the low end that would be like 7 lbs a day. Is that even metabolically possible?? 

Even when I am searching for a product directly, I try to skip the first link which is always a paid aid, and go to the page directly. I also run ad blockers and a VPN. I know big tech is spying, but I would prefer to be served as little targeted content as possible. 

[Pink Cashmere]

For a while, FaceBook’s algorithms had posts about Elvis Presley popping up on my timeline. That aggravated me to no end, I have never been an Elvis Presley fan, as an artist or the man himself. Even when I lived less than 10 minutes away, you couldn’t pay me to visit Graceland. They finally stopped popping up when I hit whatever to say I didn’t want to see more like that, every time they showed up.

I also got them for some political bullshit I didn’t agree with for a while. I got rid of them the same way I did the Elvis crap.

I prefer to DVR tv shows and watch them later, so I can skip past the commercials. I ignore online ads. I am often reminded of having read somewhere years ago that when you are able to use platforms like Facebook for free, YOU are the product that the provider is making money off of with all they information they gather from your online habits.

[Pink Cashmere]

Apr 6, 2023 17:42:31 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

On the low end that would be like 7 lbs a day. Is that even metabolically possible?? 

Even when I am searching for a product directly, I try to skip the first link which is always a paid aid, and go to the page directly. I also run ad blockers and a VPN. I know big tech is spying, but I would prefer to be served as little targeted content as possible. 

So do I!

[grumpyhermit]

100% 

All social media is a data harvest operation. There's a reason things you search or see on Twitter/FB/whatever, will start popping up as ads. I'm sure there is something in the TOS of all of those platforms saying you are giving them the right to sell your info, but no one reads/cares. 

[moon/Laura]

Tennesseer, that's not a 'snippet'. That's the whole dang article and we can't be doing that even with source links. A couple of paragraphs is all we should be doing, and the link for the rest.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 6, 2023 17:52:57 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Tennesseer, that's not a 'snippet'. That's the whole dang article and we can't be doing that even with source links. A couple of paragraphs is all we should be doing, and the link for the rest.

Sorry. I know it's not s snippet. It is though a New York Times article and one has to have a paid subscription to read their articles which I do have. Most posters don't have a subscription.

I will have to stay away from NYT articles.

[Pink Cashmere]

Apr 6, 2023 17:47:52 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

100% 

All social media is a data harvest operation. There's a reason things you search or see on Twitter/FB/whatever, will start popping up as ads. I'm sure there is something in the TOS of all of those platforms saying you are giving them the right to sell your info, but no one reads/cares. 

I didn’t buy an IPhone until about 4 years ago. The 5 or 6 years before that, I had Blackberry phones. I was regularly teased by family and friends, even strangers, because I had a Blackberry. Truth be told, I’d still rather have a BlackBerry if it was the “old” Blackberry, and not an Android now. I liked my Blackberries way more than I like my IPhone.

Anyway, at the time, Blackberry was on the tail end of their prior success, and there were a lot of common Apps that developers didn’t make for Blackberry. I was a dinosaur and still very wary of all this new technology and information gathering. I was wary enough, that I actually did read the license agreements for the apps I could get on my BlackBerry. And if I felt like the App would gather more information or require more permissions than I was comfortable with, I didn’t install it. One I remember is not understanding why the Amazon app required permission to access my photos. So, nope.

I started warning my young adult children and Mister to actually read what they were agreeing to when they installed apps on their phones, if they cared about their privacy. I was just “behind the times” though, and none of them listened to me. Since then, Mister has started to understand what I use to talk about regarding privacy and just handing over all that information about yourself, for the sake of convenience or fun, and we’ve had a lot of conversations about it. 

My employer for my side gig has something to do with federal employees. Years ago, when I learned that they used a marketing firm that used data from cell phone locations to determine who potential customers were to target with ads, it drove home to me the concerns I had about how much data our phones share about us, that we don’t realize or pay attention to. I still don’t like it.

[wvugurl26]

I think apps have gotten some better about allowing you to choose which permissions to allow. It used to be an all or nothing thing. People should still pay attention though.

[jerseygirl]

Once in a while something pops up that we’ve talked about. So the iPhone is listening, creepy
Last week I was sent an Edible Arrangement - fruit arranged like flowers, stated getting pop up ads the next day

[TheOtherMe]

When I go to Toronto and stay for a week, it takes a few days and then all of the ads are from Canada.  Same when I spent a week in North Carolina.  The Toronto ads went away quickly once I crossed the border but I still get ads from North Carolina.

[toomuchreality]

I want to know why, for a few months, I constantly got an ad of a womean's crotch, legs spread. Wearing a tiny light blue thong?

When I finally said no more of this, it switched to sex toys!

It is currently "comfortable" shoes, for older people. Go figure!

FYI- I did not search for, or buy any of the above! But for anyone who is curious, the toys were from Adam and Eve. ( now watch, I'll start getting them again!😖)

[toomuchreality]

Note: I don't have a paid subscription to the New Yorker. So it pisses me off when I click on a link and find a paywall.

Thanks for the "snippet", Tenn!

ETA: I didn't post this to cause a problem, or get in anyone's face. I seriously appreciated being able to read the story.
That's the truth!

[Tennesseer]

Apr 7, 2023 3:48:26 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

Note: I don't have a paid subscription to the New Yorker. So it pisses me off when I click on a link and find a paywall.

Thanks for the "snippet", Tenn!

ETA: I didn't post this to cause a problem, or get in anyone's face. I seriously appreciated being able to read the story.
That's the truth!

In the future if I post a NYT or Washington Post article (WP is behind a pay wall too (I have subscriptions to both)), let me know and I will send in a message my personal summary of the whole article.

[toomuchreality]

Apr 7, 2023 11:08:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 7, 2023 3:48:26 GMT -5 toomuchreality said:

Note: I don't have a paid subscription to the New Yorker. So it pisses me off when I click on a link and find a paywall.

Thanks for the "snippet", Tenn!

ETA: I didn't post this to cause a problem, or get in anyone's face. I seriously appreciated being able to read the story.
That's the truth!

In the future if I post a NYT or Washington Post article (WP is behind a pay wall too (I have subscriptions to both)), let me know and I will send in a message my personal summary of the whole article.

That is SO nice! Thank you!

[garion2003]

Facebook once showed me ads for products aimed at teen girls having their first period.  For like 2 weeks straight. Needless to say, on SO MANY LEVELS I was not their target demographic. Not. even. close.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Apr 18, 2023 14:16:18 GMT -5 garion2003 said:

Facebook once showed me ads for products aimed at teen girls having their first period.  For like 2 weeks straight. Needless to say, on SO MANY LEVELS I was not their target demographic. Not. even. close.

I get spam email all the time for men's...ahem...enhancement products...along with hot women stuff

[Deleted]

And today I got a lot of ads for women's battery-operated devices that weren't cordless lawn equipment

[finnime]

Apr 18, 2023 14:33:40 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Apr 18, 2023 14:16:18 GMT -5 garion2003 said:

Facebook once showed me ads for products aimed at teen girls having their first period.  For like 2 weeks straight. Needless to say, on SO MANY LEVELS I was not their target demographic. Not. even. close.

I get spam email all the time for men's...ahem...enhancement products...along with hot women stuff

Oh, I get those, too! "Elongation Ritual", "Grow Your Penis", "15 Inch Male Member" (ouch!), "Hot women from Ukraine, Slovenia", "Guaranteed Hard"  It gets old really fast.

[TheOtherMe]

I get lots of spam mail about hot Ukrainian women, etc.  They are definitely targeting the wrong audience.

[andi9899]

Apr 6, 2023 12:23:14 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

What is a woke razor like?

The same as any other razor. The GOP just likes to slap the word woke onto anything or anybody that doesn't believe the stupid crap that they do.