Slashdot Mirror
Google's Smart Advertising Leads to More Clicks
The New York Times has a story discussing the sophisticated technique that allows for the spot-on advertisements Google serves up on pages across the internet. From the article: "Hidden behind its simple white pages, Google has already created what it says is one of the most sophisticated artificial intelligence systems ever built. In a fraction of a second, it can evaluate millions of variables about its users and advertisers, correlate them with its potential database of billions of ads and deliver the message to which each user is most likely to respond. Because of this technology, users click ads 50 percent to 100 percent more often on Google than they do on Yahoo, Mr. Noto estimates, and that is a powerful driver of Google's growth and profits. 'Because the ads are more relevant," he said, "they create a better return for advertisers, which causes them to spend more money, which gives Google better margins.' (Yahoo is working on its own technology to narrow that gap.)"
It figures that one of the most sophisticated AIs ever developed would find its use in advertising.
And not at just google. Here's a few great examples of placement I have seen:
- In an article about three boys being found in a trunk (a story a few months back, they were playing and got locked in) and how the father of one found them and fell to his knees, is a tower ad. on the right side about "get the perfect car" with a guy hunched down hugging the bumper of a car
- Google word ads. for "LED/LCD Digital Signage" on a forum "Sign in" page
- German car ads in a news story about a holocaust anniversary
My point is that while often great, automatic targeted ads. often seem completely off-base or even insensitive.
And now, the same people are screaming about privacy rights, google's "monopoly" and evil public shareholder interests, and now you guys are using google's resources, infrastructure and all their hard work by ignoring cookies and blockings ads.
IT ISN'T THE SAME PEOPLE. If you can demonstrate that it actually is largely (or even moderately) the same set of people, then I'll eat some humble pie, but I really, really doubt it.