I was actually referring to the people that click them and then buy more stuff--but its cute how you speak for everybody in the world, I'm sure they appreciate that.

Look, we wouldn't be using them if they weren't effective, and they wouldn't be effective if everybody hated them with as much baseless passion as you do. So guess who's wrong?

First off, I don't sell your data to anyone except my Client--who legally has a right to that data once you fill out their form and give it to them. If you aren't providing personally identifiable info, we're not collecting it. We do collect anonymous usage data to better inform our decisions though.

Now, to the meat of your point...you say that even casual users have noticed but that the NYT is running a big story on it. Occam's Razor...which is more likely? That average users wised up and are now revolting against something that has been proven to work because people like more relevant ads (as proven by the increased conversion rates)? Or that the NYT (who either currently or has in the past likely tried retargeting) is putting out a somewhat sensationalist piece with a negative spin on it for an advertising medium that is for the most part killing their business and industry? Yeah--no conflict of interest there.

Wow, marketing scum? You don't have a bone to pick or anything...

Not all marketers are deceptive, unethical people, just like you can't generalize any profession.

And you believe everything you read on wikipedia? That definition is flat out wrong if you ask any marketer. A conversion in its basest definition is a desired event occurring. Conversion rate is simply the number of views of the event it takes to get someone to complete it. Period. Whether the advertiser does it in a creepy/stalking manner or a very classy way is on the advertiser, not the technology. Really--you'd think people on /. would understand that a tool is not good or evil, it is how it is used.

Oh, and the fact that they improve conversion rates significantly shows that people do like them--just not everybody.

"how does flushing cookies in my browser keep amazon from spamming me daily cause I once bought a spatula?"

Retargeting in the case of this article is not the same as what Amazon does. I was simply using Amazon as a comparison in marketing strategy with how they remarket to their customers. In terms of display ad retargeting though, flushing cookies is one of several solutions.

Let's change the scenario a bit. What if you regularly used that ferry and the retargeting ad you were shown was for a monthly pass discount or something. Would that possibly be of value then?

Don't cast it off as bad just because its not relevant to you in that particular instance. Its just a tool and only as good or bad as the implementation and in this instance the advertiser needs to change things significantly.

No, more like:

"So...You look at something, decide you *don't* want to buy it... and then they continue to show you different messages that might be more relevant to your purchasing needs in case you change your mind."

Look, this isn't a magic bullet. It can't make you magically change your mind if you are determined not to buy. But looking at this statistically, retargeting has a MAJOR impact on conversion rates that cannot be ignored by any online marketer. For a large percentage of people--this works.

Don't like it? Use AdBlock or dump your cookies since that is how they retarget to you.

And just to add (since I typed that last bit from my phone on the train)...

This has been around for a while. It is picking up steam now of course because people are getting more advanced in their advertising. But at the end of the day this is what a lot of people on /. have asked for in the past...less irrelevant ads that bug the crap out of them. Well, you got your wish. These are targeted based on your actions and thus will be of more interest to you. The people who decide they don't want ads AT ALL have likely already blocked them in some manner, and thus should not be weighing in on this discussion to just gripe about something that no longer applies to them.

Also, for all you people who love receiving Amazon's emails with suggested products for you to buy--guess what? This is the display advertising equivalent. And I can't stress enough how easy this is to foil. Don't like? Block ads, or just wipe cookies when your browser closes as most of these systems are cookie-based in their tracking and the ones that use Flash zombie cookies are getting sued to hell in a handbasket now.

Disclaimer: I manage paid search campaigns for a living. This is really not that big a deal. At its basest level this checks whether you visited a given page (usually a conversion event) and shows you an ad based on that. Reality is people like them because they boost conversion rates majorly. And every provider just about uses them, including Google. Don't like? Adblock ftw.

Hey, at least they're finally just coming out and calling a spade a spade. What pisses me off to no end is the latest rash of "beta tests" where you can only get in by pre-ordering the game or paying some ridiculous subscription price to Fileplanet or some other site. What happened to the days where you signed-up, and in exchange for actually helping them bug/stress test things, you got an early peek for free?

I'm sorry but being asked to pay to HELP THEM TEST AN UNFINISHED PRODUCT is just insulting. Hire a fucking Q/A monkey. I will continue to pirate games before I purchase them as there are too many releases these days that should have been delayed so they can fix MAJOR SHOWSTOPPING BUGS but was instead rushed out. If they hadn't killed my ability to return games that suck or are broken to retailers I would be fine as I could always return it if it didn't perform as advertised, but not they want their cake and they want to eat it too which I will in no way facilitate.

As much as I hate to say it, China really has Google by the balls on this one. I'm sure there are a million companies with the right connections/deep enough pockets in China right now eagerly waiting to assume Google's spot on the hill and they are all willing to do whatever the government there says.

I really don't see how Google can adhere to its corporate mission statement and continue to do business with China, although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.

"You don't have a fundamental right to try before you buy"

Well, you used to actually--it was called "returning it if it sucks." Unfortunately publishers did everything they could to tie each purchase to a one-time online account and put pressure on retailers to no longer accept opened game returns, so if a game sucks, you are stuck with it. Thus, I have no pity these companies when they whine about piracy--I have downloaded many games that have sucked and am glad I didn't waste my money. I have also downloaded many games that rocked and then proceeded to pay full price for it and recommend it to my friends.

Wow--totally forgot to format the post or preview it. Sorry for the blob of text!

Actually, if you're on the Netflix unlimited plan (most people are), you can stream an unlimited number of movies/TV shows in HD for $9/mo and I can use it through my Xbox so its already hooked up to my TV. Not a chance I'll be using this Youtube offering.

While it may not be feasible to do any sort of heavy viewing on the actual device screen, I can foresee a device in the near future that solves this issue through one of the three following methods (or some combination thereof): 1. Roll-out flexible OLED displays. They already have them, just not in mainstream consumer items yet. This makes it possible to store the screen in a compact space and enlarge it when necessary. 2. Micro-projectors. They have them for cellphones already and they are pretty decent and getting even smaller. Who cares how big your device screen is when you can project a 50" display with great clarity/color/contrast? 3. Wearable monitors. This is ultimately where we are going. We have bluetooth earphones for phones, and now that texting is on the rise I'm sure we'll have the visual counterpart any year now that actually gains market traction. The problems with devices currently on the market are that they are too damned expensive, ugly as sin (sorry, "futuristic"), and don't have a portable/lightweight enough form factor to justify carrying around like a bluetooth earpiece.

Or you can just wait until some website located somewhere where they don't give a damn about US copyright gets access through a flesh and blood proxy and posts everything for free, and grabs all the juicy ad revenue that comes with it. It only takes one leak to completely circumvent a paywall.