I understand his time is super-valuable, but a above all a CEO's first job is leadership. That is why they pay you the big bucks, Jamie. Leadership by example well might be worthy of your time and effort. 'Coz if commuting's not worth your while...
Something for other hard-ass CEOs to consider too.
This I wanna see! Maybe a simultaneous landing for show?
Let's say you're an advertiser and your ads are twice as responsive due to surveillance targeting, but they cost 2-3x more each than untargeted ones? The only people who ultimately benefit are the advertising networks because they can make more money from the same number of ads. There is, after all, a limit to how many ads consumers will put up with.
John Wanamaker once said, “I am convinced that about one-half the money I spend for advertising is wasted, but I have never been able to decide which half.” Targeted advertising seemed to be solution BUT the dream ultimately evaporated because the bid-for-placement system ended up multiplying the cost of each ad impression as it becomes more effective.
That's baked into the system because business will always spend every dollar that it can profitably afford on advertising to gain customers. Say customers are worth $150 average profit to you: you'll naturally pay up to $100+ to get them. The total number of ads shown is irrelevant -- all that matters is the cost per customer acquisition. For an advertiser, bidding $100 to show a 100% effective ad is the same as bidding $10 for 10% effective, or $0.10 for a 0.1% effective ad. Google or Meta's math is the opposite: they'd rather show less ad impressions to make the same $, thus freeing up "inventory" they can sell to someone else.
As to the alleged benefit to consumers that they see more-relevant ads, I can only say that I find it's actually easier to ignore an impertinent ad.
Health Inspector: I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large red label: warning lark's vomit.
Chocolate Company: But our sales would plummet!
Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, c. 1895