18 Burst results for "Tim Wong"

"tim wong" Discussed on The Digital Analytics Power Hour

The Digital Analytics Power Hour

05:39 min | Last month

"tim wong" Discussed on The Digital Analytics Power Hour

"Tim really got a lot reading the book. And the book is the subprime attention crisis and I think you get the official. Podcast recommend here from the team. Really nice job. Thank you so much for writing it. Thanks for coming on the show. I wanna throw in just to the book is it's like one hundred and forty pages of content. Got a bunch of it is both super well researched. It is not a lengthy read like it sounds like. Oh my god. Is this going to be some super dense and like i. I'm still kind of blown away with how you manage to to pack the pieces together and have i. Don't i don't know how you you seem like one of the people who maybe just doesn't ever sleep but for like i really do think people should i. This is not a book that takes a long time to read and it is so informed so really formative thank you you you mentioned flash boys early. The book by michael lewis and as i was reading and i was like. Yeah we need a character through this thing maybe virgin to is like the michael lewis treatment. Hollywood adaptation of this. Yeah that's right to pay like the main character. I think seth rogan will be ready for a serious role you know and like anyways. Okay we do have to start to wrap one thing we love to do on. The show is the last call. We just go around the horn. We share something of interest to you. Think might be interesting to our listeners. Tim wong year our guest..

michael lewis seth rogan Tim Tim wong year Hollywood one hundred and forty pages both one one thing
"tim wong" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

06:24 min | 2 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"For Advertising is also important for Tim Wong, whose day job is researching artificial intelligence and machine learning. Some of the most cutting edge research in the world is being funded by ads, right if you think machine learning an AI is gonna have a huge impact Huge impact in the world that is from economist travel to medical research and diagnosis. You may want to think about what it means that most of it is subsidized through this add infrastructure, so there's lots and lots of links to the economy that are not always obvious, but I think are worth thinking through because it points out how widespread it down turn could be So if there is an advertising bubble, can it be deflated in a slow controlled way to avoid a massive economic unraveling? Tim Wong think so. But change won't come from the industry players. They have too much incentive to keep selling. It's got to be driven by the buyer's one of the groups that has the most to lose our people who theoretically might be wasting a lot of money on advertising. But one does not think the buy side pressure will be enough. Because I think one of the biggest problems in the spaces that there's no objective Third party evaluator of some of these claims claims that is about ad efficacy. And so what I advise is kind of a punk rock and the ER. The N B E R is the National Bureau of Economic Research. What does Wong's punk rock version look like? It's basically a research group that is willing to be a little bit of a troll to the advertising industry. And so again, How do we throw off the veil? Reduce the opacity in the marketplace? You really need a dedicated group of people who are doing good research on this front. What you want is a handbrake where you can slowly bring down the momentum in the market so that it could deflate without exploding. There are, of course, many people and institutions already doing research on advertising spending, But let's be honest. Most of them have someone's thumb on the scale. And conventional wisdom isn't the only thing that someone like Tim Wong is challenging. It's also the billions of advertising dollars that Dr trillions of dollars of market value, so it takes some courage to suggest that those billions and trillions may not be kosher. One of my favorite arguments that people are using right now is you know companies wouldn't put money into this if it didn't work. So isn't that proof that the ads actually work? That, in fact is exactly what we heard earlier from the Unilever veteran Keith Weed. The fact that Coke a dove on Ford have been around for decades on the fact that companies like Unilever spend billions suggests that maybe advertising does work, which is kind of this crazy circular mind Maze if you think about it. But I do think that again. This is very parallel to the kinds of psychology that have driven market bubbles in the past. One reason to suspect that adds do work well is the underlying assumption that firms like Unilever who buy so much advertising are as Econoline one textbooks tell us Profit maximized hers. So why would they waste so much money? Any economist? It tells you that firms are profit maximizing. Is not ever worked with firms that is Steve Leavitt. The realistic picture of his that firms are composed of people and all of the foibles and shortcomings that people exhibit in their everyday life. They bring those to work with them. We asked Steve to Dallas, the Berkeley economist who worked for a time at eBay what he thought of Levitz take on the non profit maximizing behavior of allegedly profit maximizing firms. As an economist hearing. You say that causes my stomach to hurt, but at the same time, I know that you are absolutely correct to Dallas by the end of his time at eBay. Come to think that his cynical view of advertising didn't go far enough. He recalls the time eBay asked him to measure the efficacy of affiliate advertising. Think of bloggers who put in links to say company websites. Well, we worked closely with the senior director in charge of spending the money on that. And after a two hour intensive meeting, we figured out a way to do that. To do that meaning to measure whether these affiliate links were really worth buying. He turned to me and said, You know, Steve, if your results look as bad as they did for paid search, I'm not going to believe your numbers. Now. I was obviously shocked because it made me realize that religion and not science is what's winning this battle. Then I realized that it's something a lot more profound and for which I actually have a lot of compassion. If you're working on something for 10 2025 years This is part of your identity. And this is part of what you believe in. And if I'm going to prove that what you thought works so well in ways that you don't quite understand, because you're not a statistician or in a kind of attrition, and you have to take it at face value. What are you going to believe your gut That tells you that what you've been doing for the last 20 years is really influential or some egghead academic. That's showing you a bunch of equations that you don't understand and is claiming that you're wrong. This digital advertising issue is just part of a bigger conversation about the power of modern technology companies. For their first few decades, they were pretty much given free rein, but now They're facing scrutiny over the breadth and depth of their power power, both seen and unseen. U. S government has recently brought major cases against Google and Facebook to and what they consider anti competitive tactics. YouTube, Twitter and, frankly, thousands of digital platforms and repositories stand accused of promoting misinformation and or mishandling user information. Given all that society probably deserves a better answer, then a lot of companies pay a lot of money for advertising, so it must work. I think the question isn't necessarily do you want it Internet with ads or without ads. That again is Tim Wong. The question is, Do you want an Internet that's just based on a huge monoculture that's largely funded through ads were the most powerful companies use ads and.

Tim Wong Unilever eBay Steve Leavitt National Bureau of Economic Re Dallas YouTube senior director Ford Coke Keith Weed Google Twitter U. S Facebook
"tim wong" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

03:14 min | 2 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Protect brand safety. I didn't Today. Everyone wants a well functioning Internet on everyone wants it to have a positive impact on the world and not to have some of the issues were resting with right now. I think that path has not been easy so far. This September. After months of advertiser boycotts Facebook, Twitter and YouTube agreed to adopt a common set of definitions for hate speech and developed tools to let advertisers have Mork control over where their ads show up. Tim Wong thinks the longstanding capacity of the online ad marketplace is just one reason we might be in a digital advertising bubble. I think a second thing is a little bit like in the subprime mortgage crisis. You do have people who have very perverse incentives. I think to push the effectiveness of all my nads. That's the ad agencies. The ad platforms themselves. The people who run at technology All these people, I think have a very strong incentive to say no. This stuff is way better than earlier generations of advertising, and this is why you should use it. If you've been listening closely, you will notice. This is the exact same problem Steve Levitt talked about regarding the TV ad ecosystem. Human beings generally make decisions based on self interest. No chief marketing officer is ever going to say. Hey, I don't know. Maybe ads don't work. Let's not do him and see what happens. Or as the author Upton Sinclair once wrote. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it so there is a common practice, which is not very well disclosed in the ad industry. Whereby an ad tech company will basically offer ad inventory at a cheap price to the advertising agency. The agency remember is paid by you, the client who hired them to help you sell what you're selling. And then the agency will turn around and say you should you really use this ad tech product and sell it at a higher price? And one of the worries about this is that it changes the incentives right, which is typically the ad agency should be working on behalf of the client. But in these cases they have very perverse incentives to push a distribution of a message that might not otherwise be rational or even useful to them. All of these issues and all the new empirical evidence we've been discussing about the ineffectiveness of advertising. Persuaded Tim Wong that yes, the online ad marketplace is a bubble, and it might soon pop. In fact, the deflation may have already begun a few years back Procter and Gamble, which is one of the largest advertisers in the world. Decided that they would run a little experiment. They were going to take about $200 million of their digital ad spending and just cut it out of their budget to see what happens. Procter and Gamble said they were doing this because of concerns over brand safety and the proliferation of bots, which can pollute the data on ad impressions. And the end result was fascinating. Basically, they said that there was no noticeable impact on their bottom line..

Tim Wong Steve Levitt Procter Gamble Upton Sinclair chief marketing officer Facebook YouTube Twitter
"tim wong" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

07:18 min | 2 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Lot of explanations for why this might be or For why there's a lot of value and advertising beyond short term sales figures. But Proctor and Gamble is a big player. Even if they're wrong, even to a small degree. They're the ones whose money drives the advertising ecosystem. What would happen if this turned into a mass movement among advertisers, when shouldn't underestimate the size and reach of the advertising ecosystem? The sports you watch on TV. Supported by ads journalism you consume, supported by ads, at least much of them. Google maps and Google Drive and, well, Google. Supported by as as well as Facebook and Instagram and Twitter, nearly everything else you consume online and don't pay for Advertising is also important for Tim Wong, whose day job is researching artificial intelligence and machine learning. Some of the most cutting edge research in the world is being funded by ads, right if you think machine learning an AI is gonna have a huge impact, a huge impact in the world that is from autonomous travel to Medical research and diagnosis. You may want to think about what it means that most of it is subsidized through this add infrastructure, so there's lots and lots of links to the economy that are not always obvious, but I think are worth thinking through because it points out how widespread it downturn could be. So if there is an advertising bubble, can it be deflated in a slow controlled way to avoid a massive economic unraveling? Tim Wong thinks so. But change won't come from the industry players. They have too much incentive to keep selling. It's got to be driven by the buyer's one of the groups that has the most to lose our people who theoretically might be wasting a lot of money on advertising. But one does not think the buy side pressure will be enough. Because I think one of the biggest problems in the spaces that there's no objective Third party evaluator. Some of these claims claims that is about ad efficacy. And so what I advise is kind of a punk rock and the ER. N b E R is the National Bureau of Economic Research. What does Wong's punk rock version look like? It's basically a research group that is willing to be a little bit of a troll to the advertising industry. And so again, How do we throw off the veil? Reduce the opacity in the marketplace. You really need a dedicated group of people who are doing good research on this front. What you want is a handbrake weaken slowly bring down the momentum in the market so that it could deflate without exploding. There are, of course, many people and institutions already doing research on advertising spending, But Let's be honest. Most of them have someone's thumb on the scale. And conventional wisdom isn't the only thing that someone like Tim Wong is challenging. It's also the billions of advertising dollars that Dr trillions of dollars of market value, so it takes some courage to suggest that those billions and trillions may not be kosher. One of my favorite arguments that people are using right now is you know companies wouldn't put money into this if it didn't work. So isn't that proof that the ads actually work? That, in fact is exactly what we heard earlier from the Unilever veteran Keith Weed. The fact that Coke and Dove on Ford have been around for decades on the fact that companies like Unilever spend billions suggests that maybe advertising does work, which is kind of just crazy Circular mind knees if you think about it, But I do think that again. This is very parallel to the kinds of psychology that have driven market bubbles in the past. One reason to suspect that adds do work well is the underlying assumption that firms like Unilever who buy so much advertising are as Econoline one textbooks tell us Profit maximized hers. So why would they waste so much money? Any economist who tells you that firms air profit maximizing Is not ever worked with firms that is Steve Leavitt. The realistic picture of his that firms are composed of people and all of the foibles and shortcomings that people exhibit in their everyday life. They bring those to work with them. We asked Steve to Dallas, the Berkeley economist who worked for a time at eBay what he thought of Levitz take on the non profit maximizing behavior of allegedly profit maximizing firms. As an economist, hearing. You say that causes my stomach to hurt but at the same time, I know that you are absolutely correct today. Ellis by the end of his time at eBay Come to think that his cynical view of advertising didn't go far enough. He recalls the time eBay asked him to measure the efficacy of affiliate advertising. Think of bloggers who put in links to say company websites. Well, we worked closely with the senior director in charge of spending the money on that. And after a two hour intensive meeting, we figured out a way to do that. To do that meaning to measure whether these affiliate links were really worth buying. He turned to me and said, You know, Steve, if your results look as bad as they did for paid search, I'm not going to believe your numbers. Now. I was obviously shocked because it made me realize that religion and not science is what's winning this battle. Then I realize that it's something a lot more profound and for which I actually have a lot of compassion. If you're working on something for 10 2025 years This is part of your identity. And this is part of what you believe in. And if I'm going to prove that what you thought works so well in ways that you don't quite understand, because you're not a statistician or in a kind of attrition, and you have to take it at face value. What are you going to believe your gut That tells you that what you've been doing for the last 20 years is really influential or some egghead academic. That's showing you a bunch of equations that you don't understand and is claiming that you're wrong. This digital advertising issue is just part of a bigger conversation about the power of modern technology companies. For their first few decades, they were pretty much given free rein. But now they're facing scrutiny over the breadth and depth of their power power, both seen and unseen. The U. S government has recently brought major cases against Google and Facebook to end what they consider anti competitive tactics. YouTube, Twitter and, frankly, thousands of digital platforms and repositories stand accused of promoting misinformation and or mishandling user information. Even all that society probably deserves a better answer. Then a lot of companies pay a lot of money for advertising, so it must work. I think the question isn't necessarily do you want it Internet with ads or without ads. That again is Tim long. The question is, Do you want an Internet that's just based on a huge monoculture that's largely funded through ads were the most powerful companies use ads and where veces.

Tim Wong Google eBay Unilever Steve Leavitt Facebook Twitter National Bureau of Economic Re Tim long Proctor YouTube Gamble senior director Ford Coke
"tim wong" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

03:17 min | 2 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Brand safety. I didn't Today. Everyone wants a well functioning Internet on everyone wants it to have a positive impact on the world and not to have some of the issues were wrestling with right now. I think that path has not been easy so far. This September. After months of advertiser boycotts Facebook, Twitter and YouTube agreed to adopt a common set of definitions for hate speech and developed tools to let advertisers have Mork control over where their ads show up. Tim Wong thinks the longstanding capacity of the online ad marketplace is just one reason we might be in a digital advertising bubble. I think a second thing is a little bit like in the subprime mortgage crisis. You do have people who have very perverse incentives. I think to push the effectiveness of all my nads. That's the ad agencies. The ad platforms themselves. The people who run at technology All these people, I think have a very strong incentive to say no, This stuff is way better than earlier generations of advertising, and this is why you should use it. If you've been listening closely, you will notice. This is the exact same problem Steve Levitt talked about regarding the TV ad ecosystem. Human beings generally make decisions based on self interest. No chief marketing officer is ever going to say Hey, I don't know. Maybe ads don't work. That's not do him and see what happens. Or as the author Upton Sinclair once wrote. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it so there is a common practice, which is not very well disclosed in the ad industry. Whereby an ad tech company will basically offer ad inventory at a cheap price to the advertising agency. The agency remember is paid by you, the client who hired them to help you sell what you're selling. And then the agency will turn around and say You should really use this ad tech product and sell it at a higher price. And one of the worries about this is that it changes the incentives right, which is typically the ad agency should be working on behalf. Of the client. But in these cases they're very perverse incentives to push a distribution of a message that might not otherwise be rational or even useful to them. All of these issues and all the new empirical evidence we've been discussing about the ineffectiveness of advertising. Has persuaded Tim Wong that yes, the online ad marketplace is a bubble, and it might soon pop. In fact, the deflation may have already begun. A few years back Procter and Gamble, which is one of the largest advertisers in the world. Decided that they would run a little experiment. They were going to take about $200 million of their digital ad spending and just cut it out of their budget to see what happens. Procter and Gamble said they were doing this because of concerns over brand safety and the proliferation of bots, which can pollute the data on ad impressions. And the end result was fascinating. Basically, they said that there was no noticeable impact on their bottom line again. The ad industry will have a.

Tim Wong Steve Levitt Procter Gamble Upton Sinclair chief marketing officer Facebook YouTube Twitter
"tim wong" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

08:02 min | 3 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"Source of chronic embarrassment to the ad industry. The prevention of this kind of ad mismatch is known as brand safety and despite the greatest efforts at trying to eliminate the risk of brand safety from the ad market. People buying largest haven't been able to again. The industry itself would disagree. We ask google how they ensure an ad doesn't show up on a page promoting misinformation or conspiracy theory. Here's their reply. We have strict policies that govern what kind of content we place ads on. And if we find a page or website that violates our policies we take immediate action in two thousand and nineteen keith weed. The former marketing boss at unilever helped create a consortium called the global alliance for responsible media which pushes for better add controls to protect brand safety. At did everyone's a well-functioning its net and everyone wants to have a positive impact on the world and not to have some of the issues. We're wrestling with right now. I think that paul has not been easy. so far. This september after months of advertiser boycotts facebook twitter and youtube agreed to adopt a common set of definitions for hate speech and develop tools to let advertisers have more control over where their ads show up. But tim wong thinks. The longstanding opacity of the online ad marketplace is just one reason we might be in digital advertising bubble. I think second thing is a little bit like in the subprime mortgage crisis you do have people who have very perverse incentives. I think to push the effectiveness of online ads. that's the ad agencies the ad platforms themselves. The people who run ad technology. All these people i think have a very strong incentive to say no. This stuff is way better than earlier generations of advertising. And this is why you should use it. If you've been listening closely you will notice. This is the exact same problem. Steve levitt talked about regarding the tv ad ecosystem. Human beings generally make decisions based on self interest. No chief marketing officer is ever going to say. Hey i don't know maybe don't work. Let's not do them and see what happens. Or as the author upton sinclair once wrote it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it so there is a common practice which is not very well disclosed in the ad industry whereby an ad tech company will basically offer ad inventory at a cheap price to the advertising agency the agency remember is paid by you the client who hired them to help you so what you're selling and then the agency will turn around and say you should really use this ad tech product and sell it at a higher price and what are the worries about. This is that it changes the incentives. Right which is typically the ad agency should be working on behalf of the client but in these cases they have very perverse incentives to push distribution of a message that may not otherwise be rational or even useful to them all of these issues and all the new empirical evidence we've been discussing about. The ineffectiveness of advertising has persuaded tim long that yes. The online marketplace is a bubble and it might soon pop in fact the deflation may have already begun a few years back proctor and gamble which is one of the largest advertisers in the world decided that they would run a little experiment they were gonna take about two hundred million dollars of their digital ad spending and just cut it out of their budget to see what happens. Proctor and gamble said they were doing this. Because of concerns over brand safety and the proliferation of bots which can pollute the data on ad impressions and the end result was fascinating basically said that there was no noticeable impact on their bottom line again. The ad industry will have a lot of explanations for why this might be or for why. There's a lot of value in advertising beyond short-term sales figures but proctor and gamble is a big player even if they are wrong even to a small degree they're the ones whose money drives the advertising ecosystem. What would happen if this turned into a mass movement among advertisers. One shouldn't underestimate the size and reach of the advertising ecosystem you watch on. Tv supported by ads. The journalism you consume supported by at least much of it. Google maps google drive and google supported by s as well as facebook and instagram and twitter. Nearly everything else you consume online. And don't pay for including this podcast. Just about every other podcast. You listened to advertising is also important for tim. Wong whose day job is researching artificial intelligence and machine learning some of the most cutting edge research in the world is being funded by ads right if you think machine learning and is going to have a huge impact a huge impact in the world. That is from economists. Travel to medical research and diagnosis. You may want to think about what it means. That most of it is subsidized through this ad infrastructure. So there's lots and lots of links through the economy. That are not always obvious. But i think are worth thinking through because it points how widespread downturn could be so if there is an advertising bubble can it be deflated in a slow controlled. Way to avoid massive economic unraveling. Tim wong think so but change won't come from the industry players. They have too much incentive to keep selling it's got to be driven by the buyers one of the groups that has the most to lose people who theoretically might be wasting a lot of money on advertising but one does not think the by side pressure will be enough because i think one of the biggest problems in the spaces that there is no objective third party evaluator of some of these claims claims that is about efficacy and so what i advise is kind of a punk rock n d e r. The nba is the national bureau of economic research. What does wong's punk rock version. Look like it's basically a research group that is willing to be a little bit of a troll to the advertising industry and so again do we throw off the veil reduce the opacity in the marketplace. You really need a dedicated group of people who are doing good research on this front where you want is a handbrake can slowly bring down the momentum in the market so that it can deflate without exploding there are of course. Many people and institutions already doing research on advertising spending. But let's be honest. Most of them have someone's thumb on the scale and conventional wisdom. Isn't the only thing that someone like tim. Wong is challenging. It's also the billions of advertising. Dollars that dr trillions of dollars of market value. So it takes some courage to suggest that those billions and trillions may not be kosher one of my favorite arguments that people are using right now. Is you know companies. Wouldn't put money into this if it didn't work so isn't that proof that the ads actually work. That in fact is exactly what we heard earlier. From the unilever veteran keith weed the fact that coke and dove and ford have been around for decades and the fact that companies like unilever spend billions suggests that maybe advertising does work which is kind of crazy. Circular minds maze. If you think about it. But i do think that again. This is very parallel to the kinds of psychology..

tim wong unilever google Proctor keith weed facebook wrestling Steve levitt upton sinclair chief marketing officer paul youtube nba gamble
"tim wong" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

06:20 min | 3 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"How or why are you any evidence for it. Google would plainly dispute. There is no evidence for whether online ads work. Tim wong recognizes. He is tilting at windmills. Here trillion dollar windmills. But in fact he. i grew skeptical about online advertising. While still working at google he began reading trade journals and going to conferences. And i had this fascinating experience. Where one of these keynotes at this conference was given by nicole. Newman who basically is a big ad. Critic nico newman. Is a marketing professor at the melbourne business school in australia and he presented to really fascinating studies that his lab had done the first one was looking into the quality of data used in the tech industry basically demonstrating in many cases. It was incredibly inaccurate and the second one was he took dead. Aim at the hype cycle around a that exists in tech right now where people are saying if you have this latest machine learning. You have this. You'll targeting in a way that you never ever were able to do. Before and nico's lap did some experiments that demonstrated in many cases machine. Learning was finding people who would have bought the product anyways bringing this message to an ad tech conference is a bit like bringing a safety pin to a balloon conference that looked around being like ways so where people angry and it was just total dead air. No one responded no engaged with it and it got me really interested in thinking about like. Is there a bubble here. A bubble like the dot com bubble or the subprime bubble or the tulip bubble. Because this is exactly the kinds of behavior that occur in other financial bubbles where the red lights are flashing but everybody industry just refuses to take a look at the real data. Wong began thinking about how bubbles happen so the origins of every bubble come in this gap that occurs in a marketplace on one hand. You have people who believe that. An asset whether it's collateralized debt obligations or advertising inventory is extremely valuable and then on the other hand what you have is declining asset value so in the subprime mortgage crisis. We believed that mortgages bro is going to pay out regularly forever right. When next turned a package of mortgages were actually terrible asset there were toxic and about to go belly so how long justify parallel with digital advertising. I think the first piece is really the big question of do people ever see ads at all. So google actually did a fascinating study not too long ago which concluded that close to sixty percent of ads on the internet are never ever even seen the ad is delivered but it just ends up in some dumb part of the page. Just below the fold there it's alongside line. But what about the precise targeting. The digital ads are supposed to offer a two thousand and nineteen study this one done by three academic researchers addressed this question by measuring the impact of a users cookies. Those remember are the tracking codes most of us to roam our computers and phones in exchange for all the free information we get from companies like google and facebook. This study found that when users cookies were unavailable ad. Revenues only dropped by about four percent. Why would cookies be so ineffective. Tim wong argues that people pay a lot less attention to online ads and they used to. People often forget that when banner ads. Were i lost on the internet. There click through rate was fifty percent completely mind-bending right and it was just continue to fall and fall and fall and now it's like point zero one. Two point zero three percent. Some estimates of click through rates are higher than what hong sites here that said. Precise measurement is hard because there are so many bots clicking on adds a whole other problem with the digital ad universe but no matter how you measure it. Click through rates have fallen a lot as the novelty wears off habituation sets in and an ad that might have once grabbed your attention becomes invisible or worse annoying. People increasingly don't want ads. So ad blocking for example is really really increasing over time. And i think these factors not being able to see ads the questions about the effectiveness of ads and the rise of ad blocking bring into question whether thing that we think is so valuable is actually worth as much as we think it is but if there is such a big gap between the perceived and real value of digital advertising. Why are google and facebook worth so much money. Look at it this way. There are a couple trillion reasons. Why tim wong might be wrong. But he doesn't think so. His theory is that digital advertising is grotesquely overvalued because it is still so hard to measure and one reason it's hard to measure the marketplace is exceedingly opaque. So there's a fascinating incident. That i always think about which is one of the last times. That mark zuckerberg was called up to congress and one of the questions that he got from. One of the senators was well. How do you guys make money. Sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service and mark zuckerberg was like senator. We run out and at the time. A lot of the chatter on twitter was like ha ha. Look at the super old senator. He doesn't know anything about the internet. But it's true that even if you talk to people in the tech industry and you're like okay level with me joe engineer. How do ads work on the internet. It's kind of a rumor like we know. This is how the business model works but no one can really explain how it works in detail so when i say advertising a lot of people normally think of madman right but it really looks like what the nasdaq looks like which is largely automated system moves millions and millions and billions of pieces of ad inventory on a daily basis as steve to dallas explained earlier. Most ad inventory is sold by auctions which are run by algorithms operating at phenomenal speed. This is one contributor to the obesity of the industry. for instance. It can be hard to figure out why certain ads and up on certain pages if you are a family-friendly brand like disney you don't want your ad popping up on a youtube video showing a terrorist beheading. This has been a.

Google Tim wong nico newman facebook senator mark zuckerberg melbourne business school australia nicole disney twitter youtube professor engineer dallas
"tim wong" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

07:39 min | 3 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"So what happened next. You might think what with capitalism being the hyper competitive market optimizing perfect information ecosystem. It's supposed to be you might think that other companies once they learned about this ebay research would cut their online ad spending or at least commission their own research. Test the theories. So did they excellent question. There was a lot of chatter on line after our experiments became public suggesting. That folks ebbe don't what they're doing and paid search advertising works wonderfully if you know how to do it but of course that was backed with no data and no analysis in other words the digital ad community did not rush to replicate the results now given the opportunity to save millions of dollars that the ebay research showed was being wasted. Why wouldn't other companies at least poke their own data a little harder. Well i think there are many reasons. Let's start with the way in which this industry is structured. You could think of four different actors. Here there's the customer which is the company or the person who wants to advertise in order to get business and then you have three players sitting on the other side of this market was the publishers. That would be google. That would be the new york times or any other place where the ad appears in front of people the other are the people who create ads and then finally a smaller part of the industry are these analytics. Companies that like that company ebay hired are trying to help companies. Spend this money and if you think of all these three players on the other side of the fence. No-one there has an incentive to basically open this pandora's box even within the company. That's buying the ads. The incentives can be complicated. Steve levitt again. If you think about it no chief. Marketing officer is ever going to say. Hey i don't know don't work. It's not do umn and see what happens. Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that advertising doesn't work plan that we don't have a very good idea about how well it works. Steve to dallas agrees. The potential for digital advertising would seem especially large given its ability to micro target consumers and targeting really is key because one of the lessons. We learned from the experiments at ebay. Was that people who never shopped on. They were very much influenced by having ebay ads for non brand keywords. You know guitar share studio microphone and if ebay would be able to better target ads to customers that are not frequent customers. That's where you would get the real bang for the buck. So as companies become more sophisticated. They could try to engage in these kinds of experiments to focus attention on different customer segments in order to see where they get the highest returns on advertising by in large. I don't see that happening. A big part of it is the naivety on the side of these customers customers. Meaning the companies who are buying these keyword ads. The one actor sitting alone on their side of the fence across from the agencies the publishers the ad tech firms and one of the things that i try hard to do is to give people enough information so that they wouldn't be able to do the job themselves but if someone is to sell them snake oil. They'll smells something is not working here. Coming up after the break is the digital advertising economy a bubble. I do think this is very parallel to the kind of psychology that had driven bubbles in the past. Also if you like freakonomics and you've gotten this far so presumably you don't hate it. You may also lake. The two other shows that recently launched within the freakonomics radio network. One is called stupid questions. The other people i mostly admire. I am proud to say that new stupid questions which launched in may is already coming up on five million downloads and people. I mostly admire which launched only at the end of summer is coming up on. Its first million so go. Listen and subscribe new stupid questions and people mostly admire. You can find them wherever you listen to podcasts. And now here's an ad that somebody probably cooked up. Just for you We reached out to facebook and google with some questions about their ad business and to get a response to the research. We've been discussing today. Which argues that paid. Search advertising is substantially less effective than the conventional wisdom holtz. We got no reply from facebook. The google representatives wrote back to say quote advertisers invest money in search ads. Because they work. They also sent some internal google researched backup their claim separately. We received an unsolicited email from. How variant the chief economist at google. He attached a long list of research. Papers that assert the efficacy of search advertising as well as advertising on youtube which is owned by google. Much of the research vary incent was done by google analysts it offers a robust defense of the status quo the online ad ecosystem. Google has built off of there. Search capability is quite literally a license to print money alphabet. Google's parent company has a market capitalization of nearly one point two trillion dollars last year. Eighty three percent of their revenue came from advertising so it would probably behoove all of us to know a little bit more about how this ecosystem functions whether it's as effective as google says it is or as ineffective as researchers like steve to dallas told us earlier about his research at ebay. Ebay believed that for every dollar. They're spending they're getting fifty cents net profits and what we showed. Is that on average. They're losing more than sixty cents on every dollar so okay. let's try to understand this ecosystem better. I we will need a guide. Sure my name is tim. Wong h. w. a. n. g. day job is. I'm a research fellow at the center for security and emerging technology at georgetown and before that i was previously global head of public policy for a and machine learning at google one recently published book called subprime attention crisis advertising in the time bomb at the heart of the internet. It's about how big tech monetizes our attention. When i started to research by very naturally started to talk to a couple of friends who work at these big tech companies and it was a little bit like talking to someone who works in national security or the intelligence community or something like that because they would be like. Oh adds definitely work. But we can't tell you.

google ebay Steve levitt facebook new york times dallas research fellow officer Wong h. w. a. n. chief economist youtube global head georgetown
"tim wong" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

06:23 min | 3 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Freakonomics

"Wong whose day job is researching artificial intelligence and machine learning some of the most cutting edge research in the world is being funded by ads right if you think machine learning and a is going to have a huge impact a huge impact in the world that is from economist. Travel to medical research and diagnosis. You may want to think about what it means that most of it is subsidized through this infrastructure. So there's lots and lots of links through the economy. That are not always obvious. But i think are thinking through because it points how widespread a downturn could be so if there is an advertising bubble canopy deflated in slow controlled. Way to avoid massive economic unraveling. Tim wong thinks so but change won't come from the industry players. They have too much incentive to keep selling it's got to be driven by the buyers one of the groups that has the most to lose our people who theoretically might be wasting a lot of money on advertising but wong does not think the buy side pressure will be enough because i think one of the biggest problems in the spaces that there is no objective. Third party evaluator of some of these claims claims. That is about ad efficacy. And so what i advise is kinda punk rock n d e r. The nba er is the national bureau of economic research. What does wong's punk rock version. Look like it's basically a research group that is willing to be a little bit of a troll to the advertising industry and so again. how do we throw off the veil reduce the passage in the marketplace. You really need a dedicated group of people who are doing good research on this run where you want is a handbrake where you can slowly bring down the momentum in the market so that it can deflate without exploding there are of course. Many people and institutions already doing research on advertising spending. But let's be honest. Most of them have someone's thumb on the scale and conventional wisdom. Isn't the only thing that someone like tim. Wong is challenging. It's also the billions of advertising. Dollars that dr trillions of dollars of market value. So it takes some courage to suggest those billions and trillions may not be kosher one of my favorite arguments. That people are using right now. Is you know. Companies wouldn't put money into this if it didn't work so isn't that proof that the ads actually work. That in fact is exactly what we heard earlier. From the unilever veteran keith weed the fact that coke and dove and ford have been around for decades and the fact that companies like unilever spend billions suggests that maybe advertising does work which is kind of crazy. Circular mind maze. If you think about it. But i do think that again. This is very parallel to the kinds. Psychology to had driven market bubbles in the past. One reason to suspect that ads do work. Well is the underlying assumption that firms like unilever who buy so much. Advertising are as econ. One one textbooks tell us profit maximize irs. So why would they waste so much money. Any economists that tells you that firms are profit maximizing is not ever worked with firms. That again is steve levitt. The realistic picture of is that firms are composed of people and all of the foibles and shortcomings that people exhibit in their everyday life. They bring those to work with them. We s steve to dallas the berkeley economist. Who worked for a time at ebay. What he thought of levitz take on the non profit maximizing behavior of allegedly profit maximizing firms as an economist hearing you say that causes my stomach to hurt but at the same time. I know that you are absolutely correct to dallas. By end of his time at ebay had come to think that his cynical view of advertising didn't go far enough he recalls the time ebay asked him to measure the efficacy of affiliate advertising. Think of bloggers who put in links to say company websites. Well we worked closely with the senior director in charge of spending the money on that and after two our intensive meeting. We figured out a way to do that to do that. Meaning to measure whether these affiliate links were really worth buying he turned to me and said you know steve if your results look as bad as they did for paid search. I'm not going to believe your numbers now. I was obviously shocked because it made me realize that religion and not science is. What's winning this battle. But then i realized that it's something a lot more profound and for which. I actually have a lot of compassion. If you're working on something for ten twenty twenty five years this is part of your identity and this is part of what you believe in. And if i'm going to prove that what you thought worked so well in ways that you don't quite understand because you're not a statistician or an attrition and you have to take it at face value. What are you going to believe your gut tells you that what you've been doing for the last twenty years is really influential or some egghead academic. That's showing you a bunch of equations that you don't understand and is claiming that you're wrong. This digital advertising issue is just part of a bigger conversation about the power of modern technology companies for their first few decades. They were pretty much given free reign. But now they are facing scrutiny over the breadth and depth of their power power both seen and unseen the. Us government has brought a major antitrust case against google facebook youtube twitter and frankly thousands of digital platforms and repositories stand accused of promoting misinformation and or mishandling user. Information given all that society probably deserves a better answer than a lot of companies. Pay a lot of money for advertising so it must work. I think the question isn't necessarily do want it internet with ads or without ads. That again is tim. Wong the question is do you want an internet. That's just based on a huge monoculture. that's largely funded through ads. We're the most powerful companies use ads and we're vc's don't choose.

Tim wong steve levitt ebay unilever nba Us dallas bureau of economic research senior director keith weed levitz google facebook berkeley ford
"tim wong" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

02:37 min | 3 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Freakonomics

"Consortium called the global alliance for responsible media which pushes for better add controls to protect brand safety end today. Everyone wants a well-functioning internet and everyone wants to have a positive impact on the world and not to have some of the issues. We're wrestling with right now. I think that off has not been easy. So far. This september after months of advertiser boycotts facebook twitter and youtube agreed to adopt a common set of definitions for hate speech and develop tools to let advertisers have more control over where their ads show up. But tim wong thinks the longstanding opacity of the online ad marketplaces. Just one reason. We might be in a digital advertising bubble. I think a second thing is a little bit like in the subprime mortgage crisis you have people who have very perverse incentives. I think to push the effectiveness of online ads. that's the ad agencies the ad platforms themselves. The people who run technology. All these people i think have a very strong incentive to say no. This stuff is way better than earlier generations of advertising. And this is why you should use it. If you've been listening closely you'll notice. This is the exact same problem. Steve levitt talked about regarding the tv ad ecosystem. Human beings generally make decisions based on self interest. No chief marketing officer is ever gonna say hey. I don't know maybe ads don't work. Let's not do a and see what happens. Or as the author upton sinclair once wrote it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it so there is a common practice which is not very well disclosed in the ad industry whereby an ad tech company will basically offer ad inventory at a cheap price to the advertising agency the agency remember is paid by you the client who hired them to help you so what you're selling and the agency will turn around them say you should really use this ad tech product and sell at higher price and one of the worries about this is it changes the incentives right which is typically the ad agency should be working on behalf of the client but in these cases have very perverse incentives to push distribution of a message that may not otherwise be rational or even useful to them all of these issues and all the new empirical evidence we've been discussing about.

wrestling upton sinclair chief marketing officer Steve levitt tim wong facebook youtube
"tim wong" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

05:51 min | 3 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Freakonomics

"Ecosystem functions whether it's as effective as google says it is or as ineffective has researchers like steve dallas told us earlier about his research at ebay. Ebay believed that for every dollar. They're spending they're getting fifty cents of net profits and what we showed that on average. They're losing more than sixty cents on every dollar so okay. let's try to understand this ecosystem better. I we will need a guide. Sure my name is tim. Kwong h. w. a. n. g. My day job is. I'm a research fellow at the center for security and emerging technology at georgetown and before that i was previously global head of public policy for ai and machine learning at google one recently published a book subprime attention crisis advertising in the time bomb at the heart of the internet. It's about how big tech monetizes our attention. When i started to do research by very naturally started to talk to a couple of friends who work at these big tech companies and there was a little bit like talking to someone who works in national security or the intelligence community or something like that because they would be like oh adds definitely work. But we can't tell you how are y or give you any evidence for it. Google would plainly dispute that. There is no evidence for whether online ads work. Tim wong recognizes. He is tilting at windmills here. Trillion dollar windmills. But in fact he. i grew skeptical about online advertising. While still working at google he began reading trade journals and going to conferences and this fascinating experience. Where one of these keynotes at this conference was given by nicole. Newman who basically is a big ad. Critic nico newman. Is a marketing professor at the melbourne business school in australia and he presented to really fascinating studies that his lab had done the first one was looking into the quality of data used in the ad tech industry basically demonstrating in many cases. It was incredibly inaccurate and the second one was. He took dead. Aim at hype cycle around. Ai that exists in ad tech right now where people are saying if you have this latest machine learning you have this ai. You'll give the targeting in a way that you never ever were able to do before and nico's lap did. Some experiments have demonstrated that in many cases machine learning was finding people who would have bought the product anyway anyways bringing this message to an ad tech conference is a bit like bringing a safety pin to a balloon conference that looked around being like where so angry and it was just total dead air. No one responded no one engaged with it and it got me really interested in thinking about. Is there a bubble here. A bubble like the dot com bubble or the subprime bubble or the tulip bubble. Because this is exactly the kinds of behavior that occur in other financial bubbles where the red lights are flashing but everybody industry just refuses to take a look at the real data long began thinking about how bubbles happen so the origins of every bubble come in this gap that occurs in a marketplace. On one hand you have people who believe that. An asset whether it's collateralized debt obligations or advertising inventory is extremely valuable and on the other hand what you have is declining asset value so in the prime mortgage crisis believed that mortgages rose gonna just pay out regularly forever right. When next turned the package of mortgages were actually a terrible asset. There were toxic and about to go belly up. so how can wong justify a parallel with digital advertising. I think the first piece is really the big question of do people ever see ads at all. So google actually did a fascinating study not too long ago which concluded that close to sixty percent of ads on the internet are never ever even seen the ad is delivered but it just ends up in some dumb part of the page. Right is below the fold their sideline but what about the precise targeting. The digital ads are supposed to offer a two thousand nine thousand nine hundred study this one done by three academic researchers addressed this question by measuring the impact of users cookies. Those remember are the tracking codes. Most of us allowed to roam our computers and phones in exchange for all the free information we get from companies like google and facebook. This study found that when a user's cookies were unavailable ed revenues only dropped by about four percent. Why would cookies be so ineffective. Tim wong argues that people pay a lot less attention to online ads and they used to. People often forget that when banner ads first loss on the internet there click through rate was like fifty percent completely mind-bending and it's just continue to fall and fall and fall and now it's like point zero one. Two point zero three percent. Some estimates of click through rates are higher than what sites here that said precise measurement is hard because there are so many bots clicking on adds a whole other problem with the digital ad universe but no matter how you measure it click through rates have fallen a lot as the novelty wears off habituation sets in and an ad that might have once grabbed your attention becomes invisible or worse annoying. People increasingly don't want ads. So ad blocking for example is really really increasing over time. And i think these factors not being able to see ads the questions about the effectiveness of ads and the rise of things ad blocking bring into question whether his thing that we think is so valuable is actually worth as much as we think it is but if there is such a big gap between the perceived and real value of digital advertising. Why are google and facebook worth so.

google Tim wong nico newman ebay facebook Kwong h. w. a. n. g steve dallas melbourne business school australia research fellow nicole georgetown professor global head
"tim wong" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

06:26 min | 4 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

"So. . Big Tech monopolies are in the news this week the Department of Justice sued Google over how it maintains its search dominance and it search dominance is the key to its business model, , which is that it makes eighty percent of its revenue from digital advertising facebook by the makes ninety, , nine percent of its revenue from advertising and the profitability of targeted ads is also a big reason why tech companies are constantly collecting so much data about us and there's a multibillion dollar ad tech industry that exists because all of this makes so much money. . But what these ads didn't actually work all that. Well, . , Tim Wong is a former public policy executive Google where he worked on artificial intelligence and machine learning and he's of the new book subprime attention crisis I. . Think this is an interesting important distinction right? ? which is it's not necessarily to make the argument that advertising never works categorically right? ? We have examples of it working. . The question is whether or not the market as a whole really lives up to the promises that it's made and the promises made is that data driven. . Automated form of what's known as programmatic advertising is a kind of advertising that's way better than billboards or magazines or the kind of madman style of advertising and I think ultimately, , it may be that we are exactly where we were decades ago. . Right? which ? is we actually don't know which half of the money spent advertising works in which one is wasted. . We just very difficult to tell. . Is, , there an awareness of this? ? I mean I know that you know after for example, Cambridge , Politica, , there was a lot of conversation about how there are lots of promises related to micro targeting and that it just might not be. . Realistic. . Like do advertisers are they starting to understand this? ? Well, , I, , think there's a lot of willful blindness in the Advertising Space <hes> you know so this book that I just wrote, , it opens on a really strange experience that I had going to a marketing conference where a professor laid out all of the evidence right? ? You know sixty percent of people never see ads ad blocking up all around the world it was just dead space the. . Advertisers kind of refuse to engage with it, , and you know it's one of the things I've been thinking a lot about because it's similar to patterns that we see and other market bubbles right where there's these deep structural problems with the industry. . But a lot of the people involved either don't want to hear it or they don't believe it I mean listen I'm very familiar with the idea of the belief that technology must be working even. . All. . Evidence to the contrary. . But I do want to ask you about targeting specifically because it seems like there's a lot of technical reasons it doesn't work. But . what about this idea that there's a massive amount of data collection that ads can be so specific and personalized that you literally cannot resist them are you saying that's also not true Yeah I. . Mean You brought up Cambridge Analytical earlier? ? I mean there's a fascinating report that just came out from the UK privacy regulator that was basically their research to say look there's all of this kind of. . Metric advertising does it make a difference and the conclusion? ? There was no there actually was not any significant difference and there's two reasons for that. . One of them is a lot of researchers find that a lot of the data being used as faulty and messy and doesn't work and I think the other one is whether or not. . This data actually helps you to target a message better is really unclear. . There's a great researcher by the name of Allesandro. . Who's been doing some work on if you have targeted ads versus non targeted ads, , does it actually make a difference and conclusion is it does but really only by a small margin, , much less than you think. . Could it also expose the fact that a lot of these companies no longer want the data for advertising like they want it for machine learning. . Yeah I. . think that's ultimately you know I think one of the great questions and responses I've had to the book is people say so why have we built this enormous surveillance infrastructure? ? This thing just doesn't work I. . Think people have traditionally thought. . Oh, , well, , it's because Mark Zuckerberg wants to build a mind control ray that's his advertising system. . You know the reality is that it has been collected for other reasons and for sure I think things like the promise of machine learning is is one of the reasons that people collect this data. . What Can. . Be Done. . Do you think I mean? ? This is a big complicated technology question. . You've got companies spending a ton of money and companies that rely on this for their whole business model. . Like what could solutions even look like? ? One of my worries about this is that again, , if you study the history of market bubbles, , a lot of what we see is very reminiscent right to the say the subprime mortgage crisis of two, , thousand, , seven, , two, , thousand, , eight, , and there is a momentum here in the problem with bubbles is that. . While, , it may look great in two, thousand, , , seven, , I think we were saying how great economy is doing. . At some point they pop and I think the human costs will be great. . It's really not just a matter of whether or not you know Mark Zuckerberg has less. . Fewer billion dollars right I think you gotta think about all the media that's relying on this ecosystem that journalism that relies on it and many other places that advertising touches online, , and so I I tend to believe in the idea that we have to find ways of deflating this bubble and so I'm really interested in kind of the ability to both spread the public word about some of the problems in this marketplace. . But also I think there's room for regulation I. . think There's room to enforce transparency in the marketplace to try to make sure that you know expectations about this match up with reality. . There's been just as a regulatory matter there been a lot of questions about banning targeted advertising. . Should that happen? ? Yeah I I do think. . So and I think in some ways you know in may be the thing that pops the bubble right because for the longest time, , advertisers have been basically holding to the position that we need all this data order to do our business to target our ads and what we're seeing as things. . GDP are the European privacy law and CPA to California privacy law rollout is in many cases the market just keep chugging along even though our advertisers have a lot less access to data and I do think that that kind of realization that all this data might actually not have been very. . Meaningful might actually 'cause you know sort of expectations or perceptions about how great this stuff is to kind of crash to Earth, , and so you think these privacy laws have these two effects. . One of them is to protect privacy, which , of course is important but I think the other side of it is actually in May of like you know strip the veil off this market that I think has been kinda shrouded for so long Tim. . Wong is the author of the new book subprime attention crisis. . How big a bubble are we talking here? ? Digital advertisers will spend over one hundred and forty billion dollars in the US in twenty twenty. .

Tim Wong Mark Zuckerberg Google Department of Justice facebook Cambridge Politica California Cambridge Analytical executive UK professor Allesandro researcher ray
What happens if online advertising is just a big, fat bubble?

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

06:26 min | 4 months ago

What happens if online advertising is just a big, fat bubble?

"So. Big Tech monopolies are in the news this week the Department of Justice sued Google over how it maintains its search dominance and it search dominance is the key to its business model, which is that it makes eighty percent of its revenue from digital advertising facebook by the makes ninety, nine percent of its revenue from advertising and the profitability of targeted ads is also a big reason why tech companies are constantly collecting so much data about us and there's a multibillion dollar ad tech industry that exists because all of this makes so much money. But what these ads didn't actually work all that. Well, Tim Wong is a former public policy executive Google where he worked on artificial intelligence and machine learning and he's of the new book subprime attention crisis I. Think this is an interesting important distinction right? which is it's not necessarily to make the argument that advertising never works categorically right? We have examples of it working. The question is whether or not the market as a whole really lives up to the promises that it's made and the promises made is that data driven. Automated form of what's known as programmatic advertising is a kind of advertising that's way better than billboards or magazines or the kind of madman style of advertising and I think ultimately, it may be that we are exactly where we were decades ago. Right? which is we actually don't know which half of the money spent advertising works in which one is wasted. We just very difficult to tell. Is, there an awareness of this? I mean I know that you know after for example, Cambridge Politica, there was a lot of conversation about how there are lots of promises related to micro targeting and that it just might not be. Realistic. Like do advertisers are they starting to understand this? Well, I, think there's a lot of willful blindness in the Advertising Space you know so this book that I just wrote, it opens on a really strange experience that I had going to a marketing conference where a professor laid out all of the evidence right? You know sixty percent of people never see ads ad blocking up all around the world it was just dead space the. Advertisers kind of refuse to engage with it, and you know it's one of the things I've been thinking a lot about because it's similar to patterns that we see and other market bubbles right where there's these deep structural problems with the industry. But a lot of the people involved either don't want to hear it or they don't believe it I mean listen I'm very familiar with the idea of the belief that technology must be working even. All. Evidence to the contrary. But I do want to ask you about targeting specifically because it seems like there's a lot of technical reasons it doesn't work. But what about this idea that there's a massive amount of data collection that ads can be so specific and personalized that you literally cannot resist them are you saying that's also not true Yeah I. Mean You brought up Cambridge Analytical earlier? I mean there's a fascinating report that just came out from the UK privacy regulator that was basically their research to say look there's all of this kind of. Metric advertising does it make a difference and the conclusion? There was no there actually was not any significant difference and there's two reasons for that. One of them is a lot of researchers find that a lot of the data being used as faulty and messy and doesn't work and I think the other one is whether or not. This data actually helps you to target a message better is really unclear. There's a great researcher by the name of Allesandro. Who's been doing some work on if you have targeted ads versus non targeted ads, does it actually make a difference and conclusion is it does but really only by a small margin, much less than you think. Could it also expose the fact that a lot of these companies no longer want the data for advertising like they want it for machine learning. Yeah I. think that's ultimately you know I think one of the great questions and responses I've had to the book is people say so why have we built this enormous surveillance infrastructure? This thing just doesn't work I. Think people have traditionally thought. Oh, well, it's because Mark Zuckerberg wants to build a mind control ray that's his advertising system. You know the reality is that it has been collected for other reasons and for sure I think things like the promise of machine learning is is one of the reasons that people collect this data. What Can. Be Done. Do you think I mean? This is a big complicated technology question. You've got companies spending a ton of money and companies that rely on this for their whole business model. Like what could solutions even look like? One of my worries about this is that again, if you study the history of market bubbles, a lot of what we see is very reminiscent right to the say the subprime mortgage crisis of two, thousand, seven, two, thousand, eight, and there is a momentum here in the problem with bubbles is that. While, it may look great in two, thousand, seven, I think we were saying how great economy is doing. At some point they pop and I think the human costs will be great. It's really not just a matter of whether or not you know Mark Zuckerberg has less. Fewer billion dollars right I think you gotta think about all the media that's relying on this ecosystem that journalism that relies on it and many other places that advertising touches online, and so I I tend to believe in the idea that we have to find ways of deflating this bubble and so I'm really interested in kind of the ability to both spread the public word about some of the problems in this marketplace. But also I think there's room for regulation I. think There's room to enforce transparency in the marketplace to try to make sure that you know expectations about this match up with reality. There's been just as a regulatory matter there been a lot of questions about banning targeted advertising. Should that happen? Yeah I I do think. So and I think in some ways you know in may be the thing that pops the bubble right because for the longest time, advertisers have been basically holding to the position that we need all this data order to do our business to target our ads and what we're seeing as things. GDP are the European privacy law and CPA to California privacy law rollout is in many cases the market just keep chugging along even though our advertisers have a lot less access to data and I do think that that kind of realization that all this data might actually not have been very. Meaningful might actually 'cause you know sort of expectations or perceptions about how great this stuff is to kind of crash to Earth, and so you think these privacy laws have these two effects. One of them is to protect privacy, which of course is important but I think the other side of it is actually in May of like you know strip the veil off this market that I think has been kinda shrouded for so long Tim. Wong is the author of the new book subprime attention crisis. How big a bubble are we talking here? Digital advertisers will spend over one hundred and forty billion dollars in the US in twenty twenty.

Tim Wong Mark Zuckerberg Google Department Of Justice Facebook Cambridge Politica California United States Cambridge Analytical Executive Professor Allesandro UK Researcher RAY
"tim wong" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

06:33 min | 4 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

"So. Big Tech monopolies are in the news this week the Department of Justice sued Google over how it maintains its search dominance and it search dominance is the key to its business model, which is that it makes eighty percent of its revenue from digital advertising facebook by the makes ninety, nine percent of its revenue from advertising and the profitability of targeted ads is also a big reason why tech companies are constantly collecting so much data about us and there's a multibillion dollar ad tech industry that exists because all of this makes so much money. But what these ads didn't actually work all that. Well, Tim Wong is a former public policy executive Google where he worked on artificial intelligence and machine learning and he's of the new book subprime attention crisis I. Think this is an interesting important distinction right? which is it's not necessarily to make the argument that advertising never works categorically right? We have examples of it working. The question is whether or not the market as a whole really lives up to the promises that it's made and the promises made is that data driven. Automated form of what's known as programmatic advertising is a kind of advertising that's way better than billboards or magazines or the kind of madman style of advertising and I think ultimately, it may be that we are exactly where we were decades ago. Right? which is we actually don't know which half of the money spent advertising works in which one is wasted. We just very difficult to tell. Is, there an awareness of this? I mean I know that you know after for example, Cambridge Politica, there was a lot of conversation about how there are lots of promises related to micro targeting and that it just might not be. Realistic. Like do advertisers are they starting to understand this? Well, I, think there's a lot of willful blindness in the Advertising Space you know so this book that I just wrote, it opens on a really strange experience that I had going to a marketing conference where a professor laid out all of the evidence right? You know sixty percent of people never see ads ad blocking up all around the world it was just dead space the. Advertisers kind of refuse to engage with it, and you know it's one of the things I've been thinking a lot about because it's similar to patterns that we see and other market bubbles right where there's these deep structural problems with the industry. But a lot of the people involved either don't want to hear it or they don't believe it I mean listen I'm very familiar with the idea of the belief that technology must be working even. All. Evidence to the contrary. But I do want to ask you about targeting specifically because it seems like there's a lot of technical reasons it doesn't work. But what about this idea that there's a massive amount of data collection that ads can be so specific and personalized that you literally cannot resist them are you saying that's also not true Yeah I. Mean You brought up Cambridge Analytical earlier? I mean there's a fascinating report that just came out from the UK privacy regulator that was basically their research to say look there's all of this kind of. Metric advertising does it make a difference and the conclusion? There was no there actually was not any significant difference and there's two reasons for that. One of them is a lot of researchers find that a lot of the data being used as faulty and messy and doesn't work and I think the other one is whether or not. This data actually helps you to target a message better is really unclear. There's a great researcher by the name of Allesandro. Who's been doing some work on if you have targeted ads versus non targeted ads, does it actually make a difference and conclusion is it does but really only by a small margin, much less than you think. Could it also expose the fact that a lot of these companies no longer want the data for advertising like they want it for machine learning. Yeah I. think that's ultimately you know I think one of the great questions and responses I've had to the book is people say so why have we built this enormous surveillance infrastructure? This thing just doesn't work I. Think people have traditionally thought. Oh, well, it's because Mark Zuckerberg wants to build a mind control ray that's his advertising system. You know the reality is that it has been collected for other reasons and for sure I think things like the promise of machine learning is is one of the reasons that people collect this data. What Can. Be Done. Do you think I mean? This is a big complicated technology question. You've got companies spending a ton of money and companies that rely on this for their whole business model. Like what could solutions even look like? One of my worries about this is that again, if you study the history of market bubbles, a lot of what we see is very reminiscent right to the say the subprime mortgage crisis of two, thousand, seven, two, thousand, eight, and there is a momentum here in the problem with bubbles is that. While, it may look great in two, thousand, seven, I think we were saying how great economy is doing. At some point they pop and I think the human costs will be great. It's really not just a matter of whether or not you know Mark Zuckerberg has less. Fewer billion dollars right I think you gotta think about all the media that's relying on this ecosystem that journalism that relies on it and many other places that advertising touches online, and so I I tend to believe in the idea that we have to find ways of deflating this bubble and so I'm really interested in kind of the ability to both spread the public word about some of the problems in this marketplace. But also I think there's room for regulation I. think There's room to enforce transparency in the marketplace to try to make sure that you know expectations about this match up with reality. There's been just as a regulatory matter there been a lot of questions about banning targeted advertising. Should that happen? Yeah I I do think. So and I think in some ways you know in may be the thing that pops the bubble right because for the longest time, advertisers have been basically holding to the position that we need all this data order to do our business to target our ads and what we're seeing as things. GDP are the European privacy law and CPA to California privacy law rollout is in many cases the market just keep chugging along even though our advertisers have a lot less access to data and I do think that that kind of realization that all this data might actually not have been very. Meaningful might actually 'cause you know sort of expectations or perceptions about how great this stuff is to kind of crash to Earth, and so you think these privacy laws have these two effects. One of them is to protect privacy, which of course is important but I think the other side of it is actually in May of like you know strip the veil off this market that I think has been kinda shrouded for so long Tim. Wong is the author of the new book subprime attention crisis. How big a bubble are we talking here? Digital advertisers will spend over one hundred and forty billion dollars in.

Tim Wong Mark Zuckerberg Google Department of Justice facebook Cambridge Politica California Cambridge Analytical executive UK professor Allesandro researcher ray
"tim wong" Discussed on NewsRadio KFBK

NewsRadio KFBK

03:08 min | 7 months ago

"tim wong" Discussed on NewsRadio KFBK

"Through nine o'clock through tomorrow night. Meantime, President Trump on Twitter today, saying Democrats have force Americans to be in the dark as they intentionally implement statewide blackouts. And uber and left or both, considering offering their California driver's franchises to avoid making them employees going in depth. Now, public health officials are ordering the closure of a sack, No county school campus for violating the state's order Prohibiting in person. Learning. Keep case. Joe Michaels is live in studio with details. That's right, Kitty. The Sacramento County Public Health Department is ordering the immediate closure of capital Christian School for violating the state's order prohibiting in person instruction. In counties on California's Cove in 19 monitoring list. They were kind of trying to be too cute by half. They got their high school and middle and elementary school teachers trained as daycare workers and tried to fob off the high school students and middle school and elementary school students going to school and calling a daycare, which obviously it is not. Public Health services director Dr Peter Beilenson says Sacramento County is currently on the state's monitoring list and is not issuing school waivers for in person learning as any He's been watching the news has seen in Southeast United States, where schools have already open in places like Israel and other countries. They have had rapid spread of the disease. Once schools have opened in person and have in fact, then closed down several schools. Many schools in response to that we in Sacramento still have a significant problem with cases. We have 2 300 cases a day and we have many people in the hospital and then using our eyes to use we've had 225 death, and we don't think it's safe at this time. Health officials were made aware last week that students in all grades, including high school, we're on the Capitol Christian campus under the guise of daycare services. High school students are among the group that had been most hard hit by the virus in terms of getting infected by it. They are also, however, less likely to have symptoms, which makes them much more likely to be where called super spreaders. They don't not know that they have the virus, and they're still spreading into parents. Two friends, the grandparent's etcetera administrators could face fines of up to $1000 a day and potential jail time if they refused to comply with the shutdown order. I've talked with the principal of the school at length this morning, and he continues to talk about how the kids are doing online learning. Which is a red herring. Everybody is required to online learning in the entire state of California. What you're not allowed to do is do it outside in the school building with school colors, and that's what we're trying to prevent Capital Christian's head of school, Tim Wong has yet to respond to kfbk his requests for comment. And Joe. Let's talk about the greater impact ramifications from this decision today. We'll really you send your kid to a school. Perhaps that child gets the virus brings it back home to you. You goto work work with me and I take it home to my child who then takes it to his school and Dada Dada Dada, And that's really where this thing could get out of control and what the health Department is trying to prevent. Okay. Katie Case. Joe Michaels reporting Thank you. It's now time for traffic.

Joe Michaels California Christian School Sacramento County Public Healt Dr Peter Beilenson Sacramento Twitter President Trump Sacramento County health Department Katie Case Kitty Tim Wong Israel United States principal director
"tim wong" Discussed on Radio Atlantic

Radio Atlantic

06:58 min | 2 years ago

"tim wong" Discussed on Radio Atlantic

"Well, let's pause and come back to explore that new line of thinking after this message. Want to support the Atlantic and keep up with their journalism throughout the year thin consider becoming a subscriber to the Atlantic magazine available in both digital and print formats, plus radio Atlantic listeners. Get a special fifteen percent discount to learn more go to the Atlantic dot com slash radio. Subscribe. What is continue with the completely unoriginal insertion of advertising before this next phase of our conversation Alexis, I want to make a straight up argument about technology and the way that it's interacting with society at this moment, and I wanted to law Laba premise at your way. So can we stipulate that the making of any tool is actually collaborative exercise between the people who design that tool the people who pay for that tool and the people who primarily use it that fair? So like Twitter is made in part by the company writer incorporated in part by the companies that advertise on Twitter and the market the Twitter's embedded in and also, of course, the scads and scads of people who use Twitter, and the thing that I really wanted to ask you Alexis was who do you think actually has the most power in this equation and? And before you answer, I want to confess that have got a side in this argument. And I think my answer is that users that users might have the most power in this equation that both collectively on that scale and individually. I think that we users might have more power to shape the platforms that we the us then we give ourselves credit for. But I want to leave that argument there and ask your just first thoughts to that. Well, I think that there's a question of sort of like Layton in actual power. I think that the there's probably more latent power in the user's like if all the users started to do a certain thing than that could work. I think that when we think about this though, when you think about kind of question of organization, and whether there is meaningful organization between Twitter users to act on their own behalf or not. And I think the answer to that is no. And that. That there isn't. There aren't really means. There's no mechanisms for for Twitter users to really exert power. And you know, we left out another group, which shareholders, and if people who own the company who are also different from the management. I, and I would say in some ways that would be the group that I tend to think is could exert the most power both in the sense that they have large amounts of late power. And they actually have a means for doing it on the other hand, they don't wouldn't know what to do. I mean, I think the main problem that we have here. Matt is that no one knows what to do to fix these problems? And I actually think that includes the companies and the users now what you've described to me sounds like a basic. Almost geopolitical governance problem. And it sounds not at all dissimilar from the problems that we talk about every day about America and its design and some of the places where it's designed might be actually democratically deeply dissatisfying to many of its shall we say users that the government of the platforms feels deeply highly imperfect. And there's no unlike the American government, there are fewer, or at least there are less democratic institutions through which users might change that governance in government structure, but -solutely I mean, like this guy put one more thing, you know, their conversation with a gun in Tim Wong, and the guy who's the former head of SEI, you this service employees union, and your when that Tim said was that you know, because. Guy was basically like it's amazing like Uber, and lift and all of these companies have actually concentrate done half, the work of organizing force by getting all these people onto these platforms as workers, right? Like were talking lift drivers or drivers whatever they are. And he's like this is like what like a union organisers? The best target ever you organize this one shop, and you got two million people, you know. And I and I take that as an interesting point. Tim's point though, was that in order for that to happen. People have to conceive of themselves as a public, or as in this case, you they have to conceive themselves as a as a as a unit as having some form of solidarity or cohesion or just like to an identity as workers, and I've done a lot of work around the ports and dockworkers, and like the culture of dock working. Over many decades lent itself to this incredibly dense social network that was very remains a very powerful organizing tool, and I think what you look at with something like Twitter is like there's just nothing like that, you know, and they're never has been on any platform. There have been little pushes here. And there, you know, like, oh, let's not formalize retrieve. I mean, if I was part of, you know, some of these like organizing efforts, but they all came to nothing more or less, and I think we need to recognize that, you know. Well, so I wanted to actually narrow down from this collective we that we've been speaking in this collectively of users and speak on that personal skill. You were talking about before because I've been trying this experiment on Twitter, and it has been fascinating to me. And I wanted to ask you about it. And what it meant have you heard about this experiment that I've been doing I've been calling break the ratio. So you know, there's this. Dominant twitter. I don't know who I invented the term to get ratio. But the term generally refers to a moment when a Twitter mob has descended upon someone who has tweeted something that the Twitter mob. Does not like so the way that you can identify a tweet that has been deemed bad by the NRP of Twitter is you count the number of replies to the tweet. And if the number of replies to the tweet exceed I believe the collective number of lakes and re tweets to the tweet, then the tweet has gotten quote unquote ratio that means that the quasi.

Twitter Atlantic magazine Tim Wong Alexis Laba American government Layton Guy America Matt writer fifteen percent
"tim wong" Discussed on 99% Invisible

99% Invisible

01:37 min | 4 years ago

"tim wong" Discussed on 99% Invisible

"At least here in oakland some places have done very well in the mega ship era in general the trend among ports has been increasing centralisation so imagine a map of the world would lines connecting different ports and the thickness of the line represent how much stuff gets shipped along that route in the pre container days there'd be lots of skinny lines going all over the place as containerization to colder 1970s and leader china entered the wto in the nineties the lines connecting china to a few ports on the west coast get really fat swallowing up other trade routes the we played out in the us is that the same pedro bay which is where the competing but connected ports of long beach los angeles are located begin to dominate everyone in 2015 for example these two ports handled seventy eight percent of the import containers along the west coast and for all the west coast ports sixty two percent of imports came from china dinner fifty percent of all the import trade from asia to the west coast is just running back and forth from san pedro bay to china ended up talking all this over in a conversation with tim wong a berkeley educated lawyer and local polymath who published the container guida wonderful little book on the shipping industry disguised as a dockside companion to spotting boxes imports as in ships he said everything has become a lot size and efficiency can you get big enough to stay alive and keep your whole mirror time business ecosystem healthy oakland was able to survive for a period of time bask technology gets better.

oakland china wto us pedro bay los angeles asia san pedro bay tim wong berkeley guida seventy eight percent sixty two percent fifty percent
"tim wong" Discussed on 99 Percent Invisible

99 Percent Invisible

01:32 min | 4 years ago

"tim wong" Discussed on 99 Percent Invisible

"Ended up talking all this over in a conversation with tim wong a berkeley educated lawyer and local polly math who published the container guide a wonderful little book on the shipping industry disguised as a doctor i'd companion to spotting boxes imports as an ships he said everything has become a lot size inefficiency can you get big enough to stay alive and keep your whole mirror time business ecosystem healthy oakland was able to survive for a period of time bask technology gets better the cost of choosing one poor or another on the western seaboard the all become a commodity of and this is the same trouble that happened with a container companies themselves the minor companies were there basically selling this commodity which always is dropping the the the value of it is always dropping and his lots of incentives over produced capacity in ways that completely dr everybody out of business or make it so that only the largest companies that can squeeze amy pennies out of you know huge numbers of transactions actually conservative and i wonder for a period of time basically geography was the great protection of these ports because they could eat up all the smaller regional ones but not to compete with much larger ones but as boats get you know more efficient in the way they move suddenly a they basically compete on the same footing with with other ports and and there then jagger doesn't help you any more ray like what were really starts to help you is like can you really scale up the size of the poor and like maybe oakland just can't expand fast enough there.

oakland jagger tim wong berkeley polly