I’m not sure if that is an accurate representation of academic circles, or of the paper?
Academia is going to include communications and business, two verticals where advertising is taught and trained in some cases. Critical Theory in academia is going to suggest concerns where they see them to their viewpoint and research everywhere and is not anywhere conclusive or scientific, just analytical and thought-provoking, but that’s not the same as “the prevailing stance in academia is advertising is harmful to society”
The paper critiqued various reviews from different studies, each on their own independent conclusions of advertising, and synthesized them, and also included some beneficial aspects to advertising as well.
Advertising is also a full spectrum, there are different types of advertising, and then there is marketing, outreach, Public Relations, etc
So the “bad effects” of advertising in this sense, which is more psychological, is not like a clearly defined problem with clear demarcations as say climate change or the known bad effects of the unintended consequences of digital advertising third party mediation platforms, data tracking, etc
I just want to make sure we are on the same page, distinguishing the concerns raised.
A horrible social problem, advertising is a “necessary evil” and you know it better than I, as you admit you depend on advertising to make a living.
The necessary evil of advertising is that it robs from Peter to pay Paul. Or better put, Peter feels robbed while Paul is getting paid.
Making matters worse, because Peter feels robbed because he has experienced so many toxic ads, Peter still feels robbed when he is shown an ad that isn’t.
Except on SuperBowl Sunday, when Peter tunes in, primarily for the entertaining commercials as part of the pizzazz of super bowl Sunday. Peter likes ads when they are entertaining, or funny, or informative.
As user, I go to your site, I’m the one who has my attention influenced and traded, without my permission, to a third party, so you can make revenue from running a business as a publisher.
But as a user, I am receiving value from you in exchange, since I’m not paying you directly for the work you’ve done.
So if Peter is getting something in return, why does Peter still feel robbed?
This is why digital ad tech is so crazy
All of us, me included HATE advertising. Before there was the internet, I hated ads on TV and Radio.
Magazines and newspapers were acceptable, I guess, but still required me to work more by turning more pages through the ads, or compete with my attention on the page, so they still annoyed me, especially when I was actually paying for the magazine or newspaper already.
Unless of course, I liked the ad. That’s a funny contradiction here with the “audience”. We all hate ads except when we like them.
-
On the internet, We hate digital advertising because it not just ROBS Peter to pay to Paul, but takes more and more of the revenue share from Paul too, robbing both Peter AND Paul and then robbing the brand advertiser by delivering fake Peters to Pauls website.
-
Worse, digital ad tech then creates fake Pauls (like clickbait fake news sites) to find real Peters, so they can rob them some more!
This problem is distinct from the academic papers you cited. I view this problem as a distribution and transactional problem.
-
This transactional problem has made Paul sooooo poor, that Paul has no choice but to run more and more third party ad networks, even though every year Paul sees less and less revenue from showing more and more ads.
-
So Peter decides to get ad blockers, so to hell with Paul. Now Paul has to run more ad networks and ads to maximize the smaller and smaller audience of his that isn’t ad blocker savvy.
-
Not only that, but now Paul has to run more and more “clickbaity” sounding titles and articles to compete with clicks.
What I am proposing with Native Smart is that the digital advertising eco-system, viewed solely through the lens as a distribution and transactional system, independent of the content with which it distributes, has inherent design flaws and by creating a healthy distribution and transactional system that removes these design flaws, we can have a system that pays both Peter and Paul, certainly more than each is currently, while creating more opportunities for more interesting sponsored content that Paul, the publisher, can choose or not.
I can assure you that if Peter is getting paid too, Peter will not feel like he is being robbed. Peter has the awareness that not just his attention is valuable, but that the collective and collaborative value of all internet users opting in is building true wealth that can be stored, increased, traded, and redistributed. Peter becomes a stakeholder in the eco-system.
Thus, the relationship with the advertisers themselves can change.
If Peter doesn’t feel robbed by ads, he is likely to have a different reaction to them, and a healthier relationship with the advertisers or brands abstractly speaking. Peter is more responsive, brands are happier with the KPIs, and publishers make more revenue without the necessity for a toxic distribution system.
Brands, Internet Users, and Publishers will naturally change their behaviors and habits when the environment for the distributional and transactional side of the technology change.
Can we build consensus that before we can address the broader problems of advertising listed by the critical theorists, that building a healthy distribution and transactional environment on the internet for sponsored media would be a good first step?
If we are talking about the abstract “dangers of ads” which is, at this stage, merely an abstract problem - let’s set that problem aside so we can build consensus on the problems of the delivery, distribution, and transactional mechanisms, which are independent of the abstract problems of the “psychological” effects.
Make sense?
-
Ad blockers are only defendable if third-party ad networks are using the ad to drop malware or clog data, ad blockers are not a solution because they rob the publisher creator, and there is no fair exchange between user and creator.
-
Ads, as delivered by third-party ad networks, have very easy to define other sets of problems, independent of the abstract problem of advertising broadly speaking. Dropping cookies or malware is one of those problems.
If you mean the “abstract and theoretical problem” of all advertising on society, we probably don’t because that is beyond our control, and only four things can solve that,
- public awareness for critical thinking.
- regulations
- channel control via publishers or broadcast channels. Limited, but still effective.
- removing capitalism altogether.
-
Number 4 is like sooo unlikely, so I don’t want to waste time on that one. I want to figure out how to work within the system to make the system better.
-
Regulations require influence in politics. Politics. oye, talk about another ecosystem which doesn’t work too well, which means NO one will really get what they want including users. Regulations can be gamed, new methods will be devised around them.
-
Channel control is decentralized, meaning you as a publisher DONT HAVE to run those ad networks, you could choose, like many publishers, to sell your media directly to advertisers you approve. You depend on the networks because they do your media sales for you. Native Smart does give more channel control features to pubs and advertisers
-
Public awareness will achieve critical mass when the average internet user is fully informed of the value of their attention in the eco-system, and feel that they are compensated as a partner for that contribution, not hunted like a product.
Let’s get to the fun stuff: a pathway towards a critical mass solution 
Read above why “fewer ads” wont work in the current digital ecosystem, the entire ecosystem would have to change for that to work and make financial sense. “Higher quality” ads are limited to publishers as the design flaw treating web publishers like magazines instead of broadcasters gives them few choices. Its always the brand that gets to define what the “higher quality” ad is, not the pub or the user, in practical real world marketplaces.
I’m not sure I understand what you are modelling here, can you explain it another way? 13% of ads what? viewed on a single channel? Paid for by a brand? Whose revenue? Brands ROI? publishers? Not sure I follow the transactional path here.
To understand what you are suggesting I just need this modelled and defined clearer.
I agree, but within limits. Ad tech can only change the distribution and transactional standards for advertising. Its just the midware. It does not “create” the ads themselves, that is at the agency or brand level.
“Quality” is very subjective, publishers should be able to control that and the responsible digital advertising ecosystem will allow you to control that, but it can’t “force” anyone to make a “quality” ad, just create an environment where quality ads outperform ads that are toxic.
make sense?
With Native Smart, publishers have direct control, and can even change the ad themselves, so if you mean the abstract psychological problem of the ad, technology can only offer decentralization to the responsible parties to make that effect.
Okay, I could see how something like that could emerge, but its impossible for that to emerge within the current ad tech mediation platform architecture, and it by itself would not solve the core problems of distribution and transactional which distributes the quality ad.
We are On the same page here. Keyword: evolve.
We have to design each step in the path of “evolving” there, I’m sure you agree it won’t happen with the push of one button somewhere, it could take a generation or more.
I like that, however Markets with honor do not require regulation, and regulation cannot force “honor”, only truce, but I agree in principle!
Maybe it is just the designer in me, but I think it is just environmental. I should confess my own thought leader here is Bucky Fuller, I am following his lead. Bucky said that if you want to change human behavior, simply change the environment that humans are interacting in, and the behavior will change accordingly.
You don’t think that eventually, most people become skeptical of claims from advertisers? That’s what sucks about ad tech, MOST people would never buy an affiliate BS skin cream. Only .1% would make that type of decision.
But if you have the reach of BILLIONS Of people, you can find that .1% gullible person who will if the CPM is low enough to get that click (Thanks Facebook)
And if you are the actual publisher, you are the one who can directly control that by not running ads from scammy affiliates.
We can use it to help solve the problem. I’m really a big advocate for Bucky Fuller’s thinking, even though he died before the internet, his principles of design are best placed here. His core philosophy was to work with all the forces in the whole system, every single one, and not resist any of them.
Tech is speeding it up and exasperating it, but also making us aware of it ironically at the same time! Sometimes I think that is the final “joke” of the whole social media/internet problem, it finally revealed who the REAL culprits are behind everything, and unfortunately, the real culprits are all of us. Companies, institutions and governments suck to the same degree that human nature can suck.
Hope: Human nature to respond to the environment, if the environment is collaborative naturally, humanity naturally adjusts. Add stresses and competition, darker side of humanity comes out to party.
I would like to propose that there is a way to have incredible profit potential in direct relationship to the amount of problems solved, without requiring the need for VCs or IPOs.
Publishers just want money. Adoption is easy when you pay them for it.
I like the idea of a browser extension, not sure I am on the same page as you as the app. I am more concerned with browser security, but plenty of room for experts smarter than I to weigh in. Either way same effect.
Exactly. You described it almost 90% accurately without any details from me!
I’m going to start this answer off by probably disappointing you at first, but hopefully converting you.
“All tokens are scams” is a tough hurdle if that is your position. All tokens are not scams. There are also distinct types of tokens, utility tokens and security tokens. Either of them CAN be scams, but not all of them are.
While the world of cryptocurrency reminds me of the early days of the internet wild west, with a few great gems plus loads of crap, the design principles in cryptocurrency, things like decentralization, smart contracts, shared ledgers, etc are very intriguing to play with as forces, and those forces don’t require cryptography or blockchain necessarily. So while Native Smart is not a blockchain or crypto, I don’t want to bash that community of developers by any means, I really get inspired by some of the innovation some are looking to achieve, and I still think there is lots more exciting things to come from fintech. Actually many of the problems in that community remind me of the problems in ad tech.
But our attention digital asset is not a cryptocurrency. I only use the word “token” because that is a word used on the marketplace.
Please, now let me convert you if you don’t mind.
Native Smart’s entire ecosystem views attention itself AS a currency, meaning our attention has an inherent value to it, and all money follows the flow of attention.
We have a digital “asset” that stores the transactional value of five seconds of attention, and splits the revenue share between the parties involved, so this digital asset is more like a purchase order than a “token” like in cryptocurrency, however it is literally a purchase order for attention, which is the currency.
This is not blockchain technology or cryptocurrency at all
We call this a “Smart Insertion Order” and they are purchased by brands or advertisers (as all media is purchased via “insertion orders” already, ours is just more refined and Peer to Peer).
That purchase order always stores the value of the USD deposit in the bank that the brand paid for.
I would rather call that a “digital asset” than a purchase order, naturally - as for declaring attention a “currency” that is measurable is not something the SEC has a jurisdiction over - and we’ve just created way for our attention currency to function as a measurable and transactional event, since ultimately that is what everyone wants and everyone is trading, attention.
To summarize, this attention digital asset, which stores real-world monetary value, and is earned through viewing, distributing, and verifying sponsored media on internet users devices (our equivalency to “mining” without requiring cryptography) has many further interesting applications for the web!
This digital asset is easy to earn. I believe our collective attention as internet users is the true currency on the internet, and our smart insertion order allows for the easy flow and transaction of our natural attention currency, either to the publisher or to bank account deposit of internet users.
Whoever holds the digital asset can take that asset and either order “attention” from internet users or cash it in for USD, or hold onto it, store it, trade it for later, or text it to a friend who can cash it out into their bank accounts.
What’s more, internet users can pool the collective value of their attention into groups, and focus that value on direct action causes, fundraising, charities, college tuition, etc.
Pardon the pun, but do I have your attention here?
Looking forward to your response, and fyi, I think most are not participating in this thread because many do not understand the granular details of ad tech and marketplace, and I tend to write a bit too much! So thanks for staying in here with me and lets keep it going.
If you want, PM me your site, we only have a few products ready at this stage (phase 1) and always looking for an interesting strategic or testing partner, and if I see where we can be of assistance now, I’ll propose something and if it makes sense to you that would be great. We actually view ourselves as a publisher tool to empower pubs.
