After Apple's 'App Tracking Transparency', Advertisers Spent More Money Targeting Android Users

Earlier this year in April Apple started mandating "App Tracking Transparency," which gives users a choice about whether they can be tracked across app.

Now tlhIngan (Slashdot reader #30,335) writes: The numbers are in and a number of ad companies are reporting lowered iOS spending, but 10% or more increases in Android ad spending. The complaint is, of course, that without the granular data they used to get from tracking it's no longer worth spending on iOS ads.

Interestingly, only about 66% of users have actually denied tracking.
That's based on early data from the ad-measurement firm Branch Metrics (as reported by The Wall Street Journal ). MacRumors write: As a result, the amount of advertiser spending on Apple's mobile platform has fallen by about one-third between June 1 and July 1, while spending on Android rose over 10% for the same month, according to ad-measurement firm Tenjin Inc...

Without proper user tracking, advertisers have significantly less data about a user's interests, preferences, and more. Advertisers and companies, such as Facebook, use that data to compile a profile of a user. The type of data collected from tracking helps advertisers to ensure that their ads are being targeted to potential customers. [According to ad-measurement firm Tenjin Inc], "The shortage of user data to fuel Facebook Inc.'s suite of powerful ad-targeting tools reduces their effectiveness and appeal among some advertisers, ad agencies say."

Advertisers addicted to their own products

[xack]

When cigarette adverts were banned in my country, they advertised accessories instead. I bet if Android cracks down too much, advertisers will make a new fork that allows tracking and give phones with more tracking away at subsidized rates just to keep their tracking addiction going.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

That's a possibility, but it would still be inefficient since they will only get the oblivious part of the population.

Re: Advertisers addicted to their own products

[Dynedain]

Depends on which manufacturers they sign up (see Samsung who tracks everything on their phones and apps).

Extremely small percentage of people flash their phones to Google-provided versions of Android. Far less than the number of people who have Google-manufactured devices. The vast majority of Android users are using the version their OEM installed.

Re:

[rsilvergun]

There already is a program to do just that. It's called the Android OS. Plan on adding two to $300 to the cost of your next phone if Android phones stop being an advertising platform. Worse you will probably see the carriers being the ones offering subsidized phones with really crappy operating systems. From someone who had a free Android phone with an operating system provided by the carrier I do not pine for those days

Re:

[quonset]

When cigarette adverts were banned in my country,

Funny you should mention this. I found a book at a yard sale about the War of 1812, specifically what led to the assault against Washington, D.C. and subsequent burning of the capitol in 1814. In the middle of the book is an ad for True cigarettes touting how they are 99% lower in tar and nicotine than all other brands, and they put that information on the front of their cigarette packages. The ad asks you to compare your brand of cigarettes against True.

T

It’s not like targeting helps.

[dgatwood]

In all my life, no targeted ad has ever been even slightly relevant to me. By the time they start targeting me about a product or product class, I already own it, and the ads are useless. One exception: Amazon’s weekly buy ads figured out that I buy a lot of ABS plastic project boxes, and that saves me from having to search my purchase history. :-D

Re:

[bsane]

I had the same sentiment - then a month or two ago I started playing DnD. I've been inundated with dice and game supply ads. Many have been interesting, and a few I bought. If targeted ads were always that useful I'd be fine with them.

Re:

[Nrrqshrr]

Remember that a good ad is, by its very definition, an ad that doesnt feel like it. You were probably targeted by some good ads with pinpoint accuracy. But sadly, these ads are so good that we don't really register them.
The ones we do remember are the annoying, flashy popping kind that are out of time and place. The rest, as the saying goes, are part of our purchase history. A purchase that we can always justify but that we often regret.

Re:

[dgatwood]

Remember that a good ad is, by its very definition, an ad that doesnt feel like it. You were probably targeted by some good ads with pinpoint accuracy. But sadly, these ads are so good that we don't really register them.

Precisely one, and that was an ad on Facebook, which already knows enough about me to target me without needing any outside help. Other than that single ad over the course of 29 years, I've never seen an ad that didn't make me say, "Why the heck would they think I would want that?" I mean sure, one is not zero, but considering that I've seen at least two million ads (conservatively) over those years, I'm pretty sure they would be better off using a random number generator.

Re:

[Kitkoan]

I'm willing to believe that targeted ads have been very relevant to you, you just aren't noticing it.

The thing with ads is they aren't strictly about getting you to buy the product (though that is a large part of it), it's about getting you to become familiar with the product, and in turn to trust it. People buy names and brands they are familiar with, which ads help you stay familiar with. It's why huge brands like Coke, Pepsi, Samsung, Apple, etc, all have huge ad campaigns, to help keep their name fresh

Re:

[dgatwood]

The thing with ads is they aren't strictly about getting you to buy the product (though that is a large part of it), it's about getting you to become familiar with the product, and in turn to trust it. People buy names and brands they are familiar with, which ads help you stay familiar with. It's why huge brands like Coke, Pepsi, Samsung, Apple, etc, all have huge ad campaigns, to help keep their name fresh in your mind. Familiarity helps to establish trust.

But see, those are brand image ads. They're the exact opposite of a targeted ad. A targeted ad uses some piece of information that they know about you to drive recommendations for products or companies that they think you would like. Targeted ads, by definition, make sense only if you're advertising a product that's interesting to just a small percentage of the population.

Companies like Coke, et al, run untargeted image ads. They don't need to care whether I drink soda. More than half of the population

Re:

[Kitkoan]

Being an Apple user is why you are seeing Samsung ads. Because these are two markets that overlap, and so you're being targeted with those ads. Samsung isn't going to want to market to Samsung users as they already have a Samsung device. But if you're searching for Apple / Apple products (or your web browsers user agent ID shows you are using Apple products), it shows you are shopping for the items in the same market (or will at some point) as Samsung and Samsung would rather try to convince you to buy thei

Re:

[dgatwood]

Being an Apple user is why you are seeing Samsung ads. Because these are two markets that overlap, and so you're being targeted with those ads.

The only time I've seen Samsung ads has been on sites where it was clearly targeted based on the site I was on, rather than to me specifically, FWIW. If they knew anything about me (I write iOS software for a living), they would realize immediately that the odds against me buying a Samsung phone are similar to the odds against me becoming the next President of the U

WTF is Proper User Tracking?

[NoMoreACs]

Without proper user tracking, advertisers have significantly less data about a user's interests, preferences, and more.

And that's a problem, why, exactly?

The very term "Proper" User Tracking clearly exposes the bias of the authors of this Public Service Announcement brought to you by the Ad Council.

Re:

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah. It's a mystery as to how any given supermarket manages to sell me anything without proper tracking (e.g. riffling through my bins to see what kinds of food I like).

Premium for privacy

[khchung]

That seemed to be Apple’s marketing strategy, premium for privacy.

So will Google position Android market as “cheap for sheep” (to be sheared by ads)? Or worse, just as expensive but pay twice, once in money and once more in privacy?

New news with an obvious link to old news

[arQon]

Given the preponderance of studies showing that targeted ads are *less* effective than contextual ones (which most of us have known for years, after seeing just how badly the quality of Amazon's recommendations etc fell off a cliff once they got "smarter"), all this is really saying is:
1) Advertisers are retards who don't even understand their own business, let alone anyone else's.
and
2) Advertisers are narcissistic sociopaths by nature.

I'm fairly sure that neither of those observations is new or even surpri

Re:

[larwe]

To whom are you referring with the word "advertisers"? People in the ad industry clearly have a financial interest in creating and selling ads, and they understand the bits of their business that "matter" (in the sense of "if I make these claims and show these bogus metrics, I can get my client to eject money in my direction"). Companies that are buying digital ads are, I think, largely sheep being sheared.

Re:

[arQon]

Exactly so.

I see the ambiguity you raised: my bad. As you surmised, I'm talking about the people buying the ads in #1, and the middlemen (G, FB, etc) in #2.

Advertisers promote the use of Apple

[mseeger]

By doing this,advertisers actually incentivize the use of Apple products.

No target ads on Apple devices

[bsdetector101]

That's a good thing...no tracking !