>unique, relevant, specialty products one may actually be actively looking to buy
This is because the number of people who buy normal lotion is 1000x the number of people who buy unique specialty lotion. Why would the advertising be different than the market?
>First generation internet users were mostly highly technically literate, high income professionals. Now, the user ratio has reversed.
The internet reached the masses - how is that a negative for advertisers? They have more people to advertise to.
>yet you still have to put an equivalent or greater effort to datamine
This isn't true. For lotion you buy lotion related keywords, for commercial equipment you need in-depth research about those products, use cases, industry terms, and the queries people use.
>This is because the number of people who buy normal lotion is 1000x the number of people who buy unique specialty lotion. Why would the advertising be different than the market?
No, I can't imagine anybody randomly buying a random face lotion online, and I say that as somebody who did a stint in adtech for a few years with access to "crown jewels" of a major advertising brokerage conglomerate. People barely click on FMGC ads even if being force fed, I would've shown you the digits if not for NDA. Their purpose is impressions, even if they are not explicitly billed on PPM basis.
The lion share of ad inventory of any tier 1 ad vendor are for "stuff people buy in Walmarts," and yes the total revenue from FMCG ads is mind boggling and defies any attempt at rational understanding.
Even if the sole point of an ad is to keep the product on top of somebody's mind, it will be of very very little payoff to an advertiser. Though, one can reason that a gigantic big fat FMCG co. bathing in cash can still easily afford doing so even if is patently stupid. This is because even if their bang for buck is approaching zero, it is still better than none for them.
>This isn't true. For lotion you buy lotion related keywords, for commercial equipment you need in-depth research about those products, use cases, industry terms, and the queries people use.
I counter your argument. In both cases, the adtech efforts needed to sustain a barely functioning campaign eclipse all other hurdles. Extreme targeting is the key - even if it sucks, it sucks less than investment in almost anything else including £1k per hour big name marketing consultants.
How it looks on technical side: huge effort at industrial scale purchasing of "cubes" - huge databases of cookies with their statistical and fuzzy logic data from thousands of companies, including the black hat scene. Other than cookies, analogous data come from email list vendors, IMEI/phone number db vendors, vendors of stolen contact lists, search histories, GPS data and etc. All of this is barely enough to for a sustained campaign for F500 FMCG.
>unique, relevant, specialty products one may actually be actively looking to buy
This is because the number of people who buy normal lotion is 1000x the number of people who buy unique specialty lotion. Why would the advertising be different than the market?
>First generation internet users were mostly highly technically literate, high income professionals. Now, the user ratio has reversed.
The internet reached the masses - how is that a negative for advertisers? They have more people to advertise to.
>yet you still have to put an equivalent or greater effort to datamine
This isn't true. For lotion you buy lotion related keywords, for commercial equipment you need in-depth research about those products, use cases, industry terms, and the queries people use.