I don't get it. Do you? Am I missing something? I'm starting to think I must be, otherwise this is a flawed model.
I visit a website, just about any website and I'm bombarded with shit adverts, for shit products I have no interest in, or I'm already aware exist. I've been using an ad blocker for years now, and if ever I use a machine that doesn't have it installed, browsing the web is fucking intolerable. I'm no expert on any of this, but my understanding is that the advertiser pays the host (or content creator in the case of video streaming sites like YouTube) some money to show the people who visit that site (or watch that video) their advert. A small amount of money, but a fee nonetheless.
From what I've been reading, it seems the advertiser isn't overly concerned whether you click theirannoying ad or not. They just want you to see it. And they are paying money to ensure you see it. So unless I'm missing something crucial, it seems that the advertiser would actually be out of pocket by forcing me (the fact I use an adblocker notwithstanding) to view their ad, for their product I neither care about nor want.
In cases where someone has invented some revolutionary new product, the existence of which people are unaware, then I understand why they would want to do this. But for shit like tea bags, toasters, beds, curtains, and a bazillion other examples - I don't get it.
I know why site owners and content creators want the ads, because they get paid to host them, but how does this model make sense from the perspective of the advertiser? If there was no chance you'd buy my product, I wouldn't want to pay some site you visit any money to show it to you.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
I visit a website, just about any website and I'm bombarded with shit adverts, for shit products I have no interest in, or I'm already aware exist. I've been using an ad blocker for years now, and if ever I use a machine that doesn't have it installed, browsing the web is fucking intolerable. I'm no expert on any of this, but my understanding is that the advertiser pays the host (or content creator in the case of video streaming sites like YouTube) some money to show the people who visit that site (or watch that video) their advert. A small amount of money, but a fee nonetheless.
From what I've been reading, it seems the advertiser isn't overly concerned whether you click their
In cases where someone has invented some revolutionary new product, the existence of which people are unaware, then I understand why they would want to do this. But for shit like tea bags, toasters, beds, curtains, and a bazillion other examples - I don't get it.
I know why site owners and content creators want the ads, because they get paid to host them, but how does this model make sense from the perspective of the advertiser? If there was no chance you'd buy my product, I wouldn't want to pay some site you visit any money to show it to you.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?