Re: Worry, our data aren't as effective as we told you
Current controversy aside, I do have to wonder just how effective their ads actually are.
I think the real danger for Facepalm and Google is it's not the effectiveness of their ads, it's the effectiveness of their analytics and data. Advertisers are already questioning this, ie how effective their online spend really is in converting ads into purchases.
The current crisis was brought about by CA's sales pitch to a prospective client, and making claims about how effective their data and analytics are in influencing customers. Facepalm's been roped into that via their data sharing, and litigation and regulatory investigations are going to offer a peek behind the curtain. So unless there's heavy redaction, there's the prospect of discovering what data are held, and how we're profiled.
And I suspect advertisers will be looking very closely at that, because I know as a simple user, I'm often bombarded with adverts for stuff I'm very unlikely to buy because either the data or the profile of me is wrong. Ok, so that's partly my fault because I deliberately pollute my profile when I can. If the data is garbage, then so is the profile and any analytics applied to that.. Which is the Ratner problem. Don't worry, social network analysis is ineffective because of data quality.
But that's also where a crisis presents opportunities. Facepalm and Google offer a profile page. If that actually showed their profile of us, then we'd have an opportunity to correct it. If we want. Or even have an interests option where we can show the kinds of things we may actually be interested in. Then adverts may actually be relevant and waste less of our time, or advertiser's money. I've always found it bizarre that none of the online ad behemoths ever bother asking content providers what ads they want to see.