Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 134,601

        1. This this is the wrong frame, one that has long been maintained by ad tech companies who claim to speak for creators & publishers, but only speak for themselves. Pro-Privacy changes only hurt *because* the marketplaces have been redefined using privacy violating metrics. nathanbarry/1402298075930980361
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 52 Retweets ❤️ 104 Favorites Mood -6 🙁
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        Take a step back. These privacy invasive metrics are not the baseline for marketing success in any marketplace other then digital display, apps and email. Marketing has been successful, small businesses have been successful, in every other venue and period of history.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 26 Favorites Mood +8 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      Marketing and traveling music acts have all found ways to succeed just fine in the past. The normal counter argument here is that the invasive-tracking digital economy supports a larger scale of companies and creatives. But does it? How do we define that exactly?...
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 18 Favorites Mood +7 🙂
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    See, if you define in scale of businesses. Then sure. But if you define it in share of wealth, seeing as how starting a business is traditionally defined as a path to greater income, it's not so clear, because income inequality has been unstoppable. pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
    OpenGraph image for pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 11 Favorites Mood +10 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      By redefining marketing as requiring new metrics and invasive tracking, add tech firms sit in the middle, justify themselves, and take revenue from both sides. Their 50-70% share up run invasive tracking is less money to publishers, but also less running advertising for buyers.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 14 Favorites Mood +1 🙂
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        *to run
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood 0
      2. …in reply to @Chronotope
        When we let the ad tech industry's vast swath of data and money stealing middlemen define what metrics are important for marketers, we're letting the cancer define if smoking is good for us. Step back and reconsider, perhaps it's time for new ways to measure and target...
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 21 Favorites Mood +2 🙂
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          Marketing, like publishing, is for the users. If it works in ways that scare them or make them angry, you've failed before you began.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 15 Favorites Mood -5 🙁
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            The greatest trick ad tech's vast tracking apparatus ever pulled was convincing marketers they couldn't function w/out paying for vast invasive user tracking. And then just like that, your money is gone and all you've got is a bunch of badly defined badly measured user metrics.
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 17 Retweets ❤️ 44 Favorites Mood -1 🙁

Search tweets' text