New York Times Proves Creepy Targeted Ads Are Not Necessary
The New York Times actually increases its ad revenue after dropping behavioral targeting in Europe to comply with GDPR. This success suggests that brand desirability matters more than invasive user tracking.
Internet users universally despise the creepy experience of being stalked across the web by targeted advertisements. Ad tech giants and data brokers build massive profits on this surveillance-based model, but recent evidence suggests these invasive tactics fail to deliver on their promises. The assumption that digital advertising requires privacy-tricking behavioral targeting is currently facing a major reality check.
The New York Times provides a compelling case study after it blocks all open-exchange ad buying and eliminates behavioral targeting in Europe to comply with strict GDPR regulations. Instead of watching revenue collapse, the publication sees a significant uptick in digital ad income. By shifting focus to contextual and geographical targeting through direct-sold and private marketplace deals, the newspaper thrives without compromising user privacy.
This success challenges the narrative pushed by tech platforms like Facebook, which insist that publishers must surrender audience control and accept invasive targeting to survive. As the New York Times executive notes, brand desirability proves stronger than sophisticated targeting capabilities. Publishers with strong brand cachet and engaged readers should therefore rethink who actually benefits from the demand for creepy ads.