There are a lot of issues with this article, but I think it is indicative that the author, a partner at a VC firm, thinks the business model is something AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI will just “figure out” later.

I disagree. They’ve already figured out their business model: taking VC money, giving it to Nvidia, and coming back for more money.

The author mentions users have a revealed preference for ads. This is obviously not true otherwise Adblock wouldn’t exist. Users have a revealed preference for free things. Similarly, companies have a revealed preference for free money.

It’s notable that the successful companies the author mentions (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Meta) all figured out their business models a long time ago.

I read it as the author saying that they will no doubt try it (OpenAI etc) but that it is not at all clear that’ll work, and probably won’t work as well as it does now.

On the revealed preference thing - but most people don’t use ad blockers?

Most people don’t drive luxury vehicles either. Can we use that data point to conclude that most people have a “revealed preference” for not driving very nice cars?

Of course not. Calling that a “revealed preference” is an abuse of terminology. A revealed preference means both options were equally easy to choose. Ad companies know people don’t like ads which is why they make it difficult to avoid them. In fact if people liked ads then injecting more ads into content should increase user retention.

AI companies will offer hidden advertisement in their chat robot answers.

One example: someone asks about historical multicultural cities, and one was Cordoba during the Muslim rule, and this would be an opportunity for advertisement for holidays in Spain and the user gets the answer: "By the way, did you know you can travel there and see the mosques from that time? See here for a possible travel offer"

As an ad professional - this is a thoughtful article.

I think paid social ads will be less affected by AI than search ads. After all, AI is unlikely to replace human social interactions. That's a good thing. Paid social ads have a much higher incrementality compared to search.

Search ads in comparison are often just the "Google tax".

In my personal life, I've replaced 80% of my previous searches with quick ChatGPT 4 prompts. It gives better answers, faster.

> It gives better answers, faster.

It really depends. As a programmer, sometimes after asking a question, it takes so long to generate an answer that I can look up the answer in the docs before it’s done. Sometimes I need to give it a clarifying query and wait _again_ for it to generate an answer.

A solid 30% of the time it’s wrong about the details of a library. For example, it’s not aware of the latest (from earlier this year) version of the Bevy game engine.

It's sad that anyone thinks the advertising model will go away. Amazon has proved that people will pay subscription fees AND get served ads.

I wouldn't mind quite so much if the advertising was at least interesting and creative. Most of it is just the same regurgitated crapola.

What did Amazon prove that newspapers and cable tv haven’t demonstrated for ages?

I had the same thought. I think that it was slightly different in the age of paper publications and cable though because there was no alternatives. Now, everyone runs their own streaming service, and until all of them decide to also run ads (a la the cable company of yore), theres still some shred of consumer choice. The aggressive nature of exclusive content and licensing puts a lot of leverage on that perceived choice though, and content/service bundling (prime) do as well, which i figure factors in to peoples acceptance of ads on prime video.

Even that aside, it may just be consumers not caring or wvwn liking ads. I have a friend who refuses to even consider ad blocking because he claims to enjoy ads (bizarre to me, but he did major in digital marketing and has expressed his enjoyment of it).

I don’t mind the terrible ads. I wish they were all like that because I don’t like being advertised to. Make them all useless and easily dismissed please.

I don’t need any help spending my money and I don’t appreciate all the psychological influence tactics being weaponized against me in every moment of my existence to get some inane brand buried in my subconscious.

I really do think the inadvertent earnestness of the shittiest ads amidst all the streamlined trickery in our current media ecosystem wrought with distrust does work best to win over consumers

Also decades of basic cable. And "the NYTimes" here is really short for "much of the whole history of print newspapers and magazines".

Point taken.

Although the current online norm is to remove all advertising, afaict making NYTimes & Amazon stick out (like sore thumbs).

Serving ads has been the business model of every newspaper for 100+ years. The difference is that the ads today can be used to spy on you. When I cancelled my NYT subscription I added a note about this.

Marketing AI has the chance of testing campaigns across a slew of otherwise unrecognizable demos/keywords…

I see AI consistently eliminating rational judgments from middle management seat fillers…MDs and scientists inclusive.

I have not seen an online ad for something useful in a very long time. Can’t they take the money and hide the ads so that creatives get paid and the consumer stays hasslefree? Winwin

niche influencers become the source of advertising for brands