I pointed to the case of a Dutch broadcaster who got better results, and more revenue, when they stopped using ad tech that tracked and identified (stalked) people, and switched to ads based on the contents of the web page that they were viewing.
Well, with Google shifting its own ad tech, some other companies are discovering that what they were sold by Google and Facebook was complete pants:
Bacardi last October ran a test to tell whether its campaign promoting Bombay Sapphire in the U.K. could boost sales and brand favor—and in the process help answer a broader question about the long-term fate of its digital marketing as the way consumers are targeted for ads faces a shift.
The campaign took 10,000 anonymized identities of people who had visited the gin brand’s distillery or website, and sent them offers like promotional emails or Instagram ads promising drink recipes and early access to new products.
The result was a click-through rate, which indicates how often ad exposures lead to clicks, around 9% higher than previous campaigns that relied on common but now endangered targeting methods, such as using data from third-party sources. The new campaign also saw a 14% increase in cost efficiency as measured by a cost-per-click metric.
Bacardi says those and other encouraging signs give it confidence in its ability to build its brand and sell products even once it no longer has access to individual ad tracking and targeting technology that Google plans to move against next year.
My guess is that Bacardi's marking department is calling Google and Facebook and the other "Stalker Advertisers" pig felching* c%$# sucking con men who should be put up against the wall, because they realized that they have been scammed.
You want to sell booze? Buy ads on booze web sites.
It's that simple, and it's cheaper, and far less opaque.