"There are two kinds of online advertising.

The good kind supports quality publishers, does not spy on us or track our every move, and respects our privacy by not collecting unnecessary personal, private information. It doesn't share it, sell it, or leak it into the digi-sphere.

The bad kind of online advertising is only superficially advertising. It is mostly tracking-based spyware disguised as advertising.

The bad kind is the kind that the online media industry has defaulted to. It relentlessly follows us around the web and collects unnecessary personal and private information about us usually without our knowledge and consent. And it shares, sells, and leaks this information promiscuously in all directions.

It supports the shittiest publishers by using software to find the cheapest, crappiest environments to distribute ads to, thereby stealing money from quality publishers and giving birth to self-inflicted brand safety issues."

This passage from Bob Hoffman is more relevant than ever with Google's most recent U-turn of the cookie deprecation.

This further reaffirms what we already knew, for Google the user experience is secondary to maximising ad revenue.

30 years ago, people would look forward to ad breaks on TV, almost as much as the programming. We didn’t rely on cookies, data clean rooms, precise targeting, or dynamic creatives, it was advertising which was simply entertaining that worked.

Why can’t we find ways to create digital advertising which truly cuts through?

71% agree they’d have a more positive perspective of digital ads if they loaded quickly and didn’t force clicks or block content, they're also in agreement that annoying or intrusive ad experiences make them less likely to purchase from that brand.

Our job would be a lot more simple if we put ourselves in the shoes of the consumer, who the reality is, has a negative attitude towards most advertising because they’re bombarded with it.

Maybe the secret to standing out in today’s noise is not more data, but more creativity.