Sorry, Mad Men. The Ad Revolution Is Here(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Sorry, Mad Men. The Ad Revolution Is Here
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/advertising-revolution-artificial-intelligence-data-mad-men-omnicom-interpublic-3c0c056b
73 comments
https://archive.is/oBu22
I like to imagine an alternate universe in which all advertising is banned, similar to the way advertising certain products (alcohol, tobacco, medication) is banned in some countries. Sure you can put a sign above the front door of your business, and sure you can buy a slot in the yellow pages, but that's all folks. We'd need different funding models for radio, television and much of the internet, but we're smart, we can figure it out.
I dream of a world where all advertising is in one place, and where I can go and look up things, when I want to. Where I can type a problem that I have into a bot and then it can show me suggested solutions for that problem: this could be as simple as "my car is too dirty" to "how do I communicate with by grandfather, who is both nearly deaf and not technical enough to send sms?"
I don't want ads to show up everywhere, and I don't want them to tell me that they have a solution to my problem _without knowing what my problem is_. I have complained about it before (partly in the wain hope the some facebook engineers will see it), that Facebook does not use the data I freely give it to base its ads on[0], but only what its AI can match me with.
In short, I think there is a time and place for me to enter transaction mode - but not with ads that assume their are smarter or know me better than I do, and not when I get interrupted.
[0]: I am pretty good at blocking third party tracking, but I did tell them what school I went to, that I studied computer science, and when I did. Any basic human would be able to infer that I might like nerdy things and that I have a relatively high income. FB continually feed me slop ads.
I don't want ads to show up everywhere, and I don't want them to tell me that they have a solution to my problem _without knowing what my problem is_. I have complained about it before (partly in the wain hope the some facebook engineers will see it), that Facebook does not use the data I freely give it to base its ads on[0], but only what its AI can match me with.
In short, I think there is a time and place for me to enter transaction mode - but not with ads that assume their are smarter or know me better than I do, and not when I get interrupted.
[0]: I am pretty good at blocking third party tracking, but I did tell them what school I went to, that I studied computer science, and when I did. Any basic human would be able to infer that I might like nerdy things and that I have a relatively high income. FB continually feed me slop ads.
“Banned” means someone else decides what’s considered advertising. Does it include Monday Night Football brought to you by MSFT Surface? The MLB World Series powered by GOOG? Or Pepsi’s American Idol?
Stop buying things from advertisers and it will die on its own.
Stop buying things from advertisers and it will die on its own.
"Vote with your wallet" works for voting for things, but it has an abysmal track record when it comes to voting against things. It only works in the case organized boycotts, and only for a vanishing minority of those.
"We'd need different funding models for radio, television and much of the internet."
I thought the internet was funded by internet subscriber fees.
What are we paying ISPs for.
Advertisers do not pay our internet access fees.
Any internet subscriber can publish on the internet. No advertisers needed.
Owning a radio station or TV channel is expensive and may require funding from advertisers.
But an internet subscription is affordable in the same way as a TV set or a radio receiver. If an internet subscriber has a reachable IP address then she can publish.
I thought the internet was funded by internet subscriber fees.
What are we paying ISPs for.
Advertisers do not pay our internet access fees.
Any internet subscriber can publish on the internet. No advertisers needed.
Owning a radio station or TV channel is expensive and may require funding from advertisers.
But an internet subscription is affordable in the same way as a TV set or a radio receiver. If an internet subscriber has a reachable IP address then she can publish.
There would be minimal content without payment. There would be minimal payment without advertising. People are overwhelmingly unwilling to pay for online content.
Internet subbscribers routinely produce and publish content to be consumed by other subscribers without payment. (Middlemen calling themselves "tech" companies have created websites to exploit this phenomenon.)
For example, HN readers are known to enjoy the comments section, perhaps more than the submitted news items themselves. But HN commenters do not get paid for their "content". Many years prior to the existence of so-called "tech" companies, this phenomenon was observable on Usenet. Without advertisers and without payment.
Internet users are perhaps unwilling to pay for content published to the internet; they are however willing to publish internet content without payment.
For example, HN readers are known to enjoy the comments section, perhaps more than the submitted news items themselves. But HN commenters do not get paid for their "content". Many years prior to the existence of so-called "tech" companies, this phenomenon was observable on Usenet. Without advertisers and without payment.
Internet users are perhaps unwilling to pay for content published to the internet; they are however willing to publish internet content without payment.
The best concert I ever went to was one I'd never have known about if not for a TV commercial. I don't follow music news and don't drive by the venue to look at the marquee.
I hate commercials, they're annoying, I mute/skip them all but that one got through and it's made me consider that you can be too extremist about this like anything else. To an extent, our interests are aligned with advertisers. Of course their information is biased, but an intelligent person can cut through that and take just the raw information, which has value. If there's a new pizza place open on a street I don't drive down, I'd like to know.
Another example. I realized I haven't seen anything but already-familiar movies in recent years because I've closed off all avenues to seeing trailers for movies I'm not already sold on.
I hate commercials, they're annoying, I mute/skip them all but that one got through and it's made me consider that you can be too extremist about this like anything else. To an extent, our interests are aligned with advertisers. Of course their information is biased, but an intelligent person can cut through that and take just the raw information, which has value. If there's a new pizza place open on a street I don't drive down, I'd like to know.
Another example. I realized I haven't seen anything but already-familiar movies in recent years because I've closed off all avenues to seeing trailers for movies I'm not already sold on.
It'd just be nice if it was consensual. It is resource intensive to try to opt out of/avoid the ad-based society. And you never truly can as some data sharing and ad watching is almost compulsory (video/sound ads at gas pumps).
To be fair, I've gotten some great ads for things I never would have found myself, on places like Instagram. And yet I didn't get to choose when or how the ads were delivered.
To be fair, I've gotten some great ads for things I never would have found myself, on places like Instagram. And yet I didn't get to choose when or how the ads were delivered.
Cable TV commercials have been more or less consensual since DVRs came out in 1999. Start watching a show late and fast forward the commercials. The internet taking the anonymity and freedom to skip ads away from us is the main problem.
Isn't that the same thing?
(Cable) TV ads are not more consensual just because you were using the ad blocker of the time: DVR
(Cable) TV ads are not more consensual just because you were using the ad blocker of the time: DVR
Advertising should be opt-in, and user tuneable. I avoid advertising in my life as much as possible, but yet, I still find out about all the cool local things going on. How? I use instagram, where I follow things that interest me. The key difference here is that I'm in control. I use it only when I feel like it, I've disabled all its notifications.
That said, instagram still has a bunch of obnoxious ads I don't want. It's really not as user tunable as the "opt-in bazar" model should be. But that is the solution, ads should be 100% opt-in. You should be in control of when you want to go browsing vendor wares, and when you do that then sure they can hawk their stuff to you, but otherwise not.
That said, instagram still has a bunch of obnoxious ads I don't want. It's really not as user tunable as the "opt-in bazar" model should be. But that is the solution, ads should be 100% opt-in. You should be in control of when you want to go browsing vendor wares, and when you do that then sure they can hawk their stuff to you, but otherwise not.
That's called news, not ads.
There are perverse incentives at work.
Given media is advertising funded, they need it to be necessary. It means they cannot run cultural content that informs you of things of a commercial nature. It would be to give away their revenue generating product for free.
Rather than your example showing the advertising-economy is successfully informing you of things, it may show that it has extinguished an entire category of cultural programming that could have kept you entertained and informed without being a pay-to-win manipulation game.
Given media is advertising funded, they need it to be necessary. It means they cannot run cultural content that informs you of things of a commercial nature. It would be to give away their revenue generating product for free.
Rather than your example showing the advertising-economy is successfully informing you of things, it may show that it has extinguished an entire category of cultural programming that could have kept you entertained and informed without being a pay-to-win manipulation game.
> Of course their information is biased, but an intelligent person can cut through that and take just the raw information, which has value.
You may be intelligent as an individual but your adversary has teams of PhDs, decades of psychological research and tons of personal information on you, now parsed and analysed by AI to target you. Thinking you can see "raw information" is very naive.
You may be intelligent as an individual but your adversary has teams of PhDs, decades of psychological research and tons of personal information on you, now parsed and analysed by AI to target you. Thinking you can see "raw information" is very naive.
The things you're saying are real on the scale of the entire audience, advertising does work in the aggregate. But I'm stubborn and frugal and skeptical so I'm not buying some new product unless the stars align. I trust myself to be able to hear that it exists from a biased source.
Even if you don't believe the claim that X is the best product, it's good to know it exists as a starting point for if/when you ever start research on the options.
Even if you don't believe the claim that X is the best product, it's good to know it exists as a starting point for if/when you ever start research on the options.
If you do any groceries in bigger markets, the shelf positioning and location of the aisle is also a part of advertising. Companies pay premiums for some spots.
As a fellow frugal sceptic, that won't impact us much.
We get a little buzz dragging the super value pack off a top shelf or knowing that the bottom shelf economy product is actually made in the same factory as the high priced brand. We are the ones standing in the aisle eyes glazed computing the 1g/£ value of a "get one free offer" vs. the family pack no matter how hard supermarkets obfuscate it with different units on each label. It's a contrarian world-view that assumes by default, that eye-level products have the lowest value.
I used to humbly assume I must be vulnerable to advertising but I later realised I actually have years of expenses that show otherwise. They show I am a cheap bastard. I don't make impulse purchases, mostly buy fruit and veg, don't buy branded products if it can be avoided and major purchases will be drawn out optimisation processes with spreadsheets and using return processes to compare alternatives if necessary.
What I can humbly reveal is that this is no brag, this is no moral virtue, just a personality trait that is not always rational and comes with swings and roundabouts e.g. good opportunities are rejected with suspicion, important purchases are procrastinated and we can make poor use of our time to indulge our psychology e.g. walk 10 minutes to the next store to buy something for 50p cheaper just because being gouged 50p physically hurts!
We get a little buzz dragging the super value pack off a top shelf or knowing that the bottom shelf economy product is actually made in the same factory as the high priced brand. We are the ones standing in the aisle eyes glazed computing the 1g/£ value of a "get one free offer" vs. the family pack no matter how hard supermarkets obfuscate it with different units on each label. It's a contrarian world-view that assumes by default, that eye-level products have the lowest value.
I used to humbly assume I must be vulnerable to advertising but I later realised I actually have years of expenses that show otherwise. They show I am a cheap bastard. I don't make impulse purchases, mostly buy fruit and veg, don't buy branded products if it can be avoided and major purchases will be drawn out optimisation processes with spreadsheets and using return processes to compare alternatives if necessary.
What I can humbly reveal is that this is no brag, this is no moral virtue, just a personality trait that is not always rational and comes with swings and roundabouts e.g. good opportunities are rejected with suspicion, important purchases are procrastinated and we can make poor use of our time to indulge our psychology e.g. walk 10 minutes to the next store to buy something for 50p cheaper just because being gouged 50p physically hurts!
In your hypothetical universe, is it legal to have a vending machine in public that says "Drink Slurm: it's highly addictive"?
Depends. Does it have electrolytes ?
It's what plants crave.
It cools the HPC clusters.
>I like to imagine an alternate universe in which all advertising is banned,
Don't just imagine. Think. There must be some argument that advertisement isn't the same thing as the "speech" in free speech. I haven't figured it out, but I keep hoping someone else will.
Don't just imagine. Think. There must be some argument that advertisement isn't the same thing as the "speech" in free speech. I haven't figured it out, but I keep hoping someone else will.
Freedom of speech is about being able to state your opinion, not about being able to say anything, so it should not cover advertising.
My opinion is that Brawndo is the best drink out there and always for a reasonable price! Brawndo, it's got what plants crave!
There are many different funding models for media: hypothecated taxes, subscriptions, donations, merch...
Why does it have to be an alternate universe? I have been thinking the same and there it would not be easy, but it could be done, and even if we had people finding lots of loopholes it would greatly restrict advertising.
Why does it have to be an alternate universe? I have been thinking the same and there it would not be easy, but it could be done, and even if we had people finding lots of loopholes it would greatly restrict advertising.
Your are missing: interest by individuals, information corporations wants out (no grocery store chain would ever think of putting a paygate on its opening hours), and think tanks.
Besides, even in the extreme where no new media is ever created, would that be so bad? Anna's archive has 38 million books. You would be challenged to even read the index in a lifetime.
Besides, even in the extreme where no new media is ever created, would that be so bad? Anna's archive has 38 million books. You would be challenged to even read the index in a lifetime.
It’s amusing to me how I just read a thread on HN where the top comment was about the unintended consequences of regulation resulting in far worse outcomes than the problem they set out to solve.
Meanwhile, at the top of this thread, we have someone advocating seizing control of all public speech and media to forcibly eliminate any perceived advertising messaging. With very little thought in the replies paid toward the potential unintended consequences.
What could possibly go wrong creating a centralized body to police all speech for perceived commercial intent. I’m sure it would be all roses and sunshine!
Meanwhile, at the top of this thread, we have someone advocating seizing control of all public speech and media to forcibly eliminate any perceived advertising messaging. With very little thought in the replies paid toward the potential unintended consequences.
What could possibly go wrong creating a centralized body to police all speech for perceived commercial intent. I’m sure it would be all roses and sunshine!
I can't figure out what the point of this article is, but let's talk about advertising and AI, since that seems to be a primary focus.
Advertisers using generative AI to create ad campaigns is a diversion at best. The only use of AI advertisers are interested in is how they can embed ads directly in the personal AI assistants the world is starting to use. If a conversational AI model can be manipulated to casually mention a specific brand in its output at precisely the right moment, then that's the most accurate form of targeting, with the highest chance of engagement. AI assistants are trusted much more than any search engine, or any media we consume, so it's only a matter of time until we start seeing these integrations with mainstream models. No AI service provider will be able to resist cashing in on the advertising dollar, regardless of what their "benefit of all humankind" marketing agenda claims. They're sitting on a data gold mine much larger than the one adtech currently controls, with user demand that will eventually surpass social media and entertainment sites. The opportunity to monetize AI is enormous, and that's the next advertising frontier.
Advertising is a scourge on humanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9wStdPkQY
Advertisers using generative AI to create ad campaigns is a diversion at best. The only use of AI advertisers are interested in is how they can embed ads directly in the personal AI assistants the world is starting to use. If a conversational AI model can be manipulated to casually mention a specific brand in its output at precisely the right moment, then that's the most accurate form of targeting, with the highest chance of engagement. AI assistants are trusted much more than any search engine, or any media we consume, so it's only a matter of time until we start seeing these integrations with mainstream models. No AI service provider will be able to resist cashing in on the advertising dollar, regardless of what their "benefit of all humankind" marketing agenda claims. They're sitting on a data gold mine much larger than the one adtech currently controls, with user demand that will eventually surpass social media and entertainment sites. The opportunity to monetize AI is enormous, and that's the next advertising frontier.
Advertising is a scourge on humanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9wStdPkQY
I doubt that is where the most advertising value on AI platforms will be created. Text as a medium has never been less relevant in a multi media digital world.
I can think of something like people generating a short video and some of the frames innocently containing brand placements. If people can share AI generations and these creations receive some semblance of popularity, that's where you will find advertisers. Most of the digital ad dollar value is created around social platforms. This recipe for success is already proven.
I can think of something like people generating a short video and some of the frames innocently containing brand placements. If people can share AI generations and these creations receive some semblance of popularity, that's where you will find advertisers. Most of the digital ad dollar value is created around social platforms. This recipe for success is already proven.
I wasn't referring to just LLMs, but AI assistants in general, regardless if the medium is text, audio or video. Ad placement will certainly also be part of utilitarian generators as we know them today, but the real value of assistants is that they will be personal, and a major part of our lives. This means that the trust will be much higher, and advertisers will certainly want to exploit this.
Biggest utility I see for AI personal assistants is in a recommendation system based on personal preferences. We are not breaking any barriers with this.
Trust implies some sense of consistency in results and LLMs have proven to be the opposite. Your whole argument's premise seems to be built on some of the dazzle created by AI assistants directly translating to advertising value. The connection is very loose here and to me only propagates the hype that's all too common in discussions about AI.
Trust implies some sense of consistency in results and LLMs have proven to be the opposite. Your whole argument's premise seems to be built on some of the dazzle created by AI assistants directly translating to advertising value. The connection is very loose here and to me only propagates the hype that's all too common in discussions about AI.
How would they measure advertising performance? How would they calculate payments?
I wonder how this works in a world where production costs rise due to lack of workers and the elderly are the richest consumers
The whole industrialized world is living this already, so you just have to look around.
This is a PR puff piece.
> the former chief creative officer of Leo Burnett US, recalls one agency trying to lure her in the ’90s with a stunning oceanfront house in Rye, N.Y.
That’s quite creative or a great troll: Rye, NY has no oceanfront.
It does have a Playland on the Long Island Sound.
That’s quite creative or a great troll: Rye, NY has no oceanfront.
It does have a Playland on the Long Island Sound.
it was a package deal
comes with a former Swiss Navy vessel
comes with a former Swiss Navy vessel
The ad revolution is here, but not in the way people think.
How many more ads can Twitch, YouTube, and Facebook add? Twitch plays 8 minute ad reels, my Facebook feed is a cesspool, and YouTube would probably be bad if I didn't block all ads on the platform. Amazon searches are close to 50% ads for the first ~30 results. Even DuckDuckGo is getting into the dark patterns - it's almost impossible to differentiate what is an ad vs a genuine search result.
Is ARPU up? Or is it much flatter than these companies would like?
How many more ads can Twitch, YouTube, and Facebook add? Twitch plays 8 minute ad reels, my Facebook feed is a cesspool, and YouTube would probably be bad if I didn't block all ads on the platform. Amazon searches are close to 50% ads for the first ~30 results. Even DuckDuckGo is getting into the dark patterns - it's almost impossible to differentiate what is an ad vs a genuine search result.
Is ARPU up? Or is it much flatter than these companies would like?
What is DDG doing?
I almost never see ads
I live in a (mostly) ad free bubble, yay!
"Persuading people to buy things they don't want, with money they don't have, to impress friends who don't care"
The worst of the worst.
I live in a (mostly) ad free bubble, yay!
"Persuading people to buy things they don't want, with money they don't have, to impress friends who don't care"
The worst of the worst.
AI ad blockers are the future. Trained AI models that can sniff ads out with incredible accuracy. I'd pay for such a service.
AI anti-ad blockers are part of that same future. Brought to you by the same company who brought you the ad blockers!
Some comment on the original article pointed out that the merger is about firing people which makes sense.
I don't mind advertising. In seasonal amounts and targeted. In fact, I sometimes buy B2B magazines just to check out the ads.
This being said, most online ads as scum, fraud and clickbait. Outbrain anyone?
This being said, most online ads as scum, fraud and clickbait. Outbrain anyone?
Both the creatives in media (all forms - ads, news, sports, movies, radio, tv, games etc) and the ad tech crowd don't talk about barely growing global disposable income. Meanwhile they are furiously producing more and more content (ie real estate for ads).
What happens when production outpaces consumption or supply over shoots demand? Naturally hiring will slow, mergers and consolidation, cost cutting via relying on tech and more automation.
We have sort of peaked in how much people's Attention can be milked. In both time and cash. They just don't like talking about it.
What happens when production outpaces consumption or supply over shoots demand? Naturally hiring will slow, mergers and consolidation, cost cutting via relying on tech and more automation.
We have sort of peaked in how much people's Attention can be milked. In both time and cash. They just don't like talking about it.
> We have sort of peaked in how much people's Attention can be milked. In both time and cash. They just don't like talking about it.
This is why the conglomerates consolidation is mentioned, particularly in consumer targeting and data access. In order to ensure efficient targeting to avoid over-indexing on generic, world-wide/national attention, marketers are increasingly turning to consumer data brokers to fine-tune their messaging to niche groups so they can gain more traction with less dollars. By buying these aggregators up, they end up saving money in the long-term and lock out competitors from gaining any competitive advantage of using those data brokers or charging more heavily for the pleasure, thus getting paid on the way in and out.
Regardless of the feelings of those here on HN or those who use adblockers, the rest of the public seems to be largely accepting of marketing and its annoyances. By continued consolidation and aggregation of consumer data, marketing agencies are continuing to find ways to stay relevant and efficient--all until someone fixes the root issue: data collection, sharing, and coalescing of organizations collating these data used for targeting.
This is why the conglomerates consolidation is mentioned, particularly in consumer targeting and data access. In order to ensure efficient targeting to avoid over-indexing on generic, world-wide/national attention, marketers are increasingly turning to consumer data brokers to fine-tune their messaging to niche groups so they can gain more traction with less dollars. By buying these aggregators up, they end up saving money in the long-term and lock out competitors from gaining any competitive advantage of using those data brokers or charging more heavily for the pleasure, thus getting paid on the way in and out.
Regardless of the feelings of those here on HN or those who use adblockers, the rest of the public seems to be largely accepting of marketing and its annoyances. By continued consolidation and aggregation of consumer data, marketing agencies are continuing to find ways to stay relevant and efficient--all until someone fixes the root issue: data collection, sharing, and coalescing of organizations collating these data used for targeting.
There’s a reason Meta is pouring so much into VR/AR…
It’s the future for sure.
It's certainly another frontier of exploitation, but we have yet to see any signals of significant demand. Well, maybe Roblox is sort of that signal. But meta's vision seems pretty disconnected from any signal that people want to interact this way.
Besides, haven't we already been through this with second life?
Besides, haven't we already been through this with second life?
> about barely growing global disposable income.
Perhaps in the developed world, but with china and now southeast asia, india, africa, etc developing, I don't see how global disposable income is barely growing. If anything, there will be hundreds of millions ( perhaps billions ) of people with substantially growing disposable income in the next few decades.
> What happens when production outpaces consumption or supply over shoots demand? Naturally hiring will slow, mergers and consolidation, cost cutting via relying on tech and more automation.
That's one possibility. The other is to grow consumption/demand to meet the supply.
> We have sort of peaked in how much people's Attention can be milked.
Nowhere close to it.
Perhaps in the developed world, but with china and now southeast asia, india, africa, etc developing, I don't see how global disposable income is barely growing. If anything, there will be hundreds of millions ( perhaps billions ) of people with substantially growing disposable income in the next few decades.
> What happens when production outpaces consumption or supply over shoots demand? Naturally hiring will slow, mergers and consolidation, cost cutting via relying on tech and more automation.
That's one possibility. The other is to grow consumption/demand to meet the supply.
> We have sort of peaked in how much people's Attention can be milked.
Nowhere close to it.
>barely growing global disposable income.
It feels like global disposable income isn’t growing but that’s not true because the list of necessities increase the more income increases, if you lived like a person in the 90’s did you could save a huge amount of money,
It feels like global disposable income isn’t growing but that’s not true because the list of necessities increase the more income increases, if you lived like a person in the 90’s did you could save a huge amount of money,
How do you propose someone live like they did in the '90s when '90s things like food, healthcare, rent and gas aren't priced like they were back then?
Most people could never afford to live like a person in the 90's. Do you think affording a smart phone makes up for not affording a home? A middle income employed person working full time today has the same work output as 5 workers together had in the 90s. And each of them could afford houses, families, vehicles and more. The middle income worker today cannot afford that.
youre not going to make up the difference in things like housing or healthcare by not having a phone
Simply go back to the 90s and pay 90s prices for rent.
Hava…sorry New Orleans would like a word, where half the houses were falling apart before the hurricane anyway.
Advertisement has rarely not been a zero sum game. Disposable income will be disposed of and ads exist to influence the direction the money moves.
> What happens when production outpaces consumption or supply over shoots demand?
Isn't that already happening? No human in our lifetime would be able to consume it all. Or do you mean that the total production would be higher than the total consumption? I'd wager a guess that we're already beyond that as well as one human can easily create content longer than they spent creating it.
Isn't that already happening? No human in our lifetime would be able to consume it all. Or do you mean that the total production would be higher than the total consumption? I'd wager a guess that we're already beyond that as well as one human can easily create content longer than they spent creating it.
To me it is pretty clear the comment you are replying to is using "consumption" to mean "demand."
Attention is the real estate for ads. The hope is always to steal more attention (time) from your audience that they are giving to things that don't contain ads (sleeping, walking in nature, talking to friends) or your competitors content.
[deleted]
> During an hour-long call this past week to sell investors on the virtues of a $30 billion merger of two advertising giants, data and technology came up a dozen times each. AI, eight times. “Creativity” was uttered once.
Dark portents indeed.
When these koolaid drinkers realise what they have done, make sure you demand triple your old rate to bail them out.
Dark portents indeed.
When these koolaid drinkers realise what they have done, make sure you demand triple your old rate to bail them out.
Will they need a bail out? The lifetime of ad content is so short and is always being replaced such that the quality need not be high. ML can more than achieve it.
The code and creative I've seen and worked with on advert sites fits what I've seen ML do already.
The code and creative I've seen and worked with on advert sites fits what I've seen ML do already.
The problem is, Meta et al. has shown their ad targeting ML models are best in class, and drive sales. So, these investors want a piece of that pie.