Online Ad Targeting Does Work—As Long As It’s Not Creepy

If you click on the right-hand corner of any advertisement on Facebook, the social network will tell you why it was targeted to you. But what would happen if those buried targeting tactics were transparently displayed, right next to the ad itself? That’s the question at the heart of new research from Harvard Business School published in the Journal of Consumer Research. It turns out advertising transparency can be good for a platform—but it depends on how creepy marketer methods are.

The study has wide-reaching implications for advertising giants like Facebook and Google, which increasingly find themselves under pressure to disclose more about their targeting practices. The researchers found, for example, that consumers are reluctant to engage with ads that they know have been served based on their activity on third-party websites, a tactic Facebook and Google routinely use. Which also suggests that tech giants have a financial incentive to ensure users aren’t aware, at least up front, about how some ads are served.

Don’t Talk Behind My Back

For their study, Tami Kim, Kate Barasz and Leslie K. John conducted a number of online advertising experiments to understand the effect transparency has on user behavior. They found that if sites tell you they’re using unsavory tactics—like tracking you across the web—you’re far less likely to engage with their ads. The same goes for other invasive methods, like inferring something about your life when you haven’t explicitly provided that information. A famous example of this is from 2012, when Target began sending a woman baby-focused marketing mailers, inadvertently divulging to her father that she was pregnant.

“I think it will be interesting to see how firms respond in this age of increasing transparency,” says John, a professor at Harvard Business School and one of the authors of the paper. “Third-party data sharing obviously plays a big part in behaviorally targeted advertising. And behaviorally targeted advertising has been shown to be very effective—in that it increases sales. But our research shows that when we become aware of third-party sharing—and also of firms making inferences about us—we feel intruded upon and as a result ad effectiveness can decline.”

The researchers didn’t find, however, that users react poorly to all forms of ad transparency. If companies readily disclose that they employ targeting methods perceived to be acceptable, like recommending products based on items you’ve clicked in the past, people will make purchases all the same. And the study suggests that if people already trust the platform where those ads are displayed, they might even be more likely to click and buy.

‘When we become aware of third-party sharing—and also of firms making inferences about us—we feel intruded upon.’

Leslie K. John, Harvard Business School

The researchers say their findings mimic social truths in the real world. Tracking users across websites is viewed as an an inappropriate flow of information, like talking behind a friend’s back. Similarly, making inferences is often seen as unacceptable, even if you’re drawing a conclusion the other person would freely disclose. For example, you might tell a friend that you’re trying to lose weight, but find it inappropriate for him to ask if you want to shed some pounds. The same sort of rules apply to the online world, according to the study.

“And this brings to the topic that excites me the most—norms in the digital space are still evolving and less well understood,” says Kim, the lead author of the study and a marketing professor at the University of Virginia’s business school. “For marketers to build relationships with consumers effectively, it’s critical for firms to understand what these norms are and avoid practices that violate these norms.”

Where’d That Ad Come From?

In one experiment, the researchers recruited 449 people from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform to look at ads for a fictional bookstore. They were randomly shown two different ad-transparency messages, one saying they were targeted based on products they’ve clicked on in the past, and one saying they were targeted based on their activity on other websites. The study found that ads appended with the second message—revealing that users had been tracked across the web—were 24 percent less effective. (For the lab studies, “effectiveness” was based on how the subjects felt about the ads.)

In another experiment, the researchers looked at whether ads are less effective when companies disclose they’re making inferences about their users. In this scenario, 348 participants were shown an ad for an art gallery, along with a message saying either they were seeing the ad based on “your information that you stated about you,” or “based on your information that we inferred about you.” In this study, ads were less 17 percent effective when it was revealed that they were targeted based on things a website concluded about you on its own, rather than facts you actively provided.

The researchers found that their control ads, which didn’t have any transparency messages, performed just as well as those with “acceptable” ad-transparency disclosures—implying that being up-front about targeting might not impact a company’s bottom line, as long as it’s not being creepy. The problem is that companies do sometimes use unsettling tactics; the Intercept discovered earlier this month, for example, that Facebook has developed a service designed to serve ads based on how it predicts consumers will behave in the future.

In yet another experiment, the academics asked 462 participants to log into their Facebook accounts and look at the first ad they saw. They then were instructed to copy and paste Facebook’s “Why am I seeing this ad” message, as well as the name of the company that purchased it. Responses included standard targeting methods, like “my age I stated on my profile,” as well as invasive, distressing tactics like “my sexual orientation that Facebook inferred based on my Facebook usage.”

Journal of Consumer Research

The researchers coded these responses, and gave them each a “transparency score.” The higher the score, the more acceptable the ad-targeting practice. The subjects were then asked how interested they were in the ad, including whether they would purchase something from the company’s website. The results show participants who were served ads using acceptable practices were more likely to engage than those who were served ads based on practices perceived to be unacceptable.

Then, the researchers tested whether users who distrusted Facebook were less likely to engage with an ad; they found both that and the reverse to be true. People who trust Facebook more are more likely to engage with advertisements—though they have to be targeted in accepted ways. In other words, Facebook has a financial incentive beyond public relations to ensure users trust it. When they don’t, people engage with advertisements less.

Journal of Consumer Research

“What I think will be interesting moving forward is what users define for themselves as transparency. That definition is rapidly changing, and how platforms define it may not align with how users want or need it defined to feel like they understand,” says Susan Wenograd, a digital advertising consultant with a Facebook focus. “No one thought much of quizzes and apps being tied to Facebook before, but of course they do now since the testimony regarding Cambridge Analytica. It’s a fine line to be transparent without scaring users.”

When Transparency Works For Everyone

In some situations, according to the study, being honest about targeting practices can even lead to more clicks and purchases. In another experiment, the researchers worked with two loyalty point-redemption programs, which previous research has shown consumers trust highly. When they showed people messages next to ads saying things like “recommended based on your clicks on our site,” they were more likely to click and make purchases than if no message was present.

That says being honest can actually improve a company’s bottom line—as long as they’re not tracking and targeting users in an invasive way. As the researchers wrote, “even the most personalized, perfectly targeted advertisement will flop if the consumer is more focused on the (un)acceptability of how the targeting was done in the first place.”

The Ad Machine

Online Ad Targeting Does Work—As Long because it’s maybe not Creepy

If you click in the right-hand corner of any advertisement on Facebook, the social network will inform you why it was geared to you. But just what would happen if those hidden targeting strategies were transparently presented, right next to the ad it self? That’s the concern in the centre of new research from Harvard company class published in Journal of customer analysis. As it happens marketing transparency is best for a platform—but this will depend on how creepy marketer practices are.

The analysis has wide-reaching implications for advertising leaders like Facebook and Bing, which increasingly find themselves under great pressure to disclose more about their focusing on practices. The researchers discovered, for example, that consumers are reluctant to interact with adverts that they know are served according to their task on third-party websites, a tactic Facebook and Bing regularly utilize. Which also implies that technology giants have a financial motivation to make sure users are not mindful, at the least up front, about how exactly some advertisements are served.

Cannot Talk Behind My Straight Back

For his or her research, Tami Kim, Kate Barasz and Leslie K. John conducted several internet marketing experiments to understand the end result transparency is wearing user behavior. They unearthed that if websites inform you they truly are making use of unsavory techniques—like tracking you across the web—you’re less more likely to engage with their advertisements. The same goes for other invasive practices, like inferring one thing about your life when you haven’t explicitly provided information. A famous example of this is from 2012, whenever Target started sending a lady baby-focused marketing mailers, unintentionally divulging to her daddy that she had been pregnant.

“i believe it will likely be interesting to see how companies react inside age of increasing transparency,” says John, a teacher at Harvard company class and another associated with the authors of the paper. “Third-party data sharing clearly plays a huge part in behaviorally targeted marketing. And behaviorally targeted advertising has been confirmed to be extremely effective—in so it increases sales. But our studies have shown that whenever we discover third-party sharing—and also of organizations making inferences about us—we feel intruded upon and as a result ad effectiveness can decline.”

The scientists didn’t find, but that users react poorly to all types of advertisement transparency. If businesses easily disclose that they employ targeting methods observed become appropriate, like suggesting products considering things you have clicked before, individuals makes purchases all the same. And also the study suggests that if individuals already trust the working platform in which those advertisements are shown, they may also be more likely to click and purchase.

‘once we become aware of third-party sharing—and also of firms making inferences about us—we feel intruded upon.’

Leslie K. John, Harvard Business School

The scientists say their findings mimic social truths into the real world. Monitoring users across websites is deemed an an inappropriate flow of information, like talking behind a pal’s back. Likewise, making inferences is normally viewed as unacceptable, even if you’re drawing a summary the other person would easily disclose. As an example, you may tell a buddy you are attempting to lose weight, but believe it is inappropriate for him to inquire of if you would like shed some pounds. Similar sort of guidelines apply to the online world, according to the study.

“which brings to your topic that excites me the most—norms in the digital room are still evolving and less well understood,” says Kim, the lead author of the analysis and a advertising teacher during the University of Virginia’s company school. “For marketers to build relationships with customers efficiently, it’s critical for organizations to know just what these norms are and steer clear of techniques that violate these norms.”

Where’d That Advertisement Come From?

In one single experiment, the researchers recruited 449 individuals from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform to check out ads for the fictional bookstore. They were randomly shown two different ad-transparency communications, one saying they were targeted centered on items they will have clicked on before, and another saying these were targeted considering their task on other web sites. The research found that adverts appended utilizing the second message—revealing that users was tracked over the web—were 24 percent less effective. (the lab studies, “effectiveness” had been according to how the topics felt in regards to the ads.)

In another experiment, the researchers looked at whether advertisements are less effective whenever businesses disclose they truly are making inferences about their users. Within scenario, 348 participants had been shown an ad for the memorial, along with a message saying either these people were seeing the advertisement based on “your information which you claimed in regards to you,” or “based on your information we inferred about you.” Inside research, advertisements had been less 17 percent effective with regards to had been revealed they had been targeted based on things an online site concluded in regards to you by itself, rather than facts you actively supplied.

The researchers unearthed that their control ads, which didn’t have any transparency messages, done as well as those with “acceptable” ad-transparency disclosures—implying that being up-front about focusing on might not affect a company’s main point here, providing it’s not being creepy. The issue is that businesses do often use unsettling strategies; the Intercept discovered earlier this month, for example, that Twitter is promoting something built to provide ads predicated on just how it predicts customers will behave as time goes on.

In yet another test, the academics asked 462 individuals to log within their Facebook reports and appearance within first advertisement they saw. Then they were instructed to copy and paste Facebook’s “Why have always been I seeing this advertisement” message, as well as the name of this business that bought it. Responses included standard targeting techniques, like “my age I reported on my profile,” and invasive, distressing strategies like “my intimate orientation that Twitter inferred predicated on my Facebook use.”

Journal of Customer Research

The researchers coded these reactions, and provided them each a “transparency score.” The higher the score, the greater amount of appropriate the ad-targeting practice. The topics had been then asked exactly how interested they were into the advertising, including whether they would purchase one thing from business’s internet site. The outcome reveal participants who have been offered advertisements making use of acceptable practices had been prone to engage compared to those who were offered ads according to practices sensed to be unacceptable.

Then, the scientists tested whether users who distrusted Facebook were less likely to engage an advertising; they discovered both that while the reverse to be real. Those who trust Facebook more are more inclined to build relationships advertisements—though they need to be targeted in accepted methods. Put simply, Facebook possesses economic motivation beyond public relations to ensure users trust it. When they do not, people build relationships ads less.

Journal of Consumer Research

“the things I think will likely to be interesting moving forward is really what users determine for themselves as transparency. That meaning is quickly changing, and exactly how platforms define it would likely perhaps not align with exactly how users want or want it defined to feel just like they realize,” states Susan Wenograd, a digital marketing consultant having Facebook focus. “nobody thought a lot of quizzes and apps being tied to Twitter before, but needless to say they are doing now considering that the testimony regarding Cambridge Analytica. It’s a fine line become clear without scaring users.”

Whenever Transparency Functions For All

In certain circumstances, based on the research, being honest about focusing on practices may even induce more clicks and acquisitions. In another experiment, the researchers worked with two loyalty point-redemption programs, which past research shows consumers trust very. Once they revealed individuals messages next to adverts saying things like “recommended predicated on your presses on our site,” they certainly were prone to click and make acquisitions than if no message had been current.

That states being truthful can in fact improve a business’s base line—as very long because they’re perhaps not monitoring and targeting users within an invasive means. Once the scientists wrote, “even the absolute most individualized, perfectly targeted advertisement will flop if the consumer is more centered on the (un)acceptability of the way the targeting had been done in the first place.”

The Ad Machine

CGI ‘Influencers’ love Lil Miquela Are About to Flood Your Feed

It does not get more 2018 than this: In mid-April, a Trump-supporting Instagram influencer named Bermuda hacked the account of fellow influencer Lil Miquela, who may have over a million supporters. Wait, no, there’s more: Bermuda refused to return the account unless Miquela promised to “tell the planet the reality”—the truth being that Miquela isn’t person. Plus in situation you haven’t caught on yet, neither is Bermuda. Both are CGI creations.

Related Tales

Lil Miquela has become a source of fascination for most on Instagram since soon after the woman account launched in April 2016, but also for her first couple of years of existence, no body could definitively state who or the thing that was behind the operation. The Bermuda hack-slash-PR-stunt solved at the very least the main mystery, connecting Miquela to Brud, a Los Angeles-based startup that focuses on “robotics, synthetic intelligence and their applications to media companies”—but the whole saga stays a master class in postmodern performance art, with Miquela announcing that she had been “no longer dealing with [her] supervisors at Brud.” (if you are interested in learning the nitty-gritty, The Cut features a good tick-tock of exactly how the hack and subsequent “reveals” played away.)

The whole charade will likely continue on for a while, if you don’t indefinitely, while the exact operational logistics behind Lil Miquela’s account may never be clear. What is clear, but is Miquela’s influence—and the truth that in terms of confusing encounters with hyper-realistic CGI people, she’s simply the tip associated with iceberg.

The Increase of Brandfluencatars

Miquela isn’t merely a flashy stunt: she’s got severe money-making potential. Already, the digital influencer has partnered with Giphy and Prada and posed putting on Diesel and Moncler. In February, Miquela stated she had never been compensated to model a bit of fashion on her behalf feed, but which could change at any moment. (Lil Miquela’s PR representatives would not respond to inquiries about whether she has published any sponsored content since that declaration.)

The demand from brands is obviously here. Just look at exactly what happened to Shudu, a CGI “supermodel” created by fashion photographer Cameron-James Wilson. The woman account went viral whenever Fenty Beauty reposted a “photo” of Shudu “wearing” the brand’s Mattemoiselle lipstick; since that time, Wilson states, he’s gotten provides from the bounty of brands in the fashion and technology worlds, all hoping to work with the CGI model.

But digital models and influencers like Lil Miquela and Shudu raise thorny questions. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission updated its recommendation guides to need influencers to disclose their marketing relationships and recognize paid articles with a hashtag like #ad or #sponsored—but it’s unclear exactly how those rules would affect influencers thatn’t individual, and whose backers, like Lil Miquela’s, are shrouding by themselves in mystery. “If this influencer doesn’t disclose a post is bought, that is the FTC likely to go after?” asks Adam Rivietz, cofounder and CEO of the influencer advertising company #paid.

Beyond that, Rivietz claims, digital influencers like Lil Miquela raise other concerns. After all, why should followers trust the viewpoint of someone who doesn’t exist? “Virtual influencers aren’t trying for a clothes brand,” Rivietz highlights. “They can’t let you know, ‘This shirt is softer than another which’s among the reasons you should purchase it.’ They’re not real people, so they really can’t give a totally authentic endorsement.” (However, according to Ryan Detert, CEO associated with the influencer marketplace Influential, those will be the very traits that produce digital influencers therefore appealing to organizations: “They’re much easier to control.”)

In the future, Rivietz thinks, a lot of companies may begin building unique digital influencers, mainly because it’s an even more efficient way of managing the message that reaches their target audiences. Individual influencers, too, might start adopting CGI change egos to safeguard their relationships along with their existing sponsors “They might make a duplicate version where it’s like, ‘This is my real-life feed in which we post certain things, but right here’s my avatar of myself where perhaps we utilize different brands or do more risqué things,’” Rivietz says.

Wilson, the creator of Shudu, suspects that digital doppelgangers will expand beyond perhaps the world of influencers, and views Shudu in part as a means of acclimating a mainstream audience to your idea of digital people. “i believe it’s only normal that we will have avatars of ourselves ultimately, or characters,” he says. “The reason i wish to get individuals engrossed now is because that will explode.”

More Human Being Versus Human

There are already many startups working on commercial applications for what they call “digital” or “virtual” humans. Some, such as the brand new Zealand-based Soul Machines, are focusing on using these digital humans for customer care applications; currently, the business has partnered utilizing the pc software company Autodesk, Daimler Financial solutions, and National Westminster Bank to generate hyper-lifelike digital assistants. Other people, like 8i and Quantum Capture, work on producing digital humans for virtual, augmented, and blended truth applications.

And people startups’ technologies, though still inside their first stages, make Lil Miquela and her cohort appearance definitely low-res. “[Lil Miquela] is simply scraping the outer lining of just what these digital humans may do and that can be,” says Quantum Capture CEO and president Morgan younger. “It’s pre-rendered, computer-generated snapshots—images that look great, but that’s about so far as it is planning to go, as far as I can tell, making use of their tech. We’re centering on a top degree of visual quality as well as on making these characters come to life.”

Quantum Capture is focused on VR and AR, but the Toronto-based company can be mindful that people might see reasonably sluggish adoption—and so it’s presently leveraging its 3D-scanning and motion-capture technologies for real-world applications today. The startup is currently piloting one usage instance for the luxury hotel, the place where a “virtual human” concierge greets guests into the lobby using a touchscreen or kiosk helping them check in; visitors are able to access that same digital individual concierge from their rooms and have for any such thing from restaurant tips to simply help adjusting the illumination or starting the curtains.

A typical example of Quantum Capture’s interactive, photo-real humans, that are powered by chatbots and AI.

Quantum Capture

Down the road, Quantum Capture’s younger believes that, in the same way it may become prevalent for Instagram influencers to possess CGI alter egos, a-listers may begin producing electronic doubles. “There’s an extremely interesting income model built around that, wherein you will possibly not access the talent by themselves, however may get access to their electronic avatar, and the real person makes cash off the usage of their avatar,” says Young.

If that latter type of usage case been there as well, it is since it’s the plot of 2013 film The Congress, which Robin Wright, playing by herself, agrees to sell off the film liberties to her digital image. Because film, things get predictably and dystopically wrong—and indeed, younger states he does not see 3D-scanned celebrity doppelgangers removing until concerns around liberties management is securely locked straight down.

But it’s not hard to view a dystopian tinge even in today’s increasing ranks of virtual people. Lil Miquela commands a following of 1.1 million followers—more than increase the quantity she boasted in December—and although influencer has used her energy for good, motivating her supporters (called “Miquelites”) to contribute to Black Girls Code and become better allies to transgender people, it is easy to assume another CGI account using its impact to distribute hate or governmental discord. it is very easy to eye-roll at a headline about two feuding CGI celebs. But they won’t be the last—and their successors may not be therefore instantly simple to spot as fakes.

More WIRED heritage

‘Avengers: Infinity War’: We Need to Talk About That Ending

Last weekend Avengers: Infinity War made more than $640 million at the global box office—and at least $258 million of that came from domestic theaters, a number that easily bests previous record holder Star Wars: The Force Awakens. This is relevant for two reasons: One, holy crap that’s a lot of money. Two, it means we can finally talk about this movie freely since pretty much anyone who wanted to see it has now done so, apparently.

That’s good; there’s a lot to discuss. It was pretty much inevitable, considering the 18 previous movies it had to tie together, that Infinity War was going to be the most jam-packed Marvel Cinematic Universe film ever. And it was. From the remains of Asgard to the borders of Wakanda to the Collector’s museum on Knowhere, it traversed the entire MCU and managed to not be a total mess. (Not an easy feat.) It also had some great guest appearances and more than a few surprisingly touching moments.

Related Stories

And OMG that ending. Most fans expected this movie to have some twists and shocks, but it’s unlikely all of them expected Infinity War to end the way it did. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Now that the movie’s big opening weekend is over, WIRED assembled its own Avengers—writers and editors Justice Namaste, Jason Parham, Adam Rogers, and Angela Watercutter—to hash out the ups and downs of the latest movie to come out of the MCU. Grab your Infinity Gauntlet and join us, won’t you?

Angela Watercutter: Alright gang. I kinda want to jump right into this one, so I’d love to hear from each of you whether or not you enjoyed Infinity War and what you thought of that ending.

I already subjected Jason to my ramblings on Slack, so I’ll keep my piece short. I thought Infinity War was a good time. I simultaneously had high hopes and the expectation that the movie would be a letdown. I was pleasantly surprised when I enjoyed all of it—it didn’t feel too busy and I genuinely got choked up at least twice. As for that ending, damn, I really wasn’t expecting all that carnage and bleakness. (By my count nearly a dozen heroes were turned to ash, right?) Then again, I remembered about five minutes after I left the theater that this is a movie based on comics, where no one ever really dies. I already have my theories about Avengers: Infinity War Part II (coming next May! probably!), but I’ll get to that later. What about you guys?

Adam Rogers: In general I’m pretty good at maintaining the cognitive dissonance of a viewer who stays in the emotional moment and a cynical sometimes-culture journalist who knows that the economic incentive of a Black Panther sequel will trump any death, especially one that comes at the end of a movie but in the middle of a story (what with Avengers: Even More Infinite War due next year). So I had a real good time. But would you like to know who is not that cynical? My 12-year-old and my 8-year-old, who were super bummed. Like, subdued, mournful, and in full-on, two-thirds-of-the-way-to-crying “Papa, is Groot … dead?” mode. So I hope it’s not too twisted of me to say: That’s a good movie. Because it made my family feel things. Processing the fact that the genocidal, insane Thanos (Josh Brolin) gets to look happily into the sunset at the end was a big deal.

And then I spent half an hour telling them who Captain Marvel is.

Jason Parham: I was speaking with a friend over the weekend and he raised an interesting point I hadn’t considered. Of all the Marvel movies, I told him how Infinity War struggled the most with what exactly it wanted to be. That for me the movie was just OK. Ten years, 18 films, and essentially two dozen leading actors is a lot to cram into a single epic. Still, it felt too much like a film consumed with its own legend—one that was trying too hard to prove something to itself. (It definitely wouldn’t rank it among my personal top five MCU movies.) Does that mean it wasn’t enjoyable? Of course not. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland) were probably standouts for me. It’s expected by now, but the fight sequences were also a true treat (especially when Thor and Rocket join the battle in Wakanda). There were even occasional flourishes when Thanos felt unexpectedly human.

But my friend’s argument was that Infinity War was essentially the most comic book-y movie Marvel has made to date. That watching it felt like actually reading a comic. From its pacing to its narrative construction, jumping from New York City to Titan to Knowhere, as if one was scanning from panel to panel on the page. Maybe he’s right. Maybe where I saw disconnect and carelessness he saw directors Anthony and Joe Russo’s craftier ambition: Giving the movie the texture of its source material. It became the very thing it was.

There are a ton of layers we can peel off this thing. Justice, what were the most shocking and rewarding parts of the film for you?

Justice Namaste: I’m not going to lie—I had pretty low expectations for Infinity War. Kind of similar to Angela, but without the high hopes. [Eds. Note: LOL.] Coherently weaving together so many narrative threads while not reducing characters down to caricatures is a tall order, but Marvel managed to deliver. And the interactions between characters from different storylines were, unsurprisingly, the most enjoyable part of the movie. It’s a known fact that audiences eat up crossovers, and the first hour and a half of Infinity War was just chock-full of overlapping storylines and witty, mid-battle introductions. My favorite plotline was probably the journey that Thor, Rocket (who the Asgardian re-named ‘Rabbit’), and Groot (logically called ‘Tree’) took to find a Thanos-killing weapon. It was Thor at his best, Rocket at his most endearing, and a lanky, teenaged Groot whose eyes were glued to his videogame. And of course, who can resist more banter between the ever-eager Peter Parker and the reluctantly protective Tony Stark.

It’s a testament to the strength of the characters that even once it became clear that all two and a half hours were building to Thanos “winning” (and therefore leaving all of us in an unpleasant limbo for another year), I didn’t find the movie any less compelling. But there’s been no shortage of criticism of Infinity War, in particular surrounding its narrative busyness.

Watercutter: Justice, totally! And to really quickly to go back to what Adam and Jason were saying, I definitely feel like Infinity War had a comics-esque narrative structure. That’s why, to Adam’s point, I felt a little better about watching so many heroes disintegrate in those final 30 minutes. Somehow these heroes will come back, because comics. My current theory is that because we didn’t see what became of Wong in the end—actually, we didn’t see what Wong (Benedict Wong) was doing for most of the second and third acts—he’ll show up in the sequel, pull a Cher, and turn back time. (I mean, Doctor Strange saw all 14,000,605 possible outcomes and knows which one works, surely he told his buddy, right?) Hopefully, he’ll have the help of Shuri (Letitia Wright) and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson)—and, of course, Captain Marvel (Brie Larson), whom Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) paged (paged!) in the post-credits scene.

But! That’s beside the point. I have another question for y’all. What were your favorite surprises? Or maybe just favorite moments? Like, I legit yelped and got a little teary-eyed when Thor landed in Wakanda with his new fancy axe thing and just started slaying. I was similarly charmed by Peter Dinklage showing up as Eitri. I only vaguely remember hearing the rumors about who he was going to play and was genuinely delighted when he showed up. Also, seeing Okoye (Danai Gurira), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) all fight together was really fun. I could go on and on. What’d you guys like?

Rogers: “Pull a Cher!” Nice. Yeah, I’m feeling reasonably good about our heroes’ being not dead (they’re just resting!) given the fact that the MacGuffin is an object that can literally alter time, rewrite reality, and control the soul.

The little moments really did add up, didn’t they? I loved Chris Pratt’s Star-Lord trying to affect a deeper voice and an accent to compete with Hemsworth’s preternatural beauty as Thor (so … many … men … named … Chris), and worrying about his weight—an IRL Easter egg, because of Pratt’s pre-Guardians weight loss and buffing-out. Don Cheadle as Jim Rhodes/War Machine tricking Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner into bowing to T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) was fun. (How do you say “faux pas” in Xhosa?) Red Skull showing up as the guardian of the Soul Gem was delightfully weird, and as a comedy writer pal of mine said, who’dathunk that Rocket’s fetish for stealing body parts would become a classic bit? Totally agree about Thor, too. Seriously, I was no great fan of the first two Thor movies, but Ragnarok and this movie turned him into one of my favorite Marvel characters.

Parham: As “endings” go, this might be Marvel’s most ambitious. I understand these are comic book characters we’re talking about, so no one is ever really dead—as you guys mentioned—but still. I remember being upset when I first saw it. It’s not that I didn’t think Thanos would ultimately win, I just didn’t think more than half of the cast would be killed off. And it wasn’t even that I thought it was cruel, it just felt … dumb. A few days removed from it, I actually don’t mind. With half the cast “gone,” it allows for an interesting, even more ambitious part two. Wong, Hawkeye, and Ant-Man are sure to be back. Plus all new characters—Captain Marvel and, fingers crossed Angela, Valkyrie! And maybe even some characters who haven’t been introduced into MCU yet. With Disney’s pending merger with Fox, it could mean a handful of characters from the X-Men Universe could find their way into subsequent films.

All that said, I think the next film has to take a risk this one didn’t—and actually kill off major characters. If it were up to me, Captain America and Iron Man wouldn’t make it out alive (Chris Evans wants out of his contract anyways, so it’s possible). It’d give Marvel an opportunity, one that it doesn’t necessarily need but should take, to start those franchises with fresh eyes and new talent.

Watercutter: Yeah, Jason, I agree. Some of the heroes should probably be gone and stay gone. Also, some folks have been saying if the franchise loses Tony Stark then that would make room to introduce the Riri Williams/Ironheart storyline from the comics—a concept I find very exciting. And Adam, I fully chortled when Rocket said “I’m gonna get that arm…” after Bucky (Sebastian Stan) told him it wasn’t for sale. Classic Rocket.

I think we’ve just about said all that needs to be said (or at least all that we can say in the decidedly finite space of this website), but I have one parting thought, if I may. The timeline leading up to Infinity War is kinda crazy, right? Like, when Thanos was all “I’ve had a really long day” (or something to that effect) it reminded me that the entire movie Infinity War takes place in the span of, what, 24 hours? 48? Also, considering where the movie started, was Ragnarok (aka the end of Asgard) basically yesterday? Maybe a couple days before? It’s possible that Killmonger’s (Michael B. Jordan) attempt to dethrone T’Challa could’ve happened a few weeks or months before the events of Infinity War, but considering Black Panther picked up pretty quickly after the events of Captain America: Civil War and showed Bucky in pretty much the same condition that he’s in at the start of this film, it seems unlikely a ton of time has passed. Bottom line: It’s been 10 years and 18 films, but is it possible the present-day timeline of these films (you know, the parts that aren’t Captain America-esque flashbacks) have taken place in the span of a few months or maybe a year? If so, this war is far from infinite.

More WIRED Culture