---
id: "concept-absolute-proximity"
type: "concept"
source_timestamps: ["¶2", "§ A Better Predictor of Ad Effects"]
tags: ["legacy-systems", "geotargeting"]
related: ["concept-relative-proximity", "contrarian-radius-inefficiency", "entity-google-ads", "entity-meta", "prereq-geofencing-basics"]
definition: "The conventional geotargeting method of drawing a fixed-distance circle around a store and targeting all consumers within it."
sources: ["tail1"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-tail1"
originDay: 1
articleStem: "hbr-tail-115-location-based-advertising"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/03/a-better-strategy-for-location-based-advertising"
sourceTitle: "A Better Strategy for Location-Based Advertising"
---
# Absolute Proximity (Radius Targeting)

Absolute proximity — plain radius targeting — is the **default geotargeting option** on major ad platforms like [[entity-google-ads]] and [[entity-meta-d115]]. It rests on the intuitive assumption that **proximity equals responsiveness**, because customers who live closer face lower travel costs. Understanding this baseline is a prerequisite for the whole argument (see [[prereq-geofencing-basics]]).

## Why the authors call it 'blunt'
By ignoring competitor locations, a simple radius:
- Targets customers who are geographically close but are actually **closer to a rival** (low conversion probability), and
- Targets customers who are **so close they would visit anyway** without any ad prompt (the [[concept-billboard-effect]]).

The result is **millions of dollars in wasted ad exposures** (see [[quote-wasted-exposures]]). The proposed alternative is [[concept-relative-proximity]], and the critique itself is captured as [[contrarian-radius-inefficiency]].

## Enrichment context
Radius, zip-code, city, and county targeting is accurately described here as the standard on Google Ads and Meta. Industry proximity-marketing guides already warn that broad geo-targeting is inefficient because it ignores competitive context, foot-traffic patterns, and intent — so the *qualitative* critique is well aligned with current practitioner thinking. The specific "millions of dollars wasted" figure is a **reasonable inference from spend scale, not an empirically quantified** number in open literature.