Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#101

Post by gaius »

teekert wrote: post #33

Most people here seem to think that one clicks ads only by accident. If this were true such clicks would never lead to a purchase or just associate a brand with annoyance. I simply can't believe that. Sure, mostly, I see ads for stuff I have just purchased, sometimes for months but there also have been useful ones from time to time for me (mostly home automation/Raspberry Pi stuff), also my brain seems wired not to i…

Never understood why they keep on advertising to me things I have just bought. Anyone know?

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#102

Post by optimalrob »

lordnacho wrote: post #96
patio11 wrote: post #24

Ad clicks are studied pretty extensively. A good search term is "compulsive clickers." The cariacature-with-a-bit-of-truth version is less-educated older white woman in Iowa. The heavy clicking user population, roughly 4% of users, is generally believed to contribute more than a majority of total clicks. This is as well-studied as you'd expect of clearly quantifiable data worth billions of dollars, and remains social…

Have you got some links to studies? I know someone who is starting a web shop.

Look for ComScore studies on natural born clickers 2008-2009. Surprisingly it seems this click concentration work was never updated.

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#103

Post by AznHisoka »

camillomiller wrote: post #88
thedevil wrote: post #57

"Silicon Valley people don’t click on ads... Similarly, they appear not to be commenting or liking posts as frequently" The most successful drug dealers don't use their own stuff, I hear. Edit: I think I sounded a little snarky here. To be clear, I'm a huge fan of silicon valley. But I thought the analogy was humorous and thought provoking so I thought I'd share.

I find your edit extremely disappointing. The fact that you need to automatically defend yourself against the accusation of not liking Silicon Valley is telling of a diffuse perception of how one should pose one's opinion to please the audience. Horrid.

It also ruined the effect. Horrible.

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#104

Post by justinh »

OvidNaso wrote: post #99
slang800 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-substance addictions (including internet use) lack the physical dependence created by drugs like cocaine. So, it would be hard to compare them to "super-crack". I could certainly see how, for example, repeatedly checking your phone could mirror the behavioral aspect of smoking cigarettes. However, losing your phone won't cause withdrawal symptoms like headache, nausea, or fatigue. Also, I'd agree that social beha…

"Physical dependence" with respect to addiction really is nothing. Substances that create physical withdrawal symptoms can certainly be very very unpleasant (even dangerous), but if they were at all the main factor in addiction, drug abuse treatment would be a glorious, happy, incredibly successful industry. Think about it: Even the worst "physically addictive" substances, let's say heroin, will be completely clear f…

You're on the right track here, but opiates and alcohol also create a lingering hell for the sufferer called PAWS. The longer a person abuses a substance, the longer PAWS lasts. It is not uncommon for PAWS to last a year or more.

To be successful, a person has to somehow manage & deal with PAWS, while also facing life, and the deeper causes of their addiction. This is why I am an advocate of recovery that includes bupenorphrine. It allows a person who has the right motivations the space to recover.

It is an unjust tragedy the way this country/world treats people who suffer from addiction.

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#105

Post by soared »

kuschku wrote: post #94
manigandham wrote: post #92

As much as I like HN, there seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation when it comes to ads. People absolutely click on ads. All the time. Regardless of where they live. Digital advertising is not some mystical industry but actually one of the most scientific and data-driven with a massive amount of metrics generated everyday. I know the author of this article but it's a very slim look at the entire ad ecosyst…

Yes, people click on ads. I click, on average, when not using an ad blocker, accidentally around 200 ads a day on mobile. I've now made it a sport to click, after I accidentally clicked, another few dozen times. Kinda like Cookie Clicker. Most clicks are accidental, or people doing fraud (for business or fun reasons)

Just so you know, Google very easily identifies your clicks as fake or accidental so they are just thrown in the trash, nobody pays for them.

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#106

Post by soared »

manigandham wrote: post #92

As much as I like HN, there seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation when it comes to ads. People absolutely click on ads. All the time. Regardless of where they live. Digital advertising is not some mystical industry but actually one of the most scientific and data-driven with a massive amount of metrics generated everyday. I know the author of this article but it's a very slim look at the entire ad ecosyst…

Agreed. Facebook makes up maybe 1% of most companies ad spend. Source: I work at a digital agency.

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#107

Post by soared »

Symbiote wrote: post #62
jfoster wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this reason, I think the ultimate ad network would be a combination of Google's data, Facebook's data, and data from a payment processor (PayPal or Stripe). Google knows what you're after, right now. Facebook knows what you're into, in general. PayPal/Stripe know your propensity to spend money online. I would argue that the perfectly targeted ad will want to know about all of these. Google's data & mechanism (sea…

> For some people, this is the nightmare scenario. Because the power balance is completely in favour of the advertiser. They employ psychologists[1] to improve the effectiveness of their adverts — that is, to make people buy things they didn't actually want to buy. [1] http://www.psychologyschoolguide.net/psychology-careers/adve...

What? No. if you've done any online marketing employing a psychologists would be stupid for 99% of businesses (Walmart being the 1%). You just analyze mountains of data, learn best practices, and you'll be successful. That link is trash, asking people to pay for training.

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#108

Post by soared »

technotony wrote: post #23
work-on-828 wrote: post #17

I really wish there was a service which would let me gripe about my problems and it would email me 10 Ads a month of products trying to solve those problems.

"Advertize what you want to buy, not what you sell" I forget the name but there was a site trying that about eight years ago. Argentinian startup I think. Might be worth trying again, you could build early adoption from twitter maybe? Usual problem building a two sided market...

"Use keywords do define what you are looking for" "Google.com"

Re: People in Silicon Valley Don’t Click on Ads

#109

Post by soared »

cpeterso wrote: post #39
eva1984 wrote: post #12

Ironically, advertising business is mainly run by ad blocker users.

I heard that Google had to rename their ad management portal's CSS styles because the site was broken for customers using ad blockers. :)

Analytics breaks with ghostery, which is annoying.
Post reply on HN