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

Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#91

Post by Mikushi »

biot wrote: post #61
doctorpangloss wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Of the 400,000 web addresses JPMorgan’s ads showed up on in a recent 30-day period, said Ms. Lemkau, only 12,000, or 3 percent, led to activity beyond an impression. An intern then manually clicked on each of those addresses to ensure that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on. About 7,000 of them were not, winnowing the group to 5,000. They're pretty plainly saying that 388,00…

When a major sports apparel company sponsors a famous athlete to wear their gear on televised events, they are getting no activity beyond an impression. Doesn't mean the sporting event is trash. It's up to the advertiser to determine whether or not those impressions have value.

The ever elusive brand exposure. Another scam of the ad industry.

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#92

Post by cm2187 »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #36
stvswn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where to start? What makes you think that they reduced their spend by 99%? They simply limited their campaigns' targeting to a whitelist of 400 sites, there's not any indication that they were spending equal $ per placement. I'm not sure why you believe that aggregating statistics is some sort of lie -- in AdWords, advertisers are able to easily see the placement for each one of their clicks. It's not some big secret…

From the article: > Of the 400,000 web addresses JPMorgan’s ads showed up on in a recent 30-day period, said Ms. Lemkau, only 12,000, or 3 percent, led to activity beyond an impression. An intern then manually clicked on each of those addresses to ensure that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on. About 7,000 of them were not, winnowing the group to 5,000. They're pretty plainly saying that 388,00…

Even if these websites were legit, their traffic might be trash. If it's some sort of white supremacist website (the reason for restricting the # of websites), I am not sure that the sort of inbred white trash living in a swamp in Louisiana and consulting this website is a valuable customer base for Chase. Readers of wsj.com probably more so.

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#93

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

douche wrote: post #85
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the thousands of niche podcasters out there who sustain their programs through marketing partnerships. Niche creators do stand a chance. They just need the opportunity to reach their audience with a degree of intimacy and trust that the horrific scourge of mainstream online video and corporate 'journalism' do not and cannot offer. Certain media can enable this for their viewers and others less so. It's n…

Podcast advertising is really not the same as the ad networks on a blog or website. It's far more analogous to the advert spots that radio does. It doesn't even need to be particularly native advertising. I've listened to a bunch of ads on Dan Carlin's Hardcore History that are completely unrelated to the subject of the podcast.

I believe you're mistaken. At the end of every Hardcore History episode, Dan Carlin recommends an Audible book related to that day's topic. It doesn't get more native than that.

Also, the comment I was responding to was using YouTube ads as an example, which are temporally inserted, very similar to podcast and radio ads.

When media consumption demands true engagement of both time and attention, the ad quality improves. Even the best niche digital video content on YouTube is too low-brow to offer a comparable experience to viewers. Again - the medium is the message.

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#94

Post by selimthegrim »

cm2187 wrote: post #92
doctorpangloss wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Of the 400,000 web addresses JPMorgan’s ads showed up on in a recent 30-day period, said Ms. Lemkau, only 12,000, or 3 percent, led to activity beyond an impression. An intern then manually clicked on each of those addresses to ensure that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on. About 7,000 of them were not, winnowing the group to 5,000. They're pretty plainly saying that 388,00…

Even if these websites were legit, their traffic might be trash. If it's some sort of white supremacist website (the reason for restricting the # of websites), I am not sure that the sort of inbred white trash living in a swamp in Louisiana and consulting this website is a valuable customer base for Chase. Readers of wsj.com probably more so.

Apropos of nothing probably, but I've definitely seen Chase branches in those parts of Louisiana.

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#95

Post by douche »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #93
douche wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Podcast advertising is really not the same as the ad networks on a blog or website. It's far more analogous to the advert spots that radio does. It doesn't even need to be particularly native advertising. I've listened to a bunch of ads on Dan Carlin's Hardcore History that are completely unrelated to the subject of the podcast.

I believe you're mistaken. At the end of every Hardcore History episode, Dan Carlin recommends an Audible book related to that day's topic. It doesn't get more native than that. Also, the comment I was responding to was using YouTube ads as an example, which are temporally inserted, very similar to podcast and radio ads. When media consumption demands true engagement of both time and attention, the ad quality improve…

That might be. For some reason I was thinking he usually pumped squarespace or something like that at the end of episodes.

It reminds me a lot of the spots that the local sports radio station uses

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#97

Post by mrieck »

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #49
doctorpangloss wrote: post #23

It's crazy how many apologists there are for Big Web Advertising! So many commenters are giving the customer a hard time for realizing, "99% of my budget is spent on zero value, i.e. fraud." The biggest lie the online advertising industry has sold is aggregate statistics. Of course a handful of traffic sources convert massively while the supermajority (99%) don't convert at all. Advertising intermediaries rely on the…

I agree completely with your assessment. I run a website called HeyAmIFat.com where you can send in a picture of yourself and we'll tell you if you look fat or not in minutes. I often look at the huge companies advertising on my site and think "if they could see where their ads are being placed right now they'd probably realize they're wasting their money" On the other hand this huge "fraud" is what makes Google free…

Give your website more credit.

I mean what do people do after learning they are fat and feel depressed? They buy crap to feel better. Maybe your website is exactly what advertisers need.

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#98

Post by striking »

mrieck wrote: post #97
omarforgotpwd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely with your assessment. I run a website called HeyAmIFat.com where you can send in a picture of yourself and we'll tell you if you look fat or not in minutes. I often look at the huge companies advertising on my site and think "if they could see where their ads are being placed right now they'd probably realize they're wasting their money" On the other hand this huge "fraud" is what makes Google free…

Give your website more credit. I mean what do people do after learning they are fat and feel depressed? They buy crap to feel better. Maybe your website is exactly what advertisers need.

I feel like the point is telling them that they don't look fat, because chances are they might not be.

But yeah, that is a smart way to upsell. Even if it's morally questionable.

Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results

#99

Post by seppin »

Mikushi wrote: post #91
biot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a major sports apparel company sponsors a famous athlete to wear their gear on televised events, they are getting no activity beyond an impression. Doesn't mean the sporting event is trash. It's up to the advertiser to determine whether or not those impressions have value.

The ever elusive brand exposure. Another scam of the ad industry.

it makes sense for a select few, airlines and perhaps an entry country and their tourism industry. that's about it
Post reply on HN