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

111–120 of 156 posts

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

#111

Post by owlmirror »

kuschku wrote: post #58
retube wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, what 400,000 sites do you think Chase was advertising on? Ones that really have to do with banking? Hang on: ad placement is not based on page content but the viewers profile (constructed from search and browsing history, facilitated by tracking) Right?

It’s actually both. The site determines what categories of ads can be displayed, and the viewer profile determines which in those categories will be actually shown.

How does this tracking really works? Is it really this sophisticated behemoth of AI research that makes it impossible to avoid? Why is it that I get targeted as an balding middle aged man with erectile dysfunction when I'm not?

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

#112

Post by tlrobinson »

mikehollinger wrote: post #88

Can we talk about the fact that "an intern" had to filter through 12,000 websites and make a judgement call for a second here? Also - I presume the spending was the same in both cases - just focused. If so, the risk here is that you may miss out on a new up and coming blog "exploding" onto the scene. However, all it would take to "reset" is next quarter, "tasting" ads on 400k sites again, paying an intern (again) to…

And presumably you could use the previous list as the starting point of subsequent lists, then you'd only need to check the new sites.

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

#113

Post by panzagl »

roganp wrote: post #80
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.

Isn't that the thrust of the article though? They narrowed their ad spend to whitelisted sites and have not seen a drop in sales. If the major sports apparel company stopped paying for endorsements and saw no drop in sales, you might be tempted to conclude that those endorsements are not good investments.

Seems like it would be a pretty long term effect though, so the drop off might not be apparent yet.

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

#114

Post by bigmanwalter »

owlmirror wrote: post #111
kuschku wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually both. The site determines what categories of ads can be displayed, and the viewer profile determines which in those categories will be actually shown.

How does this tracking really works? Is it really this sophisticated behemoth of AI research that makes it impossible to avoid? Why is it that I get targeted as an balding middle aged man with erectile dysfunction when I'm not?

Age and gender seem to be two of the more significant variables in ad selection. Many women I know started getting ads for baby stuff once they turned 26 despite having never been interested in the topic.

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

#115

Post by 013a »

tgtweak wrote: post #12
jtraffic wrote: post #7

> At some point, a human is going to take a look. I recently saw a talk by Foster Provost, a big ML guy at NYU. The main points of his talk were that using fine-grained behavioral data (like browsing history) is better than demographics (at least in his context: predicting ad lift), and he proposed a way to interpret the model (somewhat). I left feeling disappointed. His system for interpretation was super post-hoc a…

It's not being stupid it's designed that way. "Gee that'd suck if somebody else bought ads for all your organic keywords. Sorry we don't have a better way to prevent that, you should bid on those." Even if Google did provide a provision for blocking ads for certain keywords (and they do have one), who controls that system? Amazon is also a bad example since many 3rd parties affiliated with - and driving traffic to -…

I think that's entering an area of ad ethics. Yet, its an ethical violation that companies like Google make today. If I search for "Wealthfront", I get an ad for Wealthfront, Betterment, and TDAmeritrade, in that order, before an organic result for Wealthfront. If Wealthfront didn't pay up, even though it is _obvious_ what I am looking for, the result I am looking would be buried. That's a protection racket.

Rank-based advertising, like in search results, is fundamentally unethical. To do it ethically would require perfect comprehension of what the searcher is seeking, so that you can prioritize organic, helpful results. Google never prioritizes organic results.

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

#116

Post by adrianN »

mozumder wrote: post #101
rtpg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and now have 12000 billing portals to manage? 12000 different sites to update every time you update your ads?

Yes. This is how it was done during the magazine era.

Did anybody advertise in 12000 magazines?

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

#117

Post by 013a »

pilif wrote: post #25
xbmcuser wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time good content providers will be paid more. So overall it is a good thing for the web. Content farming won't be worth much either.

I'm not so sure, but I would love to be proven wrong. The issue I'm seeing is that there are many orders or magnitude more potential content providers out there than people are willing to manually validate and white-list. This might lead us to a situation where only the largest content providers/creators still get access to ad money which in turn will make it impossible for creators targeting a more niche audience to…

Niche creators can always leave the algorithms behind and work out ad deals on their own. Podcasting is an area where this is how it has always worked, and will continue to work.

Also, I think you need to change your perspective. Ads allowed these niche channels to exist, but these niche channels might not be providing value to the ad networks proportional to their cost. In essence: they're riding the gravy train. They're an inefficiency in the system.

They should work toward becoming valuable, or they should seek alternative forms of funding. Maybe people like you just need to be more open to the value-for-value model. If you like what they are doing, pay them for it.

If you watch an ad on their show but don't interact or otherwise act on it, you're part of the problem. Its like complaining about traffic while you're in your car on the freeway.

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

#118

Post by 1337biz »

The NYT arguing that one should only advertise on 'high quality websites' is the equivalent to a retailer arguing that you should only buy in store because all the online stores are full of fakes. Fits perfectly in line with their 'we report the truth and anything else is fake' narrative.

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

#119

Post by adamqureshi »

striking wrote: post #98
mrieck wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Saying someone is "fat" is an insult ( I think its considered an insult) you can be overweight without being fat. Fat has more todo with how you feel about your body then being overweight. I think you've found a niche market. ;-)

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

#120

Post by antisthenes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #67
iamjeff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, success of this entire pivot relied largely on this intern's audit report. I imagine that the intern had a massive list of 12,000 URLs and would click through them, taking care to note why the site passes muster or otherwise so that management can add a layer of justification to the final decision. Even at an average of 3 minutes per URL, that still amounts to >600 hours of repetitive and sometimes traumatising…

You're assuming the intern actually did the job - that he didn't e.g. get bored a third of the way and finished the rest by dragging down the "No" field through the rest of the column in in Excel, and then changing a bunch of random URLs to "Yes". My experience is that most people assigned with boring, repetitive jobs will either automate some of it or start cutting corners to avoid the work. (In fact I'm starting to…

That's exactly what I would have done given such a task if there was no good way to automate it.
Post reply on HN