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

121–130 of 156 posts

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

#121

Post by msbot »

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?

The adtech places I've worked at relied on cookies. They usually have massive networks of major sites and track your browser activity as you browse different.

However, the servers were always crashing and I was always wondering when the customers would figure out that they were throwing money away.

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

#122

Post by asafira »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #104
ransom1538 wrote: post #76

The fix to online ad fraud is obvious: CPA (Cost per action). If a signup occurs, then you pay for the ads. If a user pays for the service, then you pay for the ads. It would align the incentives of the advertisers (people paying for ads) and the ad networks (google). Currently it is the ad networks incentive to use CPC and to hide fraud by not releasing traceable ids, allowing clicks from bots/proxies/adsense holder…

Chase already does this, its a big reason all the credit card blogs pimp Chase cards so much.

Yeah, I think the blogs even mention they get a kickback.

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

#123

Post by dpark »

imaginenore wrote: post #102
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?

Just give them your ad code (a JS snippet), this way you control your ads. Billing is a solved problem too, no?

> Billing is a solved problem too, no?

No. Billing is a huge pain in the ass. Negotiating price with each site is a huge pain in the ass. Building a reliable JS snippet that works everywhere and that these sites will trust is also a huge pain in the ass. Everything about dealing with 5k sites manually is a pain in the ass, which is why ad networks exist in the first place.

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

#124

Post by bigtimeidiot »

Trundle wrote: post #70
danjc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also entirely possible that the balance of the 400k websites account for a miniscule percentage of impressions.

Yep, as far as I'm concerned this article is a non-event without data showing this isn't what happened. "Business slightly tweaks marketing expenses" just isn't as attractive and rant inducing.

>Yep, as far as I'm concerned this article is a non-event without data showing this isn't what happened.

What other things should the article show "hasn't happened"? That will be quite a big list.

As the OP says, it's odd that people lean towards "everything is A-OK!". I guess there are many, many jobs that rely on the ad-tech bubble sustaining itself.

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

#125

Post by qeternity »

013a wrote: post #115
tgtweak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-bas…

What? It's not a protection racket. Google is a private enterprise who is free to show whatever content they like on their page. Not showing your site is not illegal, nor is it unethical. A protection racket involves some illegal compulsion to pay for the protection. That's what makes it illegal.

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

#126

Post by bigtimeidiot »

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 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.

It is quite sad that anyone would consider this a business opportunity.

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

#127

Post by bigtimeidiot »

nichochar wrote: post #9

it's only been a few days though, I think this fact alone invalidates the data.

>I think this fact alone invalidates the data

It invalidates the data? How so? Or do you mean conclusion?

Even so, there's nothing inherent with "a few days" that makes the analysis invalid due to sample size; that depends on the nature of the data. In my employment we are measuring changes hour to hour.

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

#128

Post by idunno246 »

rtpg wrote: post #66
mozumder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better results, have that intern gather the email addresses of those 12,000 pre-approved sites, and email them a personal ad placement buy offer, or request a media kit. You'll find all sorts of personalization opportunities and you get to cut out the middle-man.

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

actually a lot of them still use google, which can also run private deal ads.

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

#129

Post by bluGill »

pwg wrote: post #73

> "99% of my [advertising] budget is spent on zero value," This has always been true for advertising. The difference is that before the internet there were zero methods for the advertising client to directly recognize this fact.

I believe that statement is wrong. 99% of advertising might not be worth the money spent, but it wasn't zero value. (if you spend $1 to generated $.50 that is advertising at a loss, but a much smaller loss than advertising with zero return). Advertising needs to figure out how to generate positive value.

The problem is there is two types of ad. The first is "buy this now", if the user clicks and buys it was a success, but that doesn't mean a failure to click is a failure because there is a second type of ad that I believe is more important: awareness. You advertise so that people know you exist - that way when they realize their need for your product you come to mine. I think the pay per click model that the web advertising has settled on is wrong because it doesn't well account for ads that you don't want clicked.

There is a reason McDonald's advertises on every radio and tv station they can every few minutes: it works. Some of those ads go to people who will never eat at McDonald's and if they could figure out how to save money by not advertising to those people it would be worth it. Overall though the return on those adds it large.

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

#130

Post by bluGill »

sumoboy wrote: post #27
mjevans wrote: post #2

Edited for elaboration: The article doesn't mention the precise methodology for reaching the 5000 sites number, other than some human filtering being involved. The precise wording of another section is also vague, the 'cost of an impressions' could mean either their total Internet marketing expenditure is the same (thus 395000 sites were largely ineffective and merely exposed them to risk and complexity) OR that they…

The real question is how long has this been going on? I've seen these campaigns go on for years with worldwide clicks completely unchecked wasting a ton of $$. You can't trust automatic site placement but if you do, analytics will identify it quickly to exclude the loser sites. This is just complete mis-management of paid media. Fire the agency or internal people for stupidity..

click is not a good measure of advertising value though. Clicks doesn't measure how many people see your ad and come back a couple months latter to buy.
Post reply on HN