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

131–140 of 156 posts

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

#131

Post by bluGill »

bigtimeidiot wrote: post #127
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.

Because advertising is about perception. If I see chase ads every day will remember them in 6 months when I suddenly realize I need a new credit card - today I'm happy with my card selection and no amount of advertising will get a bite from me, but when that changes I might change to a "lesser" card just because I didn't think to check chase out.

thus they need numbers over months before they can state it worked.

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

#132

Post by Cerium »

wingerlang wrote: post #48
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…

3 minute per URL seem like a whole lot, it seems more likely that 7k of them were trash and were removed within seconds. A simple automated script/iframe with a "tinder" like interface of yes/no/maybe seems like the way to go here. Spend seconds on most, then minutes on the maybes.

Like, load the list into stumbleupon. I'm thinking about 6 seconds for trash, 30 seconds for interesting. So, maybe about 2 work days to remove trash and a few more to complete the rest. Could be done in less than a week.

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

#133

Post by samscully »

qeternity wrote: post #125
013a wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a protection racket but it is close to becoming a monopoly, which is also illegal in some circumstances.

This sort of anti-competitive coercion through overwhelming market power is why monopoly laws exist in the first place.

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

#134

Post by sgoraya »

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?

>How does this tracking really works?

Cookies and/or pixels - edit If you've opted out of being cookied, then you may be "targeted as an balding middle aged man with erectile dysfunction."

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

#135

Post by cpsempek »

bigtimeidiot wrote: post #126
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 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.

At the risk of oversimplifying, making people feel a certain way in order to leverage that emotional state for the benefit of another is at the heart of a lot of marketing and advertising. Maybe it tastes worse when it is as blatant as the case above.

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

#136

Post by arbuge »

The irony is that it is so easy to track online conversions with a simple pixel or server postback. It's called performance marketing, or affiliate marketing, in the sense that the advertising websites then become what is commonly called an affiliate in online advertising lingo. There really is no reason to pay for impressions these days, unless you believe in a mystical (and suspicious IMHO) quantity known as "branding value".

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

#137

Post by njharman »

bigtimeidiot wrote: post #126
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 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.

Swaths of consumer products are targeted at people with self esteem issues. Fashion, makeup, fitness performance, jewelry luxury and stats products of allmstripes. It's especially bad for young women who are bombarded with Photoshoped images of "perfection" and reminders that attractiveness = success and that sex sells.

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

#138

Post by njharman »

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?

Cause you visited sites that those people also visit.

Also cause a lot of adtech is not sophisticated.

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

#139

Post by TeMPOraL »

antisthenes wrote: post #120
TeMPOraL wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many people do think exactly like that, but now realize that the output of such a task is often an input to another one. Garbage in, garbate out applies just as much to decision processes as to computers.

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

#140

Post by draw_down »

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…

> So many commenters are giving the customer a hard time for realizing, "99% of my budget is spent on zero value, i.e. fraud."

This is something the Ad Contrarian hammers on a lot (http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/). There seems to a lot of fraud and BS in the system, but it's to the benefit of most players in the system to ignore that. Even for many ad buyers, it'd be embarrassing for the CMO to admit to having thrown away tons of money on something that doesn't work nearly as well as it's said to.

Post reply on HN