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

Brands need to fire adtech

artplusmarketing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#131

Post by busterarm »

trimbo wrote: post #130
busterarm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely quantitative. And just like everything with advertising, you run experiments constantly. We also have this fun problem where nobody's actually been verifying that TV ads actually run when they're supposed to. We have physical offices in all of the locations we advertise for the most part, so we're talking about setting up slingboxes and programmatically verifying that our ads actually run.

>We also have this fun problem where nobody's actually been verifying that TV ads actually run when they're supposed to Have you considered hiring Kantar to check if the ads are running? They do this.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have a lot of markets that we'd have to check and I imagine it's cost prohibitive. It's actually a very easy thing to build.

Moreover, we're kind of the big company in this space. We own many of the billboards we (and our competitors advertise on). We have multiple different platforms that we sell to our "competition". They're 10-20 years behind us in tech and the budget/desire to get there. It makes sense that we build this ourselves and keep it that way.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#132

Post by exclusiv »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #129
exclusiv wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adtech will be fine but I do think we'll see a bigger shift of dollars into a bucket called content marketing versus traditional ad placement. So think about what Red Bull does with the content they develop and sponsor. YouTube should focus more on that market - helping match their own celebrities with brands and taking a cut of sponsored content versus a cut of ad revenue based on pageviews. The issue here is really…

People say horrible things in the public streets but billboard and shopwindow advertising is still tolerated there.

Good point. Although in this case it's more connected that the brands are subsidizing content and a site which doesn't care about hate speech and childish discussions. And parents and concerned consumers who like certain brands can easily point it out.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#133

Post by alkonaut »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #96
alkonaut wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies want to know that their advertising dollars are actually producing results, and traditional advertising completely sucks at this. The argument can be reversed though: Despite the fact that traditional advertising is more or less blind to outcome and shows untargeted ads, it has survived for a very long time. This would indicate that businesses would be willing to pay to show untargeted dumb ads online too…

Big brands will always be able to afford dumb advertising, like sponsoring the Olympics. adtech exists mainly for small brands, of which there are many, many more.

Adtech enables a cottage industry of web sites that can get $100 or $5000 in ad revenue. It also allows small companies to advertise for e.g $100 or $5000. So if adblockers or something else kills online advertising and makes it the same as bus stop and magazine campaigns then without a novel form of micropayments a large fraction of the web will disappear, and a ton of business won't be able to advertise online at all. Getting rid of the whole adtech industry as it looks today would still be a very welcome change.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#134

Post by camgunz »

manigandham wrote: post #120
camgunz wrote: post #116

Advertising is a race to the bottom. The way I shop is I figure out what my needs are, I survey the state of the art, I narrow down some options, compare them (price, stats, reviews, company rep, etc.) and then buy. Advertising, on the other hand, exists to subtly influence an emotional, impulsive, subconscious choice, and it's far more effective in the macro. The problem is that when your brain is engaged, you resen…

You are never as rational as you think you might be when it comes to shopping or anything else. And advertising drives the economy and is quite literally the reason the company you work for is in business - so it's just not that simple to say "it's all bad" because it isn't. In fact it's quite the opposite.

Yeah my post gives that impression, but I know that rationality is elusive: people are very suggestible. That's precisely why I think we ought to protect people from advertising.

I don't accept that business requires manipulative advertising. I don't want to get into the weeds of "what is advertising anyway?" or "if no one knows about your products, how can they buy them?", so let's just stipulate that there's "advertising" (i.e. what I describe above) and "manipulative advertising". People are entirely, obviously capable of buying things without a team of behavioral psychologists tricking them into it, and businesses are entirely capable of selling things without manipulating consumers into it.

The problem arises when companies are free to put resources into manipulative advertising; it's a classic race to the bottom. Company A spends $X on ads; Company B spends $X + $Y on ads. We quickly reach the status quo, except we spent $$$ on manipulating people into buying products instead of improving them, wasting tons of resources and probably causing people to spend money buying our stuff unwisely by preying on their hopes and insecurities. It is at least unfathomably wasteful, and maybe also evil.

(Also -- and this probably comes off as more hostile than I intend it to -- you don't know anything about me, if I work for a company, if I'm unemployed, if I work for a government, a university, etc. You can argue that modern business requires advertising without making assumptions like this).

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#135

Post by Jonnax »

mschuster91 wrote: post #51
Mithaldu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nobody thinks of DLC when they talk about F2P games, except for the people making decisions in the Google Play store dev while being clueless and divorced from the actual market. I think there's no need to worry about or bring that up.

I'm not talking about a definition for nerds, I'm sure everyone on this forum knows the difference. I'm more after something that can be presented to a politician and be acted upon. And most politicians either have no clue or don't care about the difference between DLC and IAP, for them it's the same - you pay for "new" content in a computer game. Have enough voters complain to them and they'll cluelessly enact crap…

Well what's getting quite popular these days is the concept of a "loot box" which is where you spend some real money to get a box of unknown items.

When you open it you get a randomised, by whatever factors, set of items/powerups/whatevers. It adds a bit of a gambling aspect to it where a user might want to pay again to have another roll of the dice.

That's pretty easy to distinguish

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#136

Post by golergka »

mschuster91 wrote: post #23
phamilton wrote: post #16

My favorite version of nonsense in ads is the current mobile space. Assuming mobile data is $10/GB, a 1MB video ad costs the end user 1 cent. Quality (though not premuim) mobile ad space has a CPM of about $5, or a cost per impression of half a cent. So whenever you see an ad in a mobile app and you aren't on WiFi, you are paying 1 cent to use the app _and_ watch an ad and the publisher is getting less than half a ce…

> Assuming mobile data is $10/GB, a 1MB video ad costs the end user 1 cent. Yeah and then the ads aren't even remotely interesting - most of in-app video ads for me are uninteresting-as-... F2P games (Clash of clans and countless variations - just how in blazes do these actually make money?!). But what I find even more annoying: that there apparently seems to be no way for the in-app ads to check if I already have a…

> Clash of clans and countless variations - just how in blazes do these actually make money?!

Typically, 1-2% of userbase is paying, but a typical LTV of a paying user in a successful game is $50-100. CPI of $5 and even $10 is quite acceptable for the top products.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#137

Post by nonsince »

mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

Adtech, I'd say, is less slimy than traditional advertising. With traditional ads, you pay for the product (newspaper, TV, etc.), and then you _also_ see ads on top of that, and significantly more than you'd see nowadays at that. As the cost of running an entertainment service have decreased, ads have become noticeably better. That said, adtech still fucking sucks, but I'd rather that than TV's alternative of almost as much ads as there is content.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#138

Post by dillondoyle »

I made my first Medium comment, this article kind of doesn't make a ton of sense and made me a bit mad. Here is what I wrote: https://medium.com/@dillondoyle/first-medium-comment-hope-im...

Specifically in response the the author saying "Real advertising doesn’t do any of those things, because it’s not personal."

That's the opposite of my work/goal in marketing, I do everything I can to make advertising personal, at the individual level. Using deterministic data and 'ad tech' to speak to voters/consumers 1:1 if possible.

And also I hate the way the author kind of just lumps 'ad tech' together without really seaming to understand the current ads ecosystem. I guess talking about anything that's not an IO at a print newspaper or something similar seems to be his idea of not 'ad tech' - but even a 'simple' PMP deal or even an IO involves a lot of ad tech, to find the audience, to match audiences, to plan and execute.

I do think there should be more conversation about ad tech bloat - please don't load 100 http requests for one 300x250 banner, and the amount of 1st party cookies/session data and other data the publishers don't even realize is leaked is insane.

Fuck 'Add This' has made an entire ads data company because publishers are too fucking lazy to paste in their own FB share buttons. I buy addThis audience data all the time. So stupid, why would big publishers need to use this tool - and why don't publishers realize this is a revenue stream they seem to badly need but are mostly not getting.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#140

Post by dottedmag »

tgragnato wrote: post #66
angry-hacker wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely it will turn out as the accept cookie crap every site is now showing. We just have more if those notifications... Nothing to be proud of.

The cookie banner is annoying ... You're right > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13802068 The last time one of these "ordering services" [ https://www.justeat.it ] targeted me with ads (via sms), I tracked back the data, crawled the web for their mails, sent them a good list of laws, so they have been forced to reply and delete all my personal data in a timely manner. Never seen a single ad again, I am unsure th…

Could you share the list of the laws to send? I find it quite problematic to force companies on Malta to do that.
Post reply on HN