P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
1–10 of 282 posts
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#2A couple of things going on at once - it's hard for old guard companies to compete in digital marketing because consumers are being trained to buy based on reviews, price, and delivery times more than brand. And when you're spending $100M/quarter over a dozen brands all digital marketing is going to be brand marketing.
It also raises a question about conversion being a lagging indicator here. It's possible after a few more months of lower spend they will start to see consumers pulling back.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#3It's not clear whether this is old banner programmatic ads that were cut, or more sophisticated social data mined tracking. Assuming it was the former?
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#4I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Origin on infected computers.
Millions of infected people, with zero idea what an "ad-blocker" is, just wondering where all the YouTube ads went. And then, hopefully after a month or so of infection, companies realizing that their bottom-lines were unaffected, pulling out of digital advertising altogether. Previously-thought-of-as-invincible giant behemoths like Facebook and Google, just crumbling to dust over a short span of time.
Just a dream though.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#5you can't track classic media ads roi that well for starters
they spend like 2 billion on ads, so all in this is a 5% cut
they sell all through distribution, so they probably can't match ads performance and growth that well in general
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#6A couple of things going on at once - it's hard for old guard companies to compete in digital marketing because consumers are being trained to buy based on reviews, price, and delivery times more than brand. And when you're spending $100M/quarter over a dozen brands all digital marketing is going to be brand marketing. It also raises a question about conversion being a lagging indicator here. It's possible after a fe…
Perhaps it's possible that digital marketing is not all that effective for commodity items?
I admit to having brand preferences for laundry detergent and garbage bags, though I like to believe (perhaps wishfully) they are a result of first-hand and family experiences.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#7I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Origin on infected computers. Millions of infected people, with zero idea what an "ad-blocker" is, just wondering where all the YouTube ads went. And then, hopefully after a month or so of infection, companies realizing that their bottom-lines were unaffected, p…
I don't think it's even necessary. The percentage of people using ad blockers keeps going up and up.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#8Bob Hoffman at the Ad Contrarian called this in January:
"P&G To Online Ad World: We've Had Enough" - https://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2017/01/p-to-online-ad-wor...
Digital advertising is rife with (what should be considered) fraud. Advertisers feel as though they are getting fleeced, and the advertising middlemen reap massive margins. The accountability isn't where it needs to be; there are websites that hide ads under other ads, still reporting displays for all ads per page load. I suspect moves like this one will help the ecosystem change for the better.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#9you can't track classic media ads roi that well for starters they spend like 2 billion on ads, so all in this is a 5% cut they sell all through distribution, so they probably can't match ads performance and growth that well in general
They spend $2.45B/yr, they cut $100M in one quarter. It's a 17% reduction assuming they continue to not spend that $100M/quarter.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#10Online works better for PR, "astroturfing", manipulation of fundamental attitudes and opinions than for explicit ads.
Buy some reddit, facebook and twitter accounts, and with the right consultants, you will move the world.