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

P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#251

Post by detaro »

m-j-fox wrote: post #241
detaro wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are linked in the footer appearing on nearly every page of HN (and have been for years). Comments about downvotes are explicitly addressed in them, so not much room for interpretation there either.

I see that now, but, 58 days ago, dang said: > It's impossible to write everything down, it would be boring to try, and the reward for such foolishness would be even worse behavior. The commenters who most poison internet forums are experts in adapting to rules so they're technically not violating them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14455714 So maybe tell dang about the guidelines.

That quote is an argument for why "not mentioned in the guidelines doesn't mean it is acceptable behavior", it's not saying that no written-down rules exist.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#252

Post by jpttsn »

Retra wrote: post #186
jpttsn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new. So the slippery slope people were right after all.

Freedom of speech isn't a blanket "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" rule. It is the freedom to communicate with interested parties about the matters of your choosing. It is not supposed to be a freedom to perform mass campaigns of dishonesty in economic or political domains.

I don't think this is a true dichotomy.

1) "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted"

I agree, that would be silly; the perpetrator could choose to call any action speech.

2) campaigns of dishonesty

Could these campaigns be carried out by actions that fall under a commonly before hand agreed on definition of speech?

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#253

Post by lordnacho »

jshelly wrote: post #167

In my own personal experience, I can honestly say I've never "intentionally" clicked on an ad in the past 20+ years I've been on the internet. I will say I've certainly looked at ads in magazines, billboards, tv commercials (before tivo) and even those small planes pulling banners at the beach. I am not surprised that digital marketing is not that effective. What does surprise me is why its taken this long to figure…

This is probably the experience of a lot of people. Never clicked on an ad, no idea who does. Same here.

I happen to know a guy who drives some very expensive cars. He made his money advertising stuff online and selling it. He knows all the tricks, the inside out of how Facebook and Google work, how to source cheap stuff, how to ship things, and so on.

So clearly someone is clicking the ads.

My guess is he has some tricks up his sleeve that are either unknown to most marketers or slightly dodgy. Actually that last one he told me himself. But he does know a thing or two about how the ads work, what makes people buy, and all that.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#254

Post by jliptzin »

zippergz wrote: post #189
jshelly wrote: post #167

In my own personal experience, I can honestly say I've never "intentionally" clicked on an ad in the past 20+ years I've been on the internet. I will say I've certainly looked at ads in magazines, billboards, tv commercials (before tivo) and even those small planes pulling banners at the beach. I am not surprised that digital marketing is not that effective. What does surprise me is why its taken this long to figure…

I almost feel like there are two factions. I'm pretty similar to you. I have clicked on ads a handful of times, but it's very rare. However, I have worked in jobs where I had visibility into the metrics, and I have seen internet ads be EXTREMELY effective. Not in terms of clicks (which could easily be accidental or fraudulent), but in terms of people clicking and then purchasing. People aren't going to "accidentally"…

Mostly I've noticed that people click ads when they don't realize they're clicking an ad. For example, when my dad googles something, often he doesn't realize the results at the top are all advertisements (he's colorblind and has bad vision). When I point out to him that they're ads (whether relevant or not), he then avoids them and scrolls down to the organic results.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#255

Post by marssaxman »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #207

Honestly, I'm waiting for the internet advertising apocalypse wherein retailers cut digital ad spending because ROI is too low - and only advertise on Facebook or other sites with super targeting. That would effectively kill a good chunk of internet services. [1] https://marketinginsidergroup.com/content-marketing/marketer...

I would be very happy to see that happen. I miss the old, useful, social internet.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#256

Post by gopi »

jshelly wrote: post #167

In my own personal experience, I can honestly say I've never "intentionally" clicked on an ad in the past 20+ years I've been on the internet. I will say I've certainly looked at ads in magazines, billboards, tv commercials (before tivo) and even those small planes pulling banners at the beach. I am not surprised that digital marketing is not that effective. What does surprise me is why its taken this long to figure…

Most digital ads are direct response, so i am sure digital ads are profitable otherwise direct marketers will not spend

BTB, Average ad click thro rate is 0.05%, its 1 in 2000 people. So obviously clicking ad is a rare event but it do happen

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#257

Post by abritinthebay »

satori99 wrote: post #17
abritinthebay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet

> This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet Hyperbole much? That statement is just rubbish. Personally I think it would be the most constructive thing to happen to the Internet. Hell, maybe even society in general. Advertisers are scum, they ruin everything they touch, and any 'content' producers whose businesses died if this was to occur would certainly not be missed by me.

Not hyperbole. Having the majority of content producers be unable to continue operation would be a blow the Internet has never seen.

Massively destructive. Nothing would come close that’s happened before.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#258

Post by abritinthebay »

gaius wrote: post #40
abritinthebay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet

Content worth paying for is worth paying for the old-fashioned way. Movies are not an ad-supported industry, nor is music. We'd only lose the crap that has to trick people into paying indirectly, and good riddance.

Worth is not what is at stake here. It’s become obviously apparent that the public - even if they see value in something - prefers to get it for “free”.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#259

Post by abritinthebay »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #51
abritinthebay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet

Yeah, destructive in the sense of how antibiotics are destructive to germs. Please, give me more of them! (Also, I hate the phrase "content producer". It seems to imply that content is fungible - companies thinking in such terms are precisely those who should go under.)

It implies nothing of the sort. It just recognizes a group that produce content that is consumed online.

Your biases are irrelevant

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#260

Post by mattzito »

redmattred wrote: post #240
mattzito wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overestimating how well social influencers can be measured. It's true, you can measure clicks to a landing page, one per influencer - but that's relatively annoying administratively, and only measures clicks, not sales. Plus, that counts on your influencer actually following instructions and using the custom landing page URL, which is harder than you might think. If you're a consumer lifestyle or luxur…

Its can be pretty straightforward if you run your campaigns through a software platform. The way we (mavrck.co) do it is we do outreach for a campaign, screen the influencers based on their engagement rates/relevancy, have influencers connect their instagram/facebook accounts to our platform, generate individual tracking links for each influencer, ingest their posts via API, and measure the comments/likes/clicks/conv…

Wouldn't that qualify as operating an ad network on instagram, something that is explicitly forbidden via the instagram terms of service?

"Don't transfer any data that you receive from us (including anonymous, aggregate, or derived data) to any ad network, data broker, influencer network, or other advertising or monetization-related service."

Post reply on HN