161–170 of 220 posts
A few honest questions for anyone who's an ad buyer for mixed media: I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. There's also no direct accounting of who actually saw it, just a best guess based on Neilson numbers. It seems to me that DVR's are akin to ad blockers as well. Why is digital so conversati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something that can only support itself with ads has no right to exist at all in my view.
What a ridiculous way to think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You overestimate the amount of impact adnauseam makes. Users that click on many ads on one page within a short time window, but never convert? Obviously fraud that's being filtered, the user will be blacklisted on both the supply and the demand side, and you very quickly make no impact at all, and will most certainly not disrupt the flow of revenue for anybody involved here. That's not some outlandish futuristic tech…
> the user will be blacklisted on both the supply and the demand side Isn't that a win, for a user who already runs an adblocker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free market cannot work without propagation of information. Curious what kind of mechanism you envision to solve that problem: public service anouncements in place of ads ?
I can't recall a time when ads ever provided useful information about products, as opposed to psychologically conditioned brand awareness.
I am finding Google adverts less and less effective for an e-commerce business my parents run. I think it may be because consumers are getting better at ignoring the ad-noise on the web, and this is potentially quite worrying for Google and other ad based businesses. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that this fake traffic could be an attempt re-bolster their main revenue stream, and they've been caught out b…
https://pagefair.com/downloads/2017/01/PageFair-2017-Adblock...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't recall a time when ads ever provided useful information about products, as opposed to psychologically conditioned brand awareness.
How about providing knowledge of the mere existence of the product? How is that not useful?
By all means, give me all the ads when I'm actually looking for a product to buy. The sad thing is that when I do that, all the ads tend to be irrelevant. Even on sites like amazon, which should know what I'm looking for. They have these sponsored product placements that are supposed to be relevant to my search. In practice, they hardly ever are. And if they're somewhat relevant, they're still not relevant enough for me to consider purchase.
Online ads do an incredibly bad job of providing useful knowledge about the mere existence of a product.
In practice, I always need to turn to reviews, forums, word-of-mouth, etc. etc. etc., and finding useful information in the infinite sea of ad-spam is quite frustrating.
In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.
It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…
The type of business Doubleclick engages in is neither efficient nor effective on most web users but it causes a pervasive wide scale annoyance to all who enounter Doublclick's tentacles. One could argue that Doubleclick (now Google) must retain a certain level of schadenfreude to pollute the web with their garbage for so long knowing that, in the main, they are only creating a nuisance for web users, not generating revenue for their customers. If a salesman has to knock on thousands of doors to find only a single buyer, there is always the chance communities close their gates to keep the salesman out. Clearly, most people living in the community are not interested in what he is selling. Is it reasonable to annoy thousands of people to find one person who will buy? Who knows? But certainly, one can expect that there will be thousands of annoyed people.
Another way to look at this, especially after Google acquired Doubleclick, is that it could be the customers purchasing ads who are being deceived. It is hard to imagine that web users are deceiving Doubleclick and Google by clicking on ads and not purchasing products. Doubleclick knows most users do not click and do not purchase products/services in response to these ads. But those purchasing ads may not know this. The information asymmetry is in Google's favor.
These "adnauseum" users appear to be acting out of frustration in response to the promulgation of advertising that Google knows most users are not interested in. They are not achieving any financial gain, and certainly not by deceiving others.
It is easier to imagine a situation where those parties buying ads are being deceived by Doubleclick to believe that certain web advertising is more efficient, effective and reliable than it truly is. Hence the refunds.
Users are entitled to click on whatever they so choose. If they become frustrated and start clicking on everything, it is hard to argue this is "fraudulent" or deceptive. They are expressing themselves honestly: they are frustrated. The possibility that users can click on anything and everything in a page presented to them has always been there; buyers of web advertising should be aware of this when engaging a web ad sales company. Leading them to believe otherwise might be deceptive or even "fraudulent".
A few honest questions for anyone who's an ad buyer for mixed media: I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. There's also no direct accounting of who actually saw it, just a best guess based on Neilson numbers. It seems to me that DVR's are akin to ad blockers as well. Why is digital so conversati…
So maybe in your test regions you saw 2% promo uptake, 3% lift, and 5% survey responses saying they saw the ad. You'll pick an estimate somewhere from 2-5% depending on how conservative or aggressive you want to be. That's how you approach it at a small to medium sized company that actually cares about how their marketing budget is spent.
I've also seen an ad agency attempt to measure incremental website traffic gain in the test regions during the time slots the ad aired. If your traffic is large enough to have a clean baseline or the ad response is massive this is probably okay, but I'm skeptical of this methodology.
If you're a bigger company, there are also ways to get better viewthru conversion metrics. Shazam offers something to this effect, where they allow you to Shazam a commercial. Shazam can then tell you of people who viewed the commercial who went on to convert. Nielsen may sell this too.
With TV if you can't get the numbers to work on a pure customer acquisition basis, you'll measure brand recognition and recall in your test regions. If your ad makes an impact there you can then justify spending some of your brand budget in addition to the marketing budget to justify the overall expense.
I am finding Google adverts less and less effective for an e-commerce business my parents run. I think it may be because consumers are getting better at ignoring the ad-noise on the web, and this is potentially quite worrying for Google and other ad based businesses. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that this fake traffic could be an attempt re-bolster their main revenue stream, and they've been caught out b…
It basically is beyond imagination unless you think they have a new income plan that just needs one more quarter. Google's long-term value is in the conversion rates of long-term advertisers: drop conversions in half with fake traffic and next month they are going to offer you less than half the bid or nothing if they have high site costs per visitor. I.e. licensed booking listings.
Probably partners that share immediate revenue with Google but are less invested/secure in their portion of the long term value of that stream are behind it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem with such programs is they require you to be logged-in to work. As soon as you use incognito mode, sorry chump.
How do you expect to pay for something and have it work without being logged in to some system? Be it some over arching login system like Google or per logins per website.
Systems can have inexorable negatives, and it's fine to take issue with them.