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

Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 220 posts

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#181

Post by hyperpape »

throwaway284728 wrote: post #177
redm wrote: post #152

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…

I work at a major advertiser who's media budgets measure in the billion dollar zone. > I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. At our levels of spend, we build econometric models to understand media spend effectiveness and spend a fair bit on tracking and vetting the methodologies of trackers. > For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. C…

How many companies have ad budgets in the million dollar zone? And roughly what percent of revenue is that?

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#182

Post by remline »

osrec wrote: post #178
remline wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not beyond the realms of imagination that this fake traffic could be an attempt re-bolster their main revenue stream 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…

I don't disagree with your comment, however, I am often surprised by the short-termism demonstrated by executives. It may not be Google's strategy, but I am sure they are well aware of it happening, and in that sense it feels like a lie of omission. Apologies if I sound cynical, but I would guess that a company that has been running an ad platform for the past 17 years clearly knows the difference between authentic a…

It is a certainty that some traffic is fake.. In this case it is doubleclick on websites and (from the commission numbers) probably over other ad networks, so Google has one connection's header and a few ms to triage the traffic. But the anomalies there are probably not so different than if I setup an open proxy and invite real people to use it.

Being cynical makes sense, but then it is actually more likely that Google has been generating fake traffic on fb than fake traffic for itself and vice versa. FB spent years being irrelevant to much of the market while getting a lot of money from less savvy advertisers for bot networks. I don't think the short-term revenue was worth it to them and I would be surprised if their exec bonuses weren't mostly hurt by missing targets and losing big advertisers.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#183

Post by philipodonnell »

srean wrote: post #172
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Broad, biased statements are indisputably the best way to gain deep insight into an issue. Details and worries about correctness often muddy the waters.

Indeed sir, glad that you concur. My downvoters dont seem to agree. Poe it is.

I'm pretty sure one of you is being sarcastic, but I can't tell which one. :-)

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#184

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

throwaway7312 wrote: post #101
shubhamjain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If enough users adopt this, the effect will be advertisers flee whatever websites those users frequent. The end result being those websites (due to declines in revenue) cut their staffs, reducing the quantity and quality of their content. And then AdNauseum users complain on certain subreddits about the declining quality of the target sites. AdNauseum seems to be a case of "you destroy what you love."

> reducing the quantity and quality of their content

For many ad-based sites, the loss will be minimal.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#185

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

srean wrote: post #79
amelius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ads were the only type of information, we were already doomed. For example, why do you think reviews are so important? Also, you are reading articles through HN, not by watching ads for them first. Then there is the age-old word-of-mouth. Or seeing products in action with friends. I could go on and on.

I see that you have a very practical and scalable solution out there. We will gush about a movie/product/service launch on television and call it news. One might even consider incentivising people to write positive reviews, we will just not call them ads. Why havent we seen any of these yet ? I have my review-blocker, post-blocker, word-of-mouth blocker startups still in waiting.

> One might even consider incentivising people to write positive reviews, we will just not call them ads.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you unaware that this is a real thing that happens?

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#187

Post by srean »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #155
srean wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you have a very practical and scalable solution out there. We will gush about a movie/product/service launch on television and call it news. One might even consider incentivising people to write positive reviews, we will just not call them ads. Why havent we seen any of these yet ? I have my review-blocker, post-blocker, word-of-mouth blocker startups still in waiting.

There are farms of blogs with junk content and reviews that exist purely for ad revenue and referral marketing. Online communities have sockpuppets doing the same shit. Respected news papers have "submarine" PR pieces promoting one product or another. The fake positive reviews you mention already exist - both on blogs and sites like Amazon, App Store etc. In this vast sea of noise, it is very hard to find good inform…

I agree with everything you said, but carpet-bombing the crap out of all ads does not seem to be an improvement. Ads satisfy a real need, stamp it out artificially and it will come up with some other name, some other form.

This

     war against *
is too hackneyed an approach, admittedly, very popular in the US. It has not done much good anywhere.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#188

Post by shostack »

throwaway284728 wrote: post #177
redm wrote: post #152

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…

I work at a major advertiser who's media budgets measure in the billion dollar zone. > I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. At our levels of spend, we build econometric models to understand media spend effectiveness and spend a fair bit on tracking and vetting the methodologies of trackers. > For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. C…

Fellow senior buy side guy. Used to work at a top search agency and am now client side.

This is the correct answer. At that scale focus groups, surveys, econometric modeling, etc. are what determine success. The harder part is for mid size advertisers who don't have the budget to move the needle to make those things viable, but still need to be branding heavy.

Beyond that, digital is way more trackable and often more efficient as a result, even on the branding side.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#189

Post by [deleted] »

srean wrote: post #187
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are farms of blogs with junk content and reviews that exist purely for ad revenue and referral marketing. Online communities have sockpuppets doing the same shit. Respected news papers have "submarine" PR pieces promoting one product or another. The fake positive reviews you mention already exist - both on blogs and sites like Amazon, App Store etc. In this vast sea of noise, it is very hard to find good inform…

I agree with everything you said, but carpet-bombing the crap out of all ads does not seem to be an improvement. Ads satisfy a real need, stamp it out artificially and it will come up with some other name, some other form. This war against * is too hackneyed an approach, admittedly, very popular in the US. It has not done much good anywhere.

[deleted]

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#190

Post by colejohnson66 »

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #122
throwaway7312 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If enough users adopt this, the effect will be advertisers flee whatever websites those users frequent. The end result being those websites (due to declines in revenue) cut their staffs, reducing the quantity and quality of their content. And then AdNauseum users complain on certain subreddits about the declining quality of the target sites. AdNauseum seems to be a case of "you destroy what you love."

Something that can only support itself with ads has no right to exist at all in my view.

How exactly do truely free to use websites run if not with advertisements? Where does StackExchange get its money?
Post reply on HN