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

A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#131

Post by SyneRyder »

gwern wrote: post #130
SyneRyder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Google Contributor, which is trying to make another comeback. One of the newspapers in Australia is using it, and supposedly Business Insider as well. https://contributor.google.com/

I've looked at Contributor and found it weirdly limited. Google doesn't need publishers to sign up for Contributor, because they are already all signed up for AdSense! The most logical way to implement Contributor would be essentially as a personal buyout of AdSense ads: if you are a Contributor, the AdSense JS checks that and then simply doesn't run, and assigns a fraction of a cent to the publisher in lieu of a dis…

That's how the original Google Contributor actually worked, it would remove Adsense ads from all websites running AdSense. You could even choose what to replace them with (eg pictures of kittens). Matt Cutts posted about it here in 2015:

https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-contributor/

Apparently that model was a huge flop and people just didn't want it. The new version requires publishers to remove all ads (not just AdSense), which helps since many newspapers seem to have dropped AdSense & switched to Taboola & other ad networks. Which might be one reason Google is trying it again.

(I expect the new Contributor will fail too, though. I think the majority of people just don't want to pay for online content.)

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#132

Post by katzgrau »

AJ007 wrote: post #15
katzgrau wrote: post #3

As someone who has founded and runs an adserver for a living (we deal only with legitimate publications, nothing sketchy), I found this thought provoking. Since I deal mostly in niche/local advertising, I might have a unique perspective. It turns out that the more relatable a banner ad is, the less offended the reader is. That may sound obvious, and it probably is. But the general effect is that users engage with and…

The other side to this is users see the ads, relate to the ads, click the ads, and thus leave your site. Your pageviews will drop. Whether or not one agrees with the outcome, if you have a large site you definitely should be doing independent testing. Google's ad reps, much less reps from other networks, will tell you to do things that harm your site.

Well, most ads open in a new window. And most serious publishers barely have the resources to survive let alone do A/B testing. The publishers I work with thankfully shy away from network advertising and only deal with clients they have a direct relationship with. Regardless, it really isn't easy or very lucrative running a digital content based business. There are outliers, sure, but the long tail paints a much different story in my experience.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#133

Post by katzgrau »

smsm42 wrote: post #54
katzgrau wrote: post #3

As someone who has founded and runs an adserver for a living (we deal only with legitimate publications, nothing sketchy), I found this thought provoking. Since I deal mostly in niche/local advertising, I might have a unique perspective. It turns out that the more relatable a banner ad is, the less offended the reader is. That may sound obvious, and it probably is. But the general effect is that users engage with and…

> It turns out that the more relatable a banner ad is, the less offended the reader is. This is of course true, and kinda obvious, but I am not sure this is workable as business model. I mean, here are not a lot of ads that are immediately relevant for me. Maybe once or twice per month there's something that I buy that ad could sway my decision at least potentially (i.e. expose me to some provider I wasn't aware of,…

It's true — but advertising has two sides. You can of course be running a campaign that you're hoping for immediate ROI on, like a flash sale. In that case, you really want clicks and some sort of immediate indicator that the campaign is working, like conversions.

But sometimes as a business owner you're also campaigning for visibility / mindshare. At the minimum you want to distribute a message and let people know you exist. That's why people still buy billboards. It's a type of advertising that will probably never go away - especially because it's relatively low cost to implement for all sides - just need a designer to create the ad and you're good to go.

It doesn't seem like the most dependable business model but it's pretty timeless even in the digital age. The advertiser has an ego and instinct and is ultimately going to buy what they feel is going to work for their business.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#134

Post by Houshalter »

rtpg wrote: post #111
Houshalter wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but that's a very indirect calculation. Only a fraction of that is going to end up funneled to banner ads and the websites that run them. And that's the relevant metric; how much revenue you are losing by moving away from ads.

On a first order that's right: We don't need all the ad people now that there's no ads. But then we have to consider that 95% of the costs/fees for running ad networks would still be needed for cost-sharing models too. You still need third-party JS.

Patreon doesn't need js. A subscription model doesn't need js. Certainly not all the complicated tracking code and huge images and videos required for ads.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#135

Post by Mz »

pault wrote: post #74
Mz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have written about them and posted stuff to HN. It usually doesn't get much attention. Nutshell version: 1. Flexible online means to earn money. 2. Genuinely affordable market based housing, such as SROs. I have several blogs where I talk about such things, like Mic Digs, Project: SRO and Write Pay. They don't get much attention. Edit: just to prove my point, here is a recent piece on working for pay while homeless…

Maybe you could do something like indie hackers [1] and highlight the stories of people that are trying to get off the streets by doing online gig work. That would be inspiring for people looking for help and interesting to everyone else. [1] https://www.indiehackers.com/businesses

I did spend some time looking over Indie Hackers yesterday. I am unclear whether anything I do at all fits there. But thank you for suggesting it. I am trying to figure out how to get taken more seriously, in spite of it being an uphill battle for various reasons.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#136

Post by d2wa »

drngdds wrote: post #107
badestrand wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing. I really wish there was a general web subscription with revenue-sharing between all visited websites. I hate seeing the ads on my own sites but have no viable way to replace them. And as a user I would like to support several sites, apart from disabling the adblocker.

The Brave browser people are working on a weird cryptocurrency-based solution to this problem called the Basic Attention Token. Hope you don't mind being paid in some Ethereum tokens, though. https://basicattentiontoken.org/about/

Brave is crazy; go with Flattr instead. They both want to distribute monthly subscriptions from users to content creators. Flattr pays in real money and is easier for users because they can use credit cards instead of virtual tokens and hard-to-fill-up crypto wallets. Flattr works with creators on YouTube, GitHub, Vimeo, etc, etc. but Brave only works on the domain-level; meaning only Google can benefit from YouTube with Brave whereas individual creators get the money with Flattr.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#137

Post by gwern »

SyneRyder wrote: post #131
gwern wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked at Contributor and found it weirdly limited. Google doesn't need publishers to sign up for Contributor, because they are already all signed up for AdSense! The most logical way to implement Contributor would be essentially as a personal buyout of AdSense ads: if you are a Contributor, the AdSense JS checks that and then simply doesn't run, and assigns a fraction of a cent to the publisher in lieu of a dis…

That's how the original Google Contributor actually worked, it would remove Adsense ads from all websites running AdSense. You could even choose what to replace them with (eg pictures of kittens). Matt Cutts posted about it here in 2015: https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-contributor/ Apparently that model was a huge flop and people just didn't want it. The new version requires publishers to remove all ads (not ju…

That's a pity. I expect the new optin model to work much worse; not sure why they're bothering... Patreon, IMO, shows people are willing to pay for online content but the exact method and experience matters a lot.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#138

Post by rtpg »

Houshalter wrote: post #134
rtpg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a first order that's right: We don't need all the ad people now that there's no ads. But then we have to consider that 95% of the costs/fees for running ad networks would still be needed for cost-sharing models too. You still need third-party JS.

Patreon doesn't need js. A subscription model doesn't need js. Certainly not all the complicated tracking code and huge images and videos required for ads.

I was talking more about a model that works similarly to advertising (pennies/fraction of penny per page view)

I'm more of a fan for direct payments, though I think a lot of sites would struggle with just that.

How many people will subscribe to Android Authority directly? Lots of sites basically get views from searches , but little long term engagement. Those sites are still useful, but only have ads as a revenue model that's "viable"

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#139

Post by KajMagnus »

cisanti wrote: post #127
magicmikexxl wrote: post #9

There are ways to have comments that are a lot less awful than Disqus.

Commenting system for static site please? Meaning I don't have to host anything dynamic myself and the price won't kill you.

EffectiveDiscussions is a new alternative this year 2017. It's open source, or hosting for $2/month. (I'm developing it.)

Demo: https://www.kajmagnus.blog/new-embedded-comments (That's a static website built with Gatsby.)

Read more about it: https://www.effectivediscussions.org/blog-comments (landing page, not finished)

Since it's new, it's a bit risky: maybe some bugs. & has some novel features, inspired by HackerNews actually: https://www.effectivediscussions.org/-32/how-hacker-news-can... (but that's not totally ported to embedded-comments yet). Currently implementing single-sign-on.

Re: A/B test of banner ads vs. traffic

#140

Post by KajMagnus »

gwern wrote: post #93
snthd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe https://coralproject.net/products/talk.html

That seems to require you to host your own server and doesn't look much better in terms of complexity.

See my comment nearby about EffectiveDiscussions — it's a new commenting system, open source, & there's hosting. (https://www.effectivediscussions.org/blog-comments if you didn't find my other comment)

(What did you mean with "look ... in terms of complexity"? You mean how-complicated-it-is-to-install?)

Post reply on HN