Live data from Hacker News

The death of Don Draper?

newstatesman.com

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#21
post #18

Note that he talks about a fake ad exec, not the most famous real one of that era, David Ogilvy. Ogilvy worked for the Gallup Poll before he went into advertising. He was into data-driven advertising. "Advertisers who ignore research are as dangerous as generals who ignore the signs of the enemy." The author is attacking a straw man. Ogilvy is still relevant. The author of the article here, not so much.

Just last week I was at an unusually good talk by an Ogilvy Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland mentioned in the article.

>Rory co-heads a team of psychology graduates who look for "butterfly effects" in consumer behaviour - these are the very small contextual changes which can have enormous effects on the decisions people make

The talk's on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWiB5H18aug&t=1187s Recommended if you are in to that stuff.

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#22
post #21
post #18

Note that he talks about a fake ad exec, not the most famous real one of that era, David Ogilvy. Ogilvy worked for the Gallup Poll before he went into advertising. He was into data-driven advertising. "Advertisers who ignore research are as dangerous as generals who ignore the signs of the enemy." The author is attacking a straw man. Ogilvy is still relevant. The author of the article here, not so much.

Just last week I was at an unusually good talk by an Ogilvy Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland mentioned in the article. >Rory co-heads a team of psychology graduates who look for "butterfly effects" in consumer behaviour - these are the very small contextual changes which can have enormous effects on the decisions people make The talk's on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWiB5H18aug&t=1187s Recommended if you ar…

This was such a great watch, thanks for sharing!

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#24
>In 2016, Facebook in effect charged the Trump campaign lower rates than the Clinton campaign, because Trump’s ads made people angrier and thus generated more clicks. Nobody took a decision to charge Trump less. It was the logical outcome of the ad business’s core principle: the more attention you win, the more you get paid. Since negative emotions are more likely to win and hold attention than positive emotions, the system has an incentive to spread fear and loathing. Russia’s entire propaganda campaign relies on an advertising model that rewards paranoia and spite.

That stuff seems to be quite a problem these days. I was just looking last night at how the Brexit vote was probably swung by a bunch of immigrant fear mongering on facebook in the 2 weeks before the referendum - graph of the polls https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjIQI7gXgAAAmbd?format=jpg and one of the ads https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjIM5XLU8AAuB7o?format=jpg

The details are only gradually coming out - facebook released the ads a couple of days ago and Dominic Cummings the campaign manager has refused a summons from parliament to come explain what happened.

I guess we have to wise up to it a bit and maybe change the algorithms to be less hate promoting.

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#25
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just have missed that, reading the piece. I wonder how well that’s working out though. I work in the public sector of Scandinavia, and we’re doing various tests on ML and it’s honestly turning out to be really bad at predicting anything. It doesn’t always fail, but it fails more than rolling a die.

This would be a very interesting blog post with probably hundreds of comments here on HN. Though if it fails more often “than a roll of a die,” doesn’t that hint at some predictive power? Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

Well maybe. There are some pretty big differences in how ML is traditionally applied and how it's used in the public sector where we focus much more on an individual level and have a much lower tolerance of errors. Right now the predictions we're getting of ML are so terrible they might as well be random. That's terrible, because we're not trying to determine if we can sell you X, we're trying to predict how likely you are to fall into X. Because the public sector doesn't really interact with the adult you, unless you're either damaged, have broken something or want to change part of society.

Imagine we scored you as a likely alcoholic because people with a case history like yours indicated a high risk of alcoholism. So we start taking preemptive measures and the entire system grinds into gear, partly trying to prevent you from falling to the bottle but also preparing for if you do. You really wouldn't want to interact with a public system that's put the wrong label on you, trust me. So we have to be more than a little sure we get things right.

You can probably use ML to predict general trends, but I don't have much data on it, because we use traditional analysts in the public sector. Not because they are great at it, but because they're there. We've been predicting general trends since before computer technology, and the people who work in those departments typically aren't very tech savy. It would be a tremendous cost of resources to make them use ML, or to replace them with data scientists.

I guess in the future those analytics departments may increasingly rely on ML, but to be completely honest, I have no idea if ML or traditional analytics is better at predicting the outcome. The fact that we haven't started using ML, haven't hired a single data scientist or signed a single contractor on the area probably speaks for itself though, if it was truly valuable, I suspect we'd have it by now.

By comparison, RPA didn't really have a great start in the public sector, but today it's absolutely everywhere because it turned out to be really valuable.

It's not like we don't use ML at all though. We do, for stuff like sorting through four million case files looking for specific errors. Something that takes tens of workers months of work to do, but can be done in a few hours when you rent enough hardware in the cloud. We just don't use ML for any sort of analytics or prediction.

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#26

>The brand getting the most buzz in the car industry is Tesla Nope, It’s nowhere near that. The fact that tech media writes a lot about a car manufacturer doesn’t make it the most popular manufacturer in the world and brief google trends research shows that.

Where did they say it makes Tesla the "most popular manufacturer in the world"? They didn't.

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#27

>The brand getting the most buzz in the car industry is Tesla Nope, It’s nowhere near that. The fact that tech media writes a lot about a car manufacturer doesn’t make it the most popular manufacturer in the world and brief google trends research shows that.

Tesla even managed to stand out in this very article when it is only briefly mentioned with multiple comments alluding to this brief mention. I'd say it's quite safely the car industry leader in buzz, if nothing else.

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#28
> Advertising, once a creative industry, is now a data-driven business reliant on algorithms. The implications are deeply sinister – not only for the consumer but for democracy itself.

When everything is labeled a "threat to democracy", nobody takes that actual threats to democracy seriously.

> These days, consumers are less likely to have favourite brands, since “their favourite brand is going to be whatever Google tells them at that moment is going to match their exact needs”. The brand getting the most buzz in the car industry is Tesla. “What’s different about them? No advertising. Innovation in the car industry is not about putting Cindy Crawford in a TV ad. It’s about building a better battery.”

Really? I would use Tesla as an extreme example of effective marketing and cult of personality around Elon Musk. Elon Musk is Cindy Crawford.

> “When’s the last time you saw an ad agency executive on the cover of Business Week?"

Not sure Business Week is really a barometer of what's going on today, but that's fair. However you do regularly see the leaders of these companies, who are the face and effectively the advertising. Not sure if there is a person or team behind their image.

> Clients are spending less on the kind of entertaining, seductive, fame-generating campaigns in which ad agencies specialise, and more on the ads that flash and wink on your smartphone screen.

Really? I think sponsored content that's actually entertaining is a lot more common now.

> Clients only have to decide how many people they want to reach, and how much they want to spend; algorithms do the rest.

Wasn't this automated before and the automation was just done by the ad agencies? Why bother hiring ad agencies in the first place

> The advertiser might create multiple ads and serve different executions to different slices of its audience. Some companies, such as Cambridge Analytica, claim to be able to target personality types using this method. The more valuable your particular profile is to the advertiser, the higher price its algorithm will pay the publisher to get an ad in front of your eyes. In this way, every scintilla of attention is transformed into money.

In the past advertisers often had multiple ads that played in multiple mediums, targeting multiple audiences. And yes, more value mediums (e.g. target market with a more affluent readership) does cost more. Why wouldn't it?

This whole article is just a list of complaints and contradictory observations without a central theme or any coherent structure.

Marketing doesn't work but is extremely common. Its rampant with fraud but is incredibly convincing. It's a huge turn-off with consumers tuning out but it's dominating our lives

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#29
post #5

"The brand getting the most buzz in the car industry is Tesla. `What’s different about them? No advertising. Innovation in the car industry is not about putting Cindy Crawford in a TV ad. It’s about building a better battery.`" Advertising has changed. It's no longer on a billboard in your face, but now a virus and fabric of influence in your mind that permeates and multiplies subtly through every medium you consume.…

You actually make a really interesting point here. Advertising has permeated nearly every segment of media consumption. An interesting example is articles like this, and “reviews” of products that are actually paid adverts where the “reviewers” get kickbacks for every referral that leads to a sale. [1] [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.fastcompany.com/3065928/sle...

On the other hand, it's now easier than ever to avoid all marketing in media. In the analog world you couldn't install an adblocker to your newspaper, or purchase a tv subscription without ads, or choose a radio station without ads in between. Now it's all available, and at least my world is almost completely advertisement-free -- except for those paid reviews you mentioned.

Re: The death of Don Draper?

#30
post #18

Note that he talks about a fake ad exec, not the most famous real one of that era, David Ogilvy. Ogilvy worked for the Gallup Poll before he went into advertising. He was into data-driven advertising. "Advertisers who ignore research are as dangerous as generals who ignore the signs of the enemy." The author is attacking a straw man. Ogilvy is still relevant. The author of the article here, not so much.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN