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

Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 239 posts

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#131

Post by RaceWon »

cm2012 wrote: post #9

Amazon ad revenue alone ($2.2 billion) for Q2 was already around 15% of Facebook's total Q2 revenue ($13 billion). That is nuts, if they have any room to grow that further, since ads isn't even Amazon's specialty. For reference, Snapchat did $290 million in the same timeframe, Twitter $660 million.

The problem with Amazon is that it is a race to the Absolute lowest possible price point. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that boatloads of vendors don't make money advertising there (and people on Amazon are for Sure in the market), but wouldn't you rather get people to your own website via say YouTube, which is only going to get more and more popular, and then convince them to buy from you Now... I would if I was currently selling online. It simply makes more "cents."

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#132

Post by badwolf »

MarkMc wrote: post #109
scarface74 wrote: post #2

This is my bear case for Google. Google offers the least precise targeting compared to Facebook and Amazon. Facebook knows more about its users because users tell it about themselves and Amazon knows more about purchasing habits of its users because of thier purchase and search history. If I’m searching for something with the intention on buying it, I am going to go to the specific site - like Priceline, hotels.com,…

> Google offers the least precise targeting compared to Facebook and Amazon If that's true why haven't Facebook or Amazon launched a competitive AdSense alternative?

Facebook has Audience Network, Amazon is starting to roll out their own ad network as well.

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#133

Post by manigandham »

scarface74 wrote: post #117
gruez wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you'll be surprised at how many people use google maps on iphone. i would even be surprised if most ios users use google maps.

There is a huge difference. Google tracks location data on Android users all of the time. Google can only get location data on iOS users if they are actively using Google Maps. You don’t need a maps app if you know where you are going.

If people are checking in then they are also online, and if you're online then your location is available. This is not hard to do.

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#134

Post by scarface74 »

manigandham wrote: post #133
scarface74 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference. Google tracks location data on Android users all of the time. Google can only get location data on iOS users if they are actively using Google Maps. You don’t need a maps app if you know where you are going.

If people are checking in then they are also online, and if you're online then your location is available. This is not hard to do.

On iOS, your location isn’t available to Google though. iOS has three per app settings for location permissions for apps - never, while using, and always. Google can only get location data if you are actively using Google Maps.

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#135

Post by tomrod »

cm2012 wrote: post #50
tomrod wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about your experience here. In my experience Digital folks come with a lot of smoke and mirrors that crumble under standard statistical analysis.

I mean, you don't need too many stat techniques for basic tracking: 1) Set up Facebook pixel on your checkout thank you page + collect referral into into a database. 2) Spend $1,000 3) See how many purchases Facebook reports came from Facebook, check out how many sales you get recently have the Facebook referrer. 4) Repeat if sales revenue > $1,000. This is obviously the simplest use case possible, but there you are.…

This is missing some testing. In multichannel environments you have the potential for multiple touches, as well as baseline if your company is large enough. For example, a traditional product like cars: you have a baseline of folks who come in, and then you have (ideally addtional/higher rate of) folks that come through the digital channel, such as engaging an online salesperson. Do the digital channels generate a higher rate of purchase than the baseline channel? If so, is the lift statistically significant? These are what I mean. Revenue moving through a digital pipeline could be because people happened to fall into that bucket but were already going to purchase anyway. In other words, some of the $1000 went to non-incremental marketing. The goal is to make sure the incremental marketing exceeds the spend.

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#136

Post by freehunter »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #45
freehunter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a TV on Amazon a while back, they knew I looked it up and they knew I paid money for it and they knew I received it and I even left a review so they knew I used it. I got ads to buy that same TV that they knew I already bought for months after I bought it.

The most predictable purchase for someone who has purchased one TV and reviewed it positively is the exact same TV for another room. They are just following the money, it might not make sense to an individual, but product recommendations are optimised for sales based on historical data.

That is true... I bought a flash drive on Amazon with the intention of buying more of the same flash drive if I liked the performance of the one I bought. And when I liked the first one, I bought four more.

A TV seems excessive though, but maybe that's just me. I mean it was a $700 TV, how much money does Amazon think I have to buy two of them?

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#137

Post by scarface74 »

elorant wrote: post #126
scarface74 wrote: post #2

This is my bear case for Google. Google offers the least precise targeting compared to Facebook and Amazon. Facebook knows more about its users because users tell it about themselves and Amazon knows more about purchasing habits of its users because of thier purchase and search history. If I’m searching for something with the intention on buying it, I am going to go to the specific site - like Priceline, hotels.com,…

Sure but if you have a SaaS product then Google seems like a better fit because you can target keywords instead of humans since you don't really know if there are any similar characteristics to your buyers.

Nahh then you just pay some analysts to make sure you are in second quadrant of “Gartber’s magic square” an advertise in a trade rag....

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#138

Post by ikeboy »

RaceWon wrote: post #131
cm2012 wrote: post #9

Amazon ad revenue alone ($2.2 billion) for Q2 was already around 15% of Facebook's total Q2 revenue ($13 billion). That is nuts, if they have any room to grow that further, since ads isn't even Amazon's specialty. For reference, Snapchat did $290 million in the same timeframe, Twitter $660 million.

The problem with Amazon is that it is a race to the Absolute lowest possible price point. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that boatloads of vendors don't make money advertising there (and people on Amazon are for Sure in the market), but wouldn't you rather get people to your own website via say YouTube, which is only going to get more and more popular, and then convince them to buy from you Now... I would if…

Problem is it's much harder to get sales elsewhere. On Amazon, you can sell a $25 item and maybe spend $5-10 in ads per sale. On your own site, you might pay $25 per sale, which means you need a compelling offer at $70+ or so. This is because conversion is worse and bids are only going up as people get better funnels and can afford to throw a ton of cash on ads.

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#139

Post by ikeboy »

cloudwizard wrote: post #55
krn wrote: post #53

Seeing ads in Amazon search results has substantially reduced my perceived trust in Amazon brand, since as a buyer I no longer feel like Amazon is on my side. I feel like I am Amazon's product. That it's me, who is for sale.

Probably a bigger issue for Amazon is that a large part of the ad market is competitors or potential competitors. Walmart, Safeway, and Azure won't be advertising on Amazon. Does P&G want Amazon to control more of the retail market? Not if it has any brains. Amazon has it's own branded home speaker systems and will not sell Google's. If Amazon brought out a shampoo brand, would it sell head and shoulders?

Amazon makes plenty of their own stuff, under Amazon basics, like 70 other brands, plus whatever they got with Whole Foods. Aside from the Kindle shenanigans, they haven't blocked competing brands.

Re: Amazon Sets Its Sights on the $88B Online Ad Market

#140

Post by propogandist »

noer wrote: post #113
josephjrobison wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is most like Facebook in that the ads are only displayed on its own property rather than all across the whole internet on any site that displays 3rd party ads. That, combined with the fact that Amazon also has a ton of data on its users just like Facebook makes them very alike (not that Google doesn't as well). What separates Google from Amazon is that their paid ads can be displayed on any 3rd party site that…

Facebook has a display network similar to DoubleClick, called Audience Network. In my experience it pays publishers a lot better than DoubleClick. For advertisers, they're able to target on more demographic categories (for now, the CA scandal has done a lot to reduce targeting options).

in my experience FB's audience network was junk
Post reply on HN