41–50 of 108 posts
As someone who works monitoring ad network traffic at a large ad-tech company (not FAANG, but just below), let me just say: everyone does fraud . Some don't need as much of it (e.g., Google), but quite literally saying "there's fraud in my online traffic" is like saying "there's tomato sauce in my spaghetti". It's quite literally such a normal thing that I've become immune to even getting roused by it (and remember,…
What kind of fraud does Google do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think those buying advertising know that the ad networks' metrics are hopelessly broken, that fraud is rampant, and that their actual impressions are far less than reported. But the problem is pervasive and spans the entire ad industry, so what are they to do, other than throw in as much money as possible and hope for the best? I recently saw a comment (can't remember where) from someone involved in an advertising…
Really the only people hurt are those buying, eg Google stock based on ad impression numbers. The advertisers have already priced the fraud into their bidding. Other than that, the only people who care about impression numbers are google investors. Even then, they’re probably more concerned with the aggregate ad spend, which is likely unrelated to the percentage of fraud since it’s more a result of marketing budget t…
That, or they cram even more ads onto their sites to compensate, and users throw up ad blockers or go elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that they do it. It’s that they allow it. Not outright, but they don’t go out of their way to suppress/stop it anymore more than anybody else.
When it comes to email spam or fake email accounts, Google not only allows it, they enable it. One scammer can setup thousands of gmail accounts and google doesn't blink an eye. Gmail also allows "scammer+1@gmail.com" and "scammer+2@gmail" to be the same account. I've reported obvious gmail abuse to Google through their channels, but nothing. Same scammer keeps coming back with new email accounts.
There's no scarcity in available email addresses. If your security depends on people not being able to register new emails, you've already lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that they do it. It’s that they allow it. Not outright, but they don’t go out of their way to suppress/stop it anymore more than anybody else.
When it comes to email spam or fake email accounts, Google not only allows it, they enable it. One scammer can setup thousands of gmail accounts and google doesn't blink an eye. Gmail also allows "scammer+1@gmail.com" and "scammer+2@gmail" to be the same account. I've reported obvious gmail abuse to Google through their channels, but nothing. Same scammer keeps coming back with new email accounts.
This is a well-documented feature that has many legitimate uses. If you're trying to stop fraud, clip any gmail addresses after the +. For example, I believe Facebook does this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Counterfactual: if this spend is that useless, it should be possible to start a competitor that focuses on high-ROI advertising. Exactly! And that's where online ads, user tracking, online-to-offline came in. The whole reason why it gained so much traction in the past 20 years is that it began to offer better tracking and results than other forms of advertising. If Google (or Facebook, or anyone else) stands still…
Then why are online ads today just as useless and dumb as they were 29 years ago?
And the increased flow of ad money to online ads proves you wrong.
I'm always curious how exactly the fraud detection happens. Is Pixalate doing network analysis? App Analysis? Could I do the same thing myself with wireshark on my home network?
As someone who works monitoring ad network traffic at a large ad-tech company (not FAANG, but just below), let me just say: everyone does fraud . Some don't need as much of it (e.g., Google), but quite literally saying "there's fraud in my online traffic" is like saying "there's tomato sauce in my spaghetti". It's quite literally such a normal thing that I've become immune to even getting roused by it (and remember,…
Beyond this, ad spend ASSUMES some level of fraud. It's baked into your ROI numbers, at least for performance advertising. Probably the main people getting stiffed are the publishers who are offering real traffic, and getting a smaller share of dollars relative to the incremental value they deliver.
edit: I should rephrase, this sounds hostile. I know there is wide work in influencing people to buy stuff when influenced in person. The interpersonal dynamics are widely studied. I also know, that chumming content and goating works to gather more views, but that can only be turned into a ROI by people paying for ads to serve those viewers. There is also the segment of ads, which offer a discount, but what about all the rest? Does banner or clip advertisement actually provide a measurable return of investment? Does online advertisement offer brand recognition, and does it provide a ROI? Are the adverse effects studied, so that people actively despise brands for offensive ads? What are the going rates for views and reactions to online advertisement vs traditional marketing?
In short, what is the state of the art of research into online advertisement?