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

What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

thecorrespondent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 372 posts

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#41

Post by xenocyon »

stvswn wrote: post #16
moltensodium wrote: post #3

Maybe this is just a generational thing, but I still have never clicked on an ad. I hate ads. I don't know anyone who likes them. I don't know anyone who has intentionally clicked on them. I have literally never met anyone who places any value in advertising at all. Everyone hates it with 100% of their being. It is the garbage we all just sort of accept exposure to as some sort of fee for existing online. Who are all…

But, you like accessing content for free, correct? That content doesn't exist and then ads are layered on, the context exists BECAUSE of ads. Like, no one would produce the content without the plan to make their money back via ads. This is how mass media has worked from the get-go. Radio stations were built by advertisers for the purpose of advertising. Entire genres of popular music wouldn't have happened otherwise.…

This is true for newspapers, pro YouTube channels, etc. But even today, the majority of internet content is created by people for free - this includes comments on HN, Reddit discussion, original Facebook posts, amateur YouTube content, and much more.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#42

Post by godson_drafty »

the_mar wrote: post #15
wyxuan wrote: post #2

I can’t read the article but I think it’s starting to deflate on its own. Like when J.P. Morgan stopped advertising on google after the whole controversy of ads being shown in front of extremist content and realized it didn’t make a difference.

you can, just click "maybe later" at the bottom where it says "become a member"

I did that, and then afterwords it told me that the article was being gifted to me buy a paying member. After that I just closed the tab. It is kind of a stroke of genius, encouraging me to sign up by showing me that I'm enjoying the largesse of a paying customer. On the other hand, if letting me read the article is such a huge imposition, I guess I don't want it.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#43

Post by excursionist »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #13
moltensodium wrote: post #3

Maybe this is just a generational thing, but I still have never clicked on an ad. I hate ads. I don't know anyone who likes them. I don't know anyone who has intentionally clicked on them. I have literally never met anyone who places any value in advertising at all. Everyone hates it with 100% of their being. It is the garbage we all just sort of accept exposure to as some sort of fee for existing online. Who are all…

The kind of person who clicks on ads also buys stuff. The negative, "if you don't click on ads, you don't buy stuff," may not be true in the strictest sense, but may be true for so many ways that matter. Facebook is full of ads, you know Facebook users. Instagram has the most effective ads on the planet, maybe the only inventory on Earth where brand advertising works. You know plenty of Instagram users. YouTube's ad…

> The kind of person who clicks on ads also buys stuff.

Everybody who has money buys stuff. People that click on ads are probably more easily persuaded into buying shit they don't need. I don't have any data on this, but it's highly questionable whether an ad-clicker buys more stuff in general.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#44

Post by thrower123 »

moltensodium wrote: post #3

Maybe this is just a generational thing, but I still have never clicked on an ad. I hate ads. I don't know anyone who likes them. I don't know anyone who has intentionally clicked on them. I have literally never met anyone who places any value in advertising at all. Everyone hates it with 100% of their being. It is the garbage we all just sort of accept exposure to as some sort of fee for existing online. Who are all…

The only ads I ever click are from sales flyers that I have signed up for that show up in my email inbox. Those are genuinely useful.

Display ads? Meh. I find that they generate more distaste for the advertised service in me than anything else.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#45

Post by retzkek »

stvswn wrote: post #16
moltensodium wrote: post #3

Maybe this is just a generational thing, but I still have never clicked on an ad. I hate ads. I don't know anyone who likes them. I don't know anyone who has intentionally clicked on them. I have literally never met anyone who places any value in advertising at all. Everyone hates it with 100% of their being. It is the garbage we all just sort of accept exposure to as some sort of fee for existing online. Who are all…

But, you like accessing content for free, correct? That content doesn't exist and then ads are layered on, the context exists BECAUSE of ads. Like, no one would produce the content without the plan to make their money back via ads. This is how mass media has worked from the get-go. Radio stations were built by advertisers for the purpose of advertising. Entire genres of popular music wouldn't have happened otherwise.…

> no one would produce the content without the plan to make their money back via ads.

What is your plan? You just produced content, on a site with no ads, and no links to other ways to capitalize off it. I'd argue most content is created by people who just want to share something they are passionate about. Maybe a lot of it is low quality, and "you get what you [or someone else] pay for" can apply, but a world without ad-supported distribution models would not be without content.

> Radio stations were built by advertisers for the purpose of advertising

Radio stations and other traditional mass media also require substantial investment and resources; putting a web page on the internet does not (unless we make it, by putting all our "pages" on a couple giant sites, who then need revenue to provide those services, hence serve ads).

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#47

Post by neonate »

davidedicillo wrote: post #17

Overstated. This article assumes that: - All online advertising is Google search - That brand search advertising is representative of the entire industry There are plenty of companies making double-digit ROAS (return over ad spend), especially direct response advertisers.

Maybe overstated, but if "all" the article shows is that Google search ads don't work, that's a big deal.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#48

Post by cameronbrown »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #34
stvswn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, you like accessing content for free, correct? That content doesn't exist and then ads are layered on, the context exists BECAUSE of ads. Like, no one would produce the content without the plan to make their money back via ads. This is how mass media has worked from the get-go. Radio stations were built by advertisers for the purpose of advertising. Entire genres of popular music wouldn't have happened otherwise.…

Your post is literally the content I'm reading that you claim no one would produce without ads, and it's unsupported by ads. And again (I feel like a broken record on this site), that's a totally inaccurate history of the internet. Content arrived first, THEN the advertising companies arrived.

Hacker News is not mass media. Plus don't forget Y Combinator funded many ad-based platforms. HN isn't free either.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#49

Post by pixl97 »

xmprt wrote: post #36
ngngngng wrote: post #8

> a Super Bowl ad cost three million dollars. Why? Because that’s how much it cost. What does it yield? Who knows. This article is awesome. In my free time I'm building an advertising platform that topic matches ads off the content of the web pages. No tracking of users. I'm hoping to allow people to host and run their own all inclusive self contained advertising platform for just a licensing fee. I also have a way t…

The weird thing about websites like YouTube is they do a combination of topic matching and user matching. Why bother with tracking users so extensively if you're going to just go ahead and demonitize videos that are "sensitive" content. Just place the ads in front of the audience regardless of what they're watching. At the end of the day, advertisers and viewers can't possibly care what video it's showing on as long…

>Why bother with tracking users so extensively

Because there is a good chance governments will pay for that data in the future.

Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?

#50

Post by sp332 »

moltensodium wrote: post #3

Maybe this is just a generational thing, but I still have never clicked on an ad. I hate ads. I don't know anyone who likes them. I don't know anyone who has intentionally clicked on them. I have literally never met anyone who places any value in advertising at all. Everyone hates it with 100% of their being. It is the garbage we all just sort of accept exposure to as some sort of fee for existing online. Who are all…

Not that many people click banner ads. Banner ad click-through rate in North America is about 0.14% https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/290285/north-... 60% of those clicks are mistakes https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/268266/60-of-... 1/3 of clicks are by bots. https://adage.com/article/digital/ad-fraud-eating-digital-ad... 8% of users account for 85% of all banner ad clicks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2101163
Post reply on HN