I just want to say I love the little built in links/dropdowns within the article to expand information. Much more user friendly and smooth than using formal citations.
What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
101–110 of 372 posts
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I'm aggressively looking for higher quality content that I can pay for, like (e.g.) nzz.ch for news. I was also a Google Contributor subscriber, before it required an opt-in for site operators. What I would really like is to pay for the Google Feed (aka Google Now) on my Pixel instead of having to ignore the ads that have recently started to show up there.
Does Google Now still not respect "I'm not interested" flagging? I've tried to use it many times, but I'll keep seeing the same stories I've marked as not interested. One easy example is any Marvel release. I'll say not interested in "move title". Then the same story will pop up in the Marvel category. I'll repeat the process for Marvel, and the same story will show up as entertainment, repeat until I close the app.
for some reason, they think I love baseball, so I get a ton of baseball alerts. I need to accept notifications to the Google app because that's how I auth to gmail. Pretty stupid that the same app sends necessary and completely useless alerts, but I'm sure that's intentional.
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#103From the article: > Marketers are often most successful at marketing their own marketing. I've seen this play out at places I've worked. After raising a funding round, marketing sold the leadership on letting them burn the lion's share of it, even though launching new marketing campaigns was never on the list of reasons we initially went out to raise money.
This feels like a multi-billion dollar industry in which every entity involved has the ability to sink the entire thing, and simply stated, nobody does because they all make money from it.
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#104From the article: > Marketers are often most successful at marketing their own marketing. I've seen this play out at places I've worked. After raising a funding round, marketing sold the leadership on letting them burn the lion's share of it, even though launching new marketing campaigns was never on the list of reasons we initially went out to raise money.
I think that's a self-preservation tactic for many that often backfires. Most non-marketing management people want immediate and huge results... which are both hard to quantify and impossible to get without overspending or having an insanely lucky idea that goes viral. Naturally this leads to asking for a bigger budget and promising bigger results, then KPIs aren't met for X, Y, Z reasons, then they're forced to just…
I'd be nervous to work for a company where one of the co-founders isn't a marketer.
Marketing is usually one of the biggest line items for a business.
When your marketing team has little incentive to actually deliver, they're likely to ask for a ton of money only to add impressive things to their resumez, not really to deliver on their promises to the business.
If a founder is in charge of marketing, s/he's got a lot of reasons to deliver: founder's equity.
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#105Measuring the effects of marketing started a bit earlier than Google: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Advertising
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I'm the author of the article, and I don't assume all online advertising is Google search. I also cite research on display advertising (meta-study of 432 display experiments on Google): https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2701578 And on Facebook advertising: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/gordon_b/files/... The problem with all online advertising is that there are huge selection effects, which are hard to…
There is a selection bias in these studies as well -- that you are focusing on large, already established brands that have good brand recall and people who had intent to purchase there anyways. For smaller companies that are just starting out, it's relatively impossible to have prior intent when people don't know who you are or what you offer. There are a number of companies who started with nothing and grew their bu…
> There are a number of companies who started with nothing and grew their business via online ads and this seems like a giant blind spot in the article as well as the studies that you mentioned.
But is that number statistically significant? some do, how many others tried the same route and failed, how many grew without it, etc
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#107Maybe 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…
You have to keep in mind how cheap advertising is. An ad campaign that affects one in a hundred thousand can be successful.
In some areas, you'll find a ton of billboards for personal injury lawyers. Right off the bat, maybe only one in several thousand people is a potential client, and it's totally irrelevant to the remainder. Of the relevant population, most of them have the common sense not to hire a lawyer purely based on an advertisement. But those billboards are still worth it. They know because they ask people how they learned about them, making it simple to calculate their value.
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#108This is a rather unimpressive article. Yes, brand advertising is a disaster, just like it has always been. But to say that all digital advertising has unknown ROI is ridiculous. Digital direct response advertising allows very accurate ROI calculations. (Admittedly, a lot of advertisers are not applying the tools to their advantage. They call that the "Google stupid tax". Ditto these days on Facebook.) And direct resp…
Hi this is the author of the article. You're just making the exact mistake this article is about: you assume people who click on your ad and then buy something, bought something BECAUSE of your ad. From the article: "Suppose Luigi’s Pizzeria hires three teenagers to hand out coupons to passersby. After a few weeks of flyering, one of the three turns out to be a marketing genius. Customers keep showing up with coupons…
Well its pretty easy to tell if its because of the advertising. Just turn it off for a while and see if it affects revenue.
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#109This is a rather unimpressive article. Yes, brand advertising is a disaster, just like it has always been. But to say that all digital advertising has unknown ROI is ridiculous. Digital direct response advertising allows very accurate ROI calculations. (Admittedly, a lot of advertisers are not applying the tools to their advantage. They call that the "Google stupid tax". Ditto these days on Facebook.) And direct resp…
By my reading, direct marketing was LITERALLY the example used in the article that showed some of the dodgy reasoning/metrics behind common measurements of marketing success :/
Re: What do we really know about the effectiveness of digital advertising?
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also have a way to beat adblockers that I'm afraid of bringing to light Proxying ads through as first-party content? If you really are invested in making them work ethically, consider these ground rules: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html
I find, as a consumer, I disagree with the text only requirement. Videos are certainly off limits as a nuisance. However images convey a lot of information very quickly, and can be visually "skipped" in a way text cannot. When presented an ad for protein powder alongside my workout diets article, I want to see what it looks like. The presentation of the product is an important factor in whether or not I pursue it. It…
> images convey a lot of information very quickly, and can be visually "skipped" in a way text cannot.
Some images can be skipped. I installed an adblocker on this browser today because of an advertisement that could not. An obnoxious facial expression on both sides of the article can't be ignored; the subroutines running in a brain to detect faces and eye contact seem to be pretty highly prioritized. That's why those stupid youtube thumbnails are so effective.