Live data from Hacker News

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

thecorrespondent.com

141–150 of 372 posts

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

#141
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…

> topic matches ads

Or, how about letting the publisher specify keywords they want to attract? I 'd love to have some control on which ads show on my site and do my own tests. If you have setup the tracking right, the advertisers have nothing to lose

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effects may be low but what is the alternative? You suggest there's a digital advertising bubble but to have a bubble with the assumption it will burst, you need to show that advertisers can achieve a better return by doing something else. There's no digital marketing bubble more than there is a traditional advertising bubble. There IS however a conflict of interest in advertising that's caused by the agency whic…

I agree that advertising as a whole might be a bubble. In fact, my next piece is about TV advertising which is arguably worse. See: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3273476 I do think it's more accepted in traditional advertising that we just don't know how well it works. In digital advertising there is a grand illusion of measurement.

Not sure this has much significance, but as a consumer I usually skip online ads or tune them out mentally as they are so pervasive it’s a nuisance. T.V ads work on me to an extent if I were watching live T.V. but I try again to avoid them like the plague.

Some news sites make ads agreeable if it meshes well with the content (like NY Times and such).

The bottom line I think is that there’s too much competition for my attention and it gets exhausting unless the ads are really well thought out (original ideas) or subtle—in which case the probability of me seeing the ad is less, but the effectiveness most likely increases as its less like an ad and more like relevant content

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

#143
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

im not here to engage in the debate about how much we hate online subscriptions. I'm just commenting on garbage UI trying to trick you to subscribe and pay for an article that isn't really paywalled

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

#144
post #65

Earlier 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…

> Keep the image, it's worth 1000 words.

Rephrase that one, please. An image lies more than a 1000 words.

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

#145

Just as Google won the search engine wars by helping people find what they are looking for, the e-commerce winners will be the companies that help people find what they want to buy (reliably and with confidence). Retail companies are blind to just what a shit-show their websites are (a lot of them even have ads in their online store). Any company that solves this problem for their sector will win it, and this is good…

> Retail companies are blind to just what a shit-show their websites are

shit-show or not, when I'm buying something online I strongly prefer buying directly from the company's website over using sites like Amazon.

My purchasing pattern goes like this: I want something, I search (using DDG) the web for what companies offer what I want, then I go through the companies websites to decide on where I'm going to make my purchase.

I'm certain that I don't represent the most common sort of customer, but I'm also certain that I'm not alone. Ads are irrelevant to me (I block all scripting, so I rarely see ads), so if a business wants to increase the chances that I'll check them out, what they really need to do is SEO.

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

#146

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.

Worth mentioning the conflict of interest that you work for facebook's Ads Growth.

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

#147
post #99

This 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…

What if advertisers jack up the cost of advertising to the point that competitors can't get a foot hold. Don't think of advertising in terms of ROI. Think of advertising as a form of extortion.

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

#148
I’m skeptical about one of the main premises of the article: that brand keywords don’t have a positive ROI.

Background: I took part in running millions of dollars of brand keywords for multiple companies. This is not what my business sells anymore.

I’ll explain my counterargument in two different ways: with an analogy, and with data from a project that I was tasked with figuring out whether branding ads had an ROI. I'm looking for responses that can poke holes and help me have a better understanding.

The analogy. Imagine you own a Chinese restaurant. John Doe is in the mood for Chinese chicken dumplings. John is hungry and in a rush so he gets in his car and starts heading to the local restaurant area because he heard about your restaurant. There are multiple ways to reach your restaurant (same as when you search a brand name in different ways + product A/B/C). No matter which route John takes when he is looking for your restaurant, he will have to go through one of the many roundabouts (the roundabout is the first page of the google search results). John reaches one of the roundabouts that’s right before your restaurant. There are 10 exits, some of them lead to your restaurant and some of the lead to other places. Since this is a roundabout, you don’t get to see each exit at once, but rather go one by one. Each exit has a sign that states the name of the place and a small description. The information on each sign was put up by the local authority (google), which is based on what the restaurant initial provided but it’s relatively the same across all roundabouts that lead to the restaurant. Since John is hungry and in a rush, he tends to take one of the very first exits he comes across (similar concept to the amount of traffic the 1st search result gets VS the 2nd Vs the 3d). The problem is that your restaurant is not the first exit for every roundabout (i.e the 1st result in google). For some roundabouts, the local concierge is the first exit (i.e a number of brands I worked with had the 2nd result for certain brand+product keywords as the 1st result was taken by major informational or review websites). For some roundabouts, the local authority agreed to add a new exit as the 1st one you come across that has a digital sign which changes based on what every "John" is looking for ("yummy chicken dumplings") and leads to the competition (paid search ad that always shows up before the organic results and the title/copy changes based on what someone is searching). For other roundabouts, your restaurant is 1st but John searched for your brand + "product by the wrong name", so the description of the first result doesn't reflect what John is searching for and he skips it (because Google doesn't let you dynamically change the organic title/description as you are allowed with the paid ads).

The data. We stopped google SEM brand ads for 6 months, restarted them and let them run for a few months. We noticed that when we restarted the brand ads, the organic revenue decreased. The organic + brand ads revenue also fell by about 25% VS the time we didn't have brand ads running. The key question was: Did the number of people searching for the brand decrease during the same time? If branded ads are 100% cannibalizing the organic ROI, then the organic search impressions (i.e how many times the brand's links show up when someone searches the brand on google) and clicks should have remained the same. We looked at the top organic brand keywords that were responsible for 99% of the impressions/clicks the brand got on google. During the periods that we checked, organic impressions/clicks had fallen by about 40%. So the number of people searching for the brand fell by about 40% and yet the revenue from the organic search + brand ads only fell by about 25%. If you crunch in the numbers, you'd see that we had about a 20% increase in organic + brand ads revenue VS purely organic revenue.

Last but note least... I don't have the links to the following research with me right now but it's available online: (1) competitors bidding for your brand terms can steal a double-digit percentage of your organic traffic if you don't bid as well, (2) consumers think brands are more legit the more they see their results all over the first page, (3) consumers put significant weight on the first result of the page, (4) the message brands use to get the user to take an action can have a double-digit percentage impact on whether the user will that action or not. Bonus: the high CTRs from the branded keywords help overall google ads account health/quality which helps you get cheaper ads from Google, better positions, etc.

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

#149
post #73

> "What frustrates me is there’s a bit of magical thinking here," Johnson says. "As if Cambridge Analytica has hacked our brains so that we’re going to be like lemmings and jump off cliffs. As if we are powerless.” Probably not, but nevertheless their efforts to polarise thinking and support the formation of echo chambers have been quite successful. While selection effect has indeed been disregarded often, in the cas…

its also very difficult to measure anything about political ads, so better keep the research to commercial ads for which data can be found

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

#150
post #39

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…

When people say that advertising doesn't work on them they are generally only focused on being immediately motivated to action by the ad. However advertising serves a wide range of functions beyond that. No one sees one Mercedes ad and goes out to purchase a $75k car. That doesn't mean that Mercedes is stupid for still buying TV ads. The ad is instead meant to do things like keep consumers updated on the latest produ…

Yes, and it would be good to try to measure that effect also, and for that the statistics and optimization stand to be more difficult and advanced. E.g., the main input is not just some ads and clicks but a stochastic process, that is, random variables indexed by time.

Uh, go measure something and get a number. You now have the value of a random variable. The sense in which the number is random or unknowable in advance, unpredictable, independent of something else, etc. is left open. Collect such data once, say, over 3 months, and now have a sample path of the stochastic process. Do it again and get another sample path, etc.

Post reply on HN