71–80 of 92 posts
The $340 million in Google Ads credits is self serving bullcrap. They are going to flood their ad markets with credits so that they can keep CPMs inflated so that the real advertisers have to continue paying inflated prices.
With all the negative press on Google, I was expecting this to be a decent PR move. Reading the announcement is somewhat sobering though. Most of it (590 million) are ad "credits" or "grants". Keep in mind that Google ad revenue in 2019 was 134 billion. > $250 million in ad grants to help the World Health Organization (WHO) and more than 100 government agencies globally provide critical information on how to prevent…
Google recently blocked advertisements around COVID19 and related issues. Would you please at least look it up before making this kind of assumptions?
https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google thinks Ads are the solution? No, they see their Ad sales declining, so they are trying to stimulate their own business with this act. "Grants" to new customers so they hopefully become buying customers in the future; loans (nothing like becoming a lender in this economy); and of course grants/loans will just bid up ad prices on existing customers. Not to mention all the major business just highjacked $5.75T f…
The grants are for existing customers, not new customers.
>$340 million in Google Ads credits available to all SMBs with active accounts over the past year. Credit notifications will appear in their Google Ads accounts and can be used at any point until the end of 2020 across our advertising platforms. We hope it will help to alleviate some of the cost of staying in touch with their customers.
And you seem to be overlooking/ignoring:
>Google offers every employee annually to $10,000 from $7,500. That means our employees can now give $20,000 to organizations in their communities, in addition to the $50 million Google.org has already donated.
$20,000 x 100,000 employees = $2B in discretionary credits (not dedicated to new customers, but certainly does not exclude them)
With all the negative press on Google, I was expecting this to be a decent PR move. Reading the announcement is somewhat sobering though. Most of it (590 million) are ad "credits" or "grants". Keep in mind that Google ad revenue in 2019 was 134 billion. > $250 million in ad grants to help the World Health Organization (WHO) and more than 100 government agencies globally provide critical information on how to prevent…
> Is the WHO seriously supposed to have a marketing team optimizing ad spending on Google during a pandemic so they rank higher than some "Coronavirus is a hox" article? Google recently blocked advertisements around COVID19 and related issues. Would you please at least look it up before making this kind of assumptions? https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/...
I hadn't seen that, thanks for pointing it out.
There are still ads for terms like "breathing mask" though, so it could probably be circumvented to some extent. But that's to be expected and probably unavoidable.
Especially in light of these efforts, it still seems weird to me though to encourage institutions to use ads for information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Google could afford to spend a couple billions more to fund the manufacturing and distribution of masks and ventillators. Not couple billions, but still the last bullet point is exactly what you're saying. > Also, Google employs some of the best marketers on the planet, they should be showing ads for how to wear masks correctly and for practical safety guidelines, and leverage everything they've learned abo…
> Not couple billions I think we should stop giving them a pass. If they can spend billions on fines, it's possible that they could afford to spend a comparable amount to help people and save lives. Don't you find it insulting that the bulk of the support package is ad credits? > Google seems promoting the following link in their top page Only if you search for coronavirus tips and related terms, that is nowhere near…
I explicitly stated the phrase "in their top page", not "in their search page".
This is NOT funding : - $250 million in ad grants ... - $340 million in Google Ads credits ... - A pool of $20 million in Google Cloud credits ... A company that has a Bazillion $ in the bank, has means to really make a difference. This is not. Edit/Clarification: The original title was: "$800M funding and grants to support ..". Now they changed it. I take issue with the claim of providing funding, and all they offer…
Why does a company with a Bazillion dollars in the bank need to be a charity? If we agree that's the case, we should tax companies more. If not, what's the problem?
By no means should any company be required to do this - but I know I'm going to take a close look at who I'm spending my money with when this is all over, and I'll be doing it through the lens of what they have contributed back to the communities that let them thrive in the first place.
I hope I'm not the only one.