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

Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#31

Post by quickthrower2 »

neya wrote: post #16

My theory is - it's probably on purpose. If you spent $100 to reach your audience, your ROI would be pretty good for the $100. What if you spent $200 for the same audience reach? You still get results, albeit it's a bit more expensive now. But still better than other competitors out there because they don't have as much granular data about a user as Facebook does. Not even Google has this level of detail (Who are you…

Google has your intent though and possibly that’s a lot more powerful. “Pharmacy my town” is pretty clear.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#32

Post by stickfigure »

mjburgess wrote: post #5

This shows the limitations of ML: facebook has incredible amounts of preference & behaviour data on its users; and can't even meet incredibly generic categories such as "high-earner, college educated, etc.". The reason we think we're in an "AI" boom is 90% these ad. companies hyping their own abilities (an identical strategy to that of the initial boom in the 50s). What we call "AI" today is just an associative house…

I guess there's two ways of looking at this:

* 40% of targeted viewers didn't match "high-earner, college educated", the system is crap!

or

* 60% of targeted viewers did match "high-earner, college educated", that's amazing!

I dunno... do you have a better way of reaching those targeted viewers? Do you have a better way of measuring results than abstract page views? Depending on the context, 60% could be very worth it.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#33

Post by ashtonkem »

mjburgess wrote: post #5

This shows the limitations of ML: facebook has incredible amounts of preference & behaviour data on its users; and can't even meet incredibly generic categories such as "high-earner, college educated, etc.". The reason we think we're in an "AI" boom is 90% these ad. companies hyping their own abilities (an identical strategy to that of the initial boom in the 50s). What we call "AI" today is just an associative house…

According to FB metrics, FB AI magic works great. Then again, according to FB metrics video engaged better than text ... and it turns out they were lying. I wouldn’t put it past them to goose the numbers a bit for their core product.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#34

Post by [deleted] »

stickfigure wrote: post #32
mjburgess wrote: post #5

This shows the limitations of ML: facebook has incredible amounts of preference & behaviour data on its users; and can't even meet incredibly generic categories such as "high-earner, college educated, etc.". The reason we think we're in an "AI" boom is 90% these ad. companies hyping their own abilities (an identical strategy to that of the initial boom in the 50s). What we call "AI" today is just an associative house…

I guess there's two ways of looking at this: * 40% of targeted viewers didn't match "high-earner, college educated", the system is crap! or * 60% of targeted viewers did match "high-earner, college educated", that's amazing! I dunno... do you have a better way of reaching those targeted viewers? Do you have a better way of measuring results than abstract page views? Depending on the context, 60% could be very worth i…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#35

Post by aeternum »

stickfigure wrote: post #32
mjburgess wrote: post #5

This shows the limitations of ML: facebook has incredible amounts of preference & behaviour data on its users; and can't even meet incredibly generic categories such as "high-earner, college educated, etc.". The reason we think we're in an "AI" boom is 90% these ad. companies hyping their own abilities (an identical strategy to that of the initial boom in the 50s). What we call "AI" today is just an associative house…

I guess there's two ways of looking at this: * 40% of targeted viewers didn't match "high-earner, college educated", the system is crap! or * 60% of targeted viewers did match "high-earner, college educated", that's amazing! I dunno... do you have a better way of reaching those targeted viewers? Do you have a better way of measuring results than abstract page views? Depending on the context, 60% could be very worth i…

Yes, humans are also notoriously bad at Bayesian probability. This may actually be extremely impressive if high earners make up something like less than 1% of general page views.

In that case, non-targeted advertising gives you a <1% chance of reaching your audience per impression. FB is much better.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#36

Post by meekrohprocess »

rattray wrote: post #19
at-fates-hands wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can support what you're saying with the same experience. I did some SEO for a local landscape company. They were already doing well, but asked me about doing ads on FB. I told them I thought it was a scam, but they persisted so I ran a few campaigns for irrigation in the Spring and then fall cleanup starting in August. Same thing happened. They got a ton of impressions and clicks (no surprise) and a about a dozen l…

What could explain the mechanics of how this happens? Surely FB employees aren't managing those bot accounts themselves. Do they generally determine accounts that engage with ads to be "human/real", thereby incentivizing bad actors who spin up fake FB accounts to click/"like" ads?

They could also do it at arm's length. A lot of MTurk-style sites have loads of jobs along the lines of, "click this ad, fill out this form, get $0.02".

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#37

Post by auganov »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #11
giarc wrote: post #2

This doesn't surprise me at all. I've run a few, albeit very small, campaigns on FB. I set up targetting (occupation and geography) and I would get people outside of my target 'liking' my ad. I'd reach out anyways to ask if they are interested in my product and they would never respond. I oftened wondered if they were just fake/bot accounts to make it look like my ads were getting attention. I'm glad some company has…

I can support what you're saying with the same experience. I did some SEO for a local landscape company. They were already doing well, but asked me about doing ads on FB. I told them I thought it was a scam, but they persisted so I ran a few campaigns for irrigation in the Spring and then fall cleanup starting in August. Same thing happened. They got a ton of impressions and clicks (no surprise) and a about a dozen l…

How were the bids setup? When you underbid you'll get matched with people nobody wants. Also if real users aren't interested in whatever interaction you're soliciting you're bound to only get bots.

I've done some FB advertising for news type content (much easier to target properly) and was getting incredible value for the money. Usually it's pretty obvious real fast if you're getting real action or not and you can adjust accordingly.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#38

Post by indigochill »

stickfigure wrote: post #32
mjburgess wrote: post #5

This shows the limitations of ML: facebook has incredible amounts of preference & behaviour data on its users; and can't even meet incredibly generic categories such as "high-earner, college educated, etc.". The reason we think we're in an "AI" boom is 90% these ad. companies hyping their own abilities (an identical strategy to that of the initial boom in the 50s). What we call "AI" today is just an associative house…

I guess there's two ways of looking at this: * 40% of targeted viewers didn't match "high-earner, college educated", the system is crap! or * 60% of targeted viewers did match "high-earner, college educated", that's amazing! I dunno... do you have a better way of reaching those targeted viewers? Do you have a better way of measuring results than abstract page views? Depending on the context, 60% could be very worth i…

>... do you have a better way of reaching those targeted viewers?

I'd be curious to see how blogs do at targeting certain demographics. Presumably if you had a blog aimed at high-earning college educated people you could get a pretty high ratio of (target demographic/all viewers).

But I assume advertisers generally trust metrics more than intuition so you need something like Facebook or Google's ad network to identify someone as belonging to a certain demographic before the advertiser will believe it.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#39

Post by Ozzie_osman »

I'm no fan of Facebook, but honestly, this doesn't seem like a big deal. Actually, online ad networks like FB or Google are way more transparent than the alternatives. Sure, when you say you want to target X it's not going to be 100% X, the data is noisy.

Ultimately, the data speaks for itself. You can see impressions, clicks, and conversions, and it's almost instant. If you don't like the results, you stop/change your campaign.

Re: Facebook managers trash their own ad targeting in unsealed remarks

#40

Post by netik »

It’s hard to say Facebook’s targeting is completely garbage while at the same time understanding that Cambridge analytica, Trump, and others were able to use their micro targeting to sway elections.

Obviously the targeting works. But,like most software, I’m sure it is buggy. Probably both sides of this are true.

Post reply on HN