Can someone explain the tweet for me please? I am really confused on what she's trying to say.
Uber were running ads, and some of them were appearing on Breitbart. There's a campaign called "sleeping giants" that looks at a company's corporate values, and looks at where that company is advertising, and asks whether that ad placement is compatible with the values. Breitbart has freedom to say what they like, but customers of Uber don't have to buy the megaphone. Uber tried to pull the ads from Breitbart. But th…
Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
291–300 of 933 posts
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#292Advertising is about awareness. All good marketing is long-term. Digital advertising has been sold (by overzealous marketers) as magical 1:1 sales machines. It is almost always not that.
This is the hardest thing to convey to clients. Clients want a promise and a guarantee on their investment. The truth is there are no gurantees. But that is what clients want so they go with whoever promises the most the most confidently. The most confident ones are usually either lying or don’t know what they are talking about.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#293Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah so that’s the weird part that I didn’t mention. These ads only run in the US.
This might help you fix the problem: Google Ads default settings for location targeting is based on "Presence or interest" in a location, not whether the user is actually in the targeted country. That means even if you have "United States" selected as your target, your ads will still show mostly to people outside the US who "show interest in" the US. To fix it: Campaign Settings > Location > Location Options, and und…
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#295>Stopped [some] Spending on Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why? [Added "some" for clarity.] Let me try to restate the author's article because he presents it in a confusing way. The issue is that both Google and Facebook have "core ad tech" that works decently with proven ROI -- and they both have "additional ad tech inventory" (a.k.a the partners/affiliates) that's much lower quality : Facebook "quality" ad placemen…
Source?
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#296As a person who has never used Chase, I'm not going to suddenly want to switch to them just because I saw a banner ad. That would be ridiculous. It's the sum of all the Chase advertisements I've seen in the past decades that have made me believe they're a popular and trustworthy bank.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#297Google derives 80% of its revenue from ads, Facebook 99%. Imagine these giants coming down if it turns out that online ads aren't effective?
EDIT: Tweaked the wording regarding the alleged "coordinated takedown" as a reaction to a comment.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#298For research we made ads which were grey, flat field, and basically said "please don't click on me" and we got astronomical numbers of clicks sometimes. Hmm...
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#299You can A/B test ads pretty easily, and this is quite common. With some degree of statistical certainty, you can tell how one ad performs to another. You don't have control over your SEO results as well - but you can also measure against SEO traffic with a high degree of certainty. All big companies do this. Sure, you're never going to know exactly how many people you advertised to would have organically, eventually…
> Sure, you're never going to know exactly how many people you advertised to would have organically, eventually found your product and bought it. But that honestly doesn't seem that important compared to the other metrics... Wait, why wouldn't that be important? It seems like the most important question since it asks whether advertising has any significant impact at all.
Moreover, most companies started small at some point so advertising and maintaining advertising made sense up to a point.
And if we look at those companies where maybe advertising actually doesn't help, companies that have reached a level of success where organic referrals and public awareness drive most of their business. And they're ongoing businesses that probably reached that level through advertising and have money now to use for that.
But not only are they already advertising but they don't if their word-of-mouth/public-knowledge presence will last indefinitely, they don't know if just word-of-mouth would let them control their image, would stand-up against future competitors ads and so-forth. So, even supposing you could show advertising didn't offer any immediate increase in customers, continuing to spend on it doesn't seem to me as irrational as it sounds.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is willing to run the experiments necessary The people that would have the power to run this experiment have their entire careers depending on things staying as-is. Running the experiment carries a significant risk of exposing that the advertising operations they're responsible for provide much less ROI than they pretend it does. The unwillingness of anyone to run such an experiment is already an answer. Why…
I work in the field. Incrementality testing is a big part of marketing measurement at any reputable agency. Any claims to the contrary are FUD. That said, companies like P&G, Airbnb, and Uber, which are oft-cited as examples of digital not being worth it, fail to understand their own brand recognition and organic power, built through prior marketing efforts, as key to their current standing. Sure, TODAY, it doesn’t h…
I worked next desk to people running a small ad agency. Because we shared office (and I found them an intern), I got a very good look at how they're working. What I've seen can be summarized as: people who have zero clue or interest in statistics writing "reports", with "graphs" they don't even understand beyond "pointing up = good", proving positive ROI to customers - who also have zero clue or interest in understanding the numbers in the report, and not enough visibility into the whole funnel to independently check attribution. Both the agency and the clients were engaging in a shared and completely unjustified fiction of positive advertising return - and as long as both sides were happy, the money kept flowing.
I've been long since suspecting a lot of advertising on-line looks like that. Every now and then, I see evidence in favor. Like that good ol' Optimizely debacle, where it turned out Optimizely was structurally optimized to help people make invalid A/B tests, that erred on the side of concluding the interventions were working[0]. And sure, big brands with some superstar ad teams probably do this right. But I think there's enough slack in most businesses that advertising spend can get quite far detached from actual ROI without anyone noticing (and with plenty of people happily riding the gravy train).
--