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

Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 933 posts

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#761

Post by matkoniecz »

Grustaf wrote: post #715
swiley wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're probably not in your target market but most people here probably know anything marked with "ad" is very likely to contain malware and probably won't click it even if they think it goes where they want.

Google ads are just links to sites, there’s absolutely no malware.

Why you think that website are unable to control malware or other harmful payloads?

In form of directly executing code or something encouraging to download and run programs containing it.

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#762

Post by KingOfCoders »

diarrhea wrote: post #745

This is now at 700 comments, and no one is talking about the math in the Twitter "thread". Found no mention in the Twitter replies either. Is it just me or is the math hilariously off? [0]: "10% of $150M is $15M". Correct, but do we need a screenshot of a calculator for that, let alone Google? (why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?) [1]: Talking about "2/3", but putting in "0.75". So which…

I had the same experience when marketeers talk about statistics, all of the most basic errors are made (e.g. when A/B testing or channel attribution).

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#763

Post by manigandham »

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #63
jedberg wrote: post #20

There was a freakonomics podcast recently about advertising (online and traditional). No one can actually prove it has any ROI at all. No one is willing to run the experiments necessary. In the few cases of natural experiments, where ads got turned off for some people by accident, there was no change in buying behavior. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-…

Gabriel Leydon of Machine Zone spoke to the general topic at Code/Media back in 2016. Basically discussing that they'd gone through the trouble of building internal expertise and tools for optimizing their ad spend to better ensure specific outcomes they desired/required in a way that would inevitably lead to more sophisticated ad buyers and putting a nail in the coffin of traditional media advertising. https://www.y…

This made the rounds in adtech in 2016 and it's really nothing special. His entire speech comes down to a single quote: "media will be quantified".

Sure, everyone wants that. Precise attribution has been the holy grail for a long time and the struggles are far larger than just a few technology products. The new battleground is first-party data and clean rooms vs privacy regulations. And that's after dealing with all the politics and perverse incentives that happen in such a massive industry.

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#764

Post by Maro »

diarrhea wrote: post #745

This is now at 700 comments, and no one is talking about the math in the Twitter "thread". Found no mention in the Twitter replies either. Is it just me or is the math hilariously off? [0]: "10% of $150M is $15M". Correct, but do we need a screenshot of a calculator for that, let alone Google? (why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?) [1]: Talking about "2/3", but putting in "0.75". So which…

You are right, but also you asked for it by being pedantic: "common" should be "come on" :)

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#765

Post by paulie_a »

shadowgovt wrote: post #528
megameter wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple isn't repairable. Apple devices have high prices simply because of the brand ecosystem. Old Thinkpads use commodity parts - but they command good prices because they are repairable. Marketing the new thing is what Apple does. It is good at it. That is not the entire spectrum of customer value.

Thinkpads are pretty much the worst form factor for a laptop that doesn't transition into "toy" space. Source: forced to use one daily. If I could get a Mac laptop running Linux but with the input smarts of the Apple trackpad and keyboard, I would in a heartbeat.

I recommend a dell xps 13 developer edition

The trackpad is superior to apples and it can come preloaded with linux

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#766

Post by hncommenter13 »

treis wrote: post #177
kortilla wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Coca Cola rent seeking? How about Apple? I suspect you aren’t using that term correctly but maybe I’m missing something.

Effectively every restaurant in the US has to pay either PepsiCo or Coca Cola. Similarly, if you want to buy a non-alcoholic beverage at the grocery store it's mostly down to those two (with Dr. Pepper having a much smaller but still significant stake). Any competitor that emerges just gets bought up by one of the three. Apple's half of the phone Duopoly. Either you pay them or pay Google if you want a phone and want…

I'm not sure this is quite right. I would have thought that most restaurants very much WANT to sell sodas, as the margins are enormous--much, much higher than the margins on cooked food.

This page [0], for instance, says the cost of goods sold for the soda itself is a penny an ounce for the syrup and CO2. Iced tea is apparently the margin champion, as the same page indicates it can cost as little as a penny per glass.

[0] https://www.restaurantowner.com/public/Restaurant-Rules-of-T...

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#767

Post by ing33k »

diarrhea wrote: post #745

This is now at 700 comments, and no one is talking about the math in the Twitter "thread". Found no mention in the Twitter replies either. Is it just me or is the math hilariously off? [0]: "10% of $150M is $15M". Correct, but do we need a screenshot of a calculator for that, let alone Google? (why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?) [1]: Talking about "2/3", but putting in "0.75". So which…

Some one had mentioned it in the thread. Looks like it's deleted now.

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#768

Post by antonvs »

Maro wrote: post #764
diarrhea wrote: post #745

This is now at 700 comments, and no one is talking about the math in the Twitter "thread". Found no mention in the Twitter replies either. Is it just me or is the math hilariously off? [0]: "10% of $150M is $15M". Correct, but do we need a screenshot of a calculator for that, let alone Google? (why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?) [1]: Talking about "2/3", but putting in "0.75". So which…

You are right, but also you asked for it by being pedantic: "common" should be "come on" :)

Or "c'mon," if you want to abbreviate it.

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#769

Post by Razengan »

Razengan wrote: post #85
jedberg wrote: post #20

There was a freakonomics podcast recently about advertising (online and traditional). No one can actually prove it has any ROI at all. No one is willing to run the experiments necessary. In the few cases of natural experiments, where ads got turned off for some people by accident, there was no change in buying behavior. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-…

I’ve thought and said so before: The ads racket is be a case of the emperor with no clothes, at best. At worst, it’s a front for building “profiles” of everyone. I can’t recall the last time I bought anything -because- of an ad. If anything, ads have sometimes actually put me OFF from buying something!

Oh look, yet another news about how the advertisement economy fucks up more shit than it benefits:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25624112

“URL shorteners set ad tracking cookies”

Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend

#770

Post by beardedscotsman »

thehappypm wrote: post #682
jedberg wrote: post #20

There was a freakonomics podcast recently about advertising (online and traditional). No one can actually prove it has any ROI at all. No one is willing to run the experiments necessary. In the few cases of natural experiments, where ads got turned off for some people by accident, there was no change in buying behavior. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-…

This is blatantly false. It’s incredibly easy to prove that digital advertising is effective using A/B testing.

I think they did the A/B testing by switching off 100m of ads and having the same results.
Post reply on HN