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

801–810 of 933 posts

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

#801

Post by ksec »

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…

Thanks it was causing me headaches when I was reading the thread. I thought it was some marketing terms and calculation I had no idea about.

What how much did they actually saved? Apology in advance because I really couldn't grasp what she was saying.

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

#802

Post by acfou »

reilly3000 wrote: post #416

As a publisher and ad network vet, I can vouch that Dr. Fou knows his stuff. He’s been one of the clearest voices about the mechanics of ad fraud. Any engineer would be enlightened at what wild escapades have been hacked into DOMs around the world on the backs of starving publishers. Any business person would see how much ad fraud has shaped the world we live it. He’s a fellow that’s definitely worth a follow!

thank you!

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

#803

Post by MisterTea »

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…

>(why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?)

Because most computers lack a copy of bc in /bin.

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

#804

Post by acfou »

soared wrote: post #348

Augustine fou is basically a troll in r/adops.

the adops community helps me to understand the mechanics and when i don't know something I usually turn to that community to ask questions.

most are helpful, but a few anonymous ones spend their time making polls that make fun of me; but that's OK, I know it comes with the territory

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

#805

Post by iamacyborg »

V_9 wrote: post #759
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…

Yes, but marketers don't really care about math. Only about the numbers! You would expect a few hiccups and a steep learning curve when the product they are trying to buy is a bid for visibility on insanely complex networks of platforms using said rocket science to guess where one's mind is at. Disclaimer: worked years in the space on the topic of performance, only one time ever have i seen an AB test correctly run a…

Hah, exactly what I was writing about here

https://www.jacquescorbytuech.com/writing/marketers-addicted...

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

#806

Post by nkrisc »

skinkestek wrote: post #658
nkrisc wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a look at people who have been caught in extra-marital affairs I think you'll find those three qualities are not immediate disqualifiers. Maybe the "happily" part, but how does Google know that?

> Maybe the "happily" part, but how does Google know that? 3 hints for Google: 1. I newer showed any interest in those ads. 2. I never sought out anything related. 3. I repeatedly put in the effort to mark these ads as irrelevant.

Maybe Google knows something about married, church-going men with children the rest of us assume to not be true.

Not that it applies to you, but more generally to a similar demographic.

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

#807

Post by iamacyborg »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #772
roenxi wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prefacing this with an acceptance both that HN culturally has US management principles and that I've got no idea how to run a business... Why is it an initial assumption that customer acquisition and ad spend are linked short or even medium term? That doesn't seem right. When I see an ad for washing machines it doesn't make me run out and buy a washing machine. It gets me familiar with Samsung the brand so in 6-12 mo…

Well then it becomes a question of attribution. How do you with a finite amount of dollars to spend on advertising know if you are getting your money's worth when you cannot connect a dollar spent on ad with incoming revenue? Sure in broad strokes you are probably right that brand awareness has ROI positive in the long term. But then why would you buy targeted advertising vs a giant billboard on the main road?

> Well then it becomes a question of attribution. How do you with a finite amount of dollars to spend on advertising know if you are getting your money's worth when you cannot connect a dollar spent on ad with incoming revenue?

The problem with attribution is that it's entirely flawed. Just compare what Google Analytics reports for a campaign vs what Facebook is reporting for the same thing. They'll give you different results and in most cases you probably shouldn't trust either.

BUT, what they do is provide an easily accessible number that you can show your boss to show you had results. This is massively flawed but most marketers don't understand the mechanics of advertising or tracking well enough to understand why they're reporting garbage data.

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

#808

Post by iamacyborg »

TriNetra wrote: post #650
nutanc wrote: post #522

We did a similar kind of experiment some time back and found both FB ads and Google ads were doing jack shit for us. Google was better. FB ads were absolutely useless. So we stopped our ad spend. We observed no change in our customer acquisition. Another way these ad engines extract money out of you is by allowing competitors to bid for your brand name keyword. Try searching for Ozonetel on Google. There will be six…

> For ex, one ad network launched “battery saver” style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone. > When you type the word “Uber” into your Google Play, it auto-fires a click to make it look like you clicked on an Uber ad and attribute the install to themselves. Isn't above an example of a criminal intent of deliberate fraud?

Ad fraud is HUGE online.

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

#809

Post by trophycase »

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-…

It's an arms race. In theory advertising should give you an edge over non-advertising competitors, but if everyone is doing it demand remains unchanged and also you're wasting money

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

#810

Post by ksec »

edgyquant wrote: post #738
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, FB ads were worse than useless for my business, all they attracted was 90% fraud. Looking at what business Ozonetel is in (i.e. sales are directed towards business owners), I'm not suprised FB ads were also worthless for you. I get the sense FB ads are really only good for things a consumer might impulse buy (e.g. clothing, games, small gifts, etc.) but anything where the user is probably going to do som…

Facebook ads are the worst from a users perspective. I bought a floor mat through them once and for the next week all the ads were for floor mats. I just bought one I’m not interested in buying another. I bought a PC chair recently with my credit card, now I see a bunch of ads for PC chairs, again, I don’t need another one.

Well no one has a plausible explanation on it yet but with some of the highest A/B testing ratio and best Data Scientist Amazon too seems to think this works.

And yes I agree it sucks.

Post reply on HN