Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

861–870 of 933 posts

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

#861
post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also happens to be the sole form of revenue all of the largest tech firms enjoy I don't think this is true unless you qualify it a bit. Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, don't make most of their money on ads. Even Google has other revenue streams.

> Even Google has other revenue streams. How long do they survive in their current form relying solely on them?

Days, probably, but that's not the point

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

#862

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? It's faster than opening a dedicated calculator program. If you're in a browser already, just ctrl-t and type your equation.

CMD-Space is just as quick and works system-wide. There is a Windows equivalent as well. Works when the net is down too.

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

#863
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, care to define your terms? Second, inefficient relative to what? Third, so far, what you've written here looks like a rant, not a predictive theory nor a powerful explanatory theory. Would you like to quantify your claim? Or at least make it more precise? As it is, I don't think it advances your argument. I'm interested in strong logic, data, explanations, and persuasion. I see none yet.

> Second, inefficient relative to what? The sad thing is it's not inefficiency relative comparable things. But anyone that has worked at these places or sold B2B to them just knows it on intuitive level that they are garbage, and need a heavy sedative to think there are no alternative. > not a predictive theory nor a powerful explanatory theory It's not. It's about letting go of some efficient market ideal and then f…

> the inefficiency of everyone cooking and cleaning is starting to have market implications

Elaborate on your reasoning here? While I can maybe imagine a more centralized food preparation system being more efficient, the currently growing market solutions (DoorDash, etc.) are certainly not, and I can't think of a system in which transporting clothing somewhere for someone else to clean would be more efficient than an in-home washing machine. The wasted energy alone would be colossal.

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

#864
The Uber incident has been known for almost a year. There are other instances, mostly undisclosed audits which have shown similar results. One audit revealed $220m in ad spend for a global brand with a +$500m budget had no impact on their results, it was vapor. On the finding of these results, they didn't want public embarrassment or the hit to their share price.

Not everyone in the industry is fraud, not everyone in the industry is a huckster. But most of the industry is people talking up their game and creating a facade, from Brand CMOs to Pubs gaming their performance numbers. Fraud can be reduced, but few want to engage in the rigor and even less want to recognize actual/validated performance when the current fiction suits their purposes more easily.

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

#865

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.

I have an established personal opinion on this, and the opinion is that I'm glad that things are this way. It means that ads are pretty dumb and relatively harmless so far and I can easily ignore them. Floor mats? Tough luck bud, I just bought one.

Now, when the ads begin predicting what I would want the next day—that's when I start worrying.

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

#866
post #752

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…

Reading this thread I really start to feel people don't understand what fraud is. You shouldn't be calling it fraud when in the next paragraph you say that FB does work for impulse buys and not "ozonetel" Just because your ads didn't convert, or 90% of the traffic you buy didn't convert, doesn't make it fraud. Fraud is malice, with the intention to defraud someone and not deliver what you promise, with intent. This i…

You've misunderstood what I wrote. When I'm saying that "90% of what we got what was fraud", I mean that 90% of the traffic that did convert from FB ads were users that were trying to scam us (it was a financial services app), I mean literally steal money from us with things like stolen credit cards.

The general user quality you get from Facebook Ads is atrocious.

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

#867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, this is the problem. There is no centralised log of what people bought, which is what you'd need to actually fix this problem.

A good argument, but it happens on Amazon when the search, research, and purchase were all on Amazon.

ML is pretty shitty at causal inference

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

#868
post #817
post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon enjoy that kind of thing too. Look at a product page, Amazon ads become for that product or similar ones. Buy it, and... they still want me to buy another one. And they wonder why people use ad blockers...

I've seen the theory floated that people return so much stuff that shortly after buying a thing you are indeed most likely to buy another, slightly different one of the same kind, and that explains the weird categories where it happens. (and for lots of things Amazon sells recommending similar items does make some sense, although I would expect a bigger spacing in time sometimes.

Also that brand satisfaction is related to how it performs relative to other offerings. If you just dropped $44k on a new vehicle, they want to make sure that you're seeing fancy cars, thinking about how nice and luxurious they are, etc.

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

#869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, this is the problem. There is no centralised log of what people bought, which is what you'd need to actually fix this problem.

A good argument, but it happens on Amazon when the search, research, and purchase were all on Amazon.

Yup, I get "buy it again" prompts on nearly all of my recent purchases, even when they are all durable goods that don't expire or require restocking, like say a tablet case.

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

#870
post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use google for maths because it's the fastest thing I can get to and TYPE my maths in without having to open a new application. You can even just type it in the search bar of Chrome/Edge and see the result immediately

Both Windows and macOS support calculations in their respective system-wide search bars (Win key on Windows vs Cmd-Space for Spotlight on macOS). They both support pretty cool stuff like sqrt(9), 13^37, but Spotlight edges it slightly by also support bit shifting like 1 << 10 == 1024.

Nice tip, I just realized spotlight has currency and unit conversions that I typically get from google.
Post reply on HN