21–30 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If advertisement is paid per click, and not per impression, Google itself is interested in better targeting of what to display to whom, because it frees up inventory without impacting revenue.
if you have less impressions, most likely you will get less clicks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If advertisement is paid per click, and not per impression, Google itself is interested in better targeting of what to display to whom, because it frees up inventory without impacting revenue.
if you have less impressions, most likely you will get less clicks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but generally, what works best when doing statistical prediction is not what is the most intuitive. Also, even though your example is obviously not meant to be taken as is, it shows that targeted demographics quickly don't have a lot of data behind them. Successful…
Who says it's about effectiveness of the ad? It might just be effectiveness of getting money from the advertisers. More data means you can do more hand-waving to say that this ad will be the one that really really reaches people this time.
Unethical behavior does not scale in business, no matter how much your calculations rationalize it. In the end people just go away from sleazy businesses. GM and Ford might tell you a story about it and millions of others short term profit oriented businesses also.
Theres only so much bullshit you can pile up before your reputation catches on to you.
Great usage of the G+ photo viewer for slides, but I don't think G+'s main focus is about moving apps/games into the cloud .. The most convincing argument I have heard is that 'social signals' are (going to be?) a fantastic resource for cutting through the spammy, link-swapping www of today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but generally, what works best when doing statistical prediction is not what is the most intuitive. Also, even though your example is obviously not meant to be taken as is, it shows that targeted demographics quickly don't have a lot of data behind them. Successful…
Who says it's about effectiveness of the ad? It might just be effectiveness of getting money from the advertisers. More data means you can do more hand-waving to say that this ad will be the one that really really reaches people this time.
A lot of sales guys sell by telling stories, not necessarily by persuading metrics, and all the contextual data makes for GREAT stories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says it's about effectiveness of the ad? It might just be effectiveness of getting money from the advertisers. More data means you can do more hand-waving to say that this ad will be the one that really really reaches people this time.
Because in the end if ads are not effective, you won't be getting money from the advertisers anymore. Marketers can't know in advance which marketing channels will work - so they kinda carpet bomb with their campaigns. However once they start getting data, they sure as hell kill of the channels that don't work. Unethical behavior does not scale in business, no matter how much your calculations rationalize it. In the…
Why do people buy Coca Cola? Is it because of the tremendously expensive advertisements they put out or is it because the stuff is ubiquitous, tastes fairly good and is usually not surrounded by a lot of competing products at the places where it's sold?
Don't believe me? What about if you're in a restaurant that sells only Pepsi. Do you leave the restaurant in search of another that sells Coca-Cola? Most people probably don't, thereby proving that all the so-called "positive emotions" advertisements instill in consumers do absolutely nothing when the time comes to make purchase. Theoretically, yes, in a situation where you can choose either Pepsi or Coca-Cola for (roughly) the same price, Coca-Cola's advertising campain may have an effect, but such situations are exceedingly rare. In most purchasing decisions there are variables that have much more significance than the advertising history of the products.
So ads are, probably, not effective. And despite this fact, there has been an industry selling them for over a century and that industry has been getting richer and richer, thereby proving that you can perfectly well build a business on scamming people and keeping it up indefinitely. You do, however, have to keep playing around with some superficial parameters of your business model to keep it convincing. Which is exactly what Google is doing here.
(btw, I use - and love - Google's services, but never in my life have I clicked one of their ads or even looked at one for more than a split second)
On Facebook you buy ads for ~$1+ because you can set target demographic to something as specfic as "women; 42-47 years old; looking for relationships with other women; with a degree in biology or computer science; attened Harvard; Works at IBM; who likes horseback riding or skiing" Imagine if google knew BOTH your search term and your complete personal history. Then the ad price and conversion would increase enormous…
I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but generally, what works best when doing statistical prediction is not what is the most intuitive. Also, even though your example is obviously not meant to be taken as is, it shows that targeted demographics quickly don't have a lot of data behind them. Successful…
I disagree, for certain businesses it is more beneficial then Adwords. I have had really good experiences with Facebook Ads.