Live data from Hacker News

Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

techradar.com

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also raises the question: why does an executive need a consulting company to tell them to put less seeds on the bun? We can accept that "optimize" does not mean more...so...?

The question makes perfect sense to me. I don't know the ideal number of seeds on a bun off hand, and don't expect the executive does either. Do you know it?

Why would me knowing it matter?

So shareholders are paying for the exec, and they are paying for the consultant who is doing the exec's job?

If you work as an exec at MCD, working this out is the kind of thing that you should know. It is the reason why you are being paid money to be there.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#162
post #124

I'm confused, I never see any ads in Gmail (using the web interface or the mobile app), and I don't pay for it. Is that really still a thing? If my email app was showing me ads I'd obviously switch and/or start paying for it.

Gmail seems to only show ads if you have categories on.

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/3094499?hl=en&co=GENI...

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their financial model is similar to a TV or newspaper. Imagine you create a newspaper, you start out showing no ads, lots of people buy it, it is all good. Then you raise money from investors to grow, and they start asking for more revenue. So you add one advertisement. Then the investors want out, so you have to IPO...more ads. Then you have to keep the share price up because execs want options, and your HR consulta…

>The ability to add more advertisements is limited by the space in the newspaper, but there is almost no marginal cost associated with adding more ads. You are also limited by potentially causing users to stop buying the newspaper. Google will be matching the metrics to see if users actually use the app less when adding more ads. It's possibile there will be no statistically significant difference and consumers are o…

As I said, there is almost no chance that they reverse before the product is killed because they are optimizing for revenue, not user growth (and when you take this at the margin, increasing ads per page is the only way).

I have never seen a company stop before this point either. The institutional imperative to continue gaming the numbers is overwhelming.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#164

This is part of why I chose a paid e-mail service. 1: No ads, ever 2: No reason to sell my data. They already have income, and if users found out they were selling data, they'd quickly bail from it (At least with the service I use, which is aimed more at users with privacy concerns), which would ruin their steady revenue. 3: Actually a reason to IMPROVE the product, because again, users will leave if the competition…

How do you quickly bail from email? It is a lot of effort to switch to a new email. The friction to levave is so high that your points 2 and 3 are not true.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their financial model is similar to a TV or newspaper. Imagine you create a newspaper, you start out showing no ads, lots of people buy it, it is all good. Then you raise money from investors to grow, and they start asking for more revenue. So you add one advertisement. Then the investors want out, so you have to IPO...more ads. Then you have to keep the share price up because execs want options, and your HR consulta…

>The ability to add more advertisements is limited by the space in the newspaper, but there is almost no marginal cost associated with adding more ads. You are also limited by potentially causing users to stop buying the newspaper. Google will be matching the metrics to see if users actually use the app less when adding more ads. It's possibile there will be no statistically significant difference and consumers are o…

[deleted]

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#166

Google is run by MBAs now. This is all they know: how to maximize for next quarter's profits, or profits until their RSUs vest.

If you have a holdout group that doesn't get this new ad experience you can test if this change in okay to do long term. It's possible Google mispredicted how much ads were willing to tolerate and have been showing too few ads. Finding the right amount of ads is not optimising for the short term.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't why this happens. If you are an exec at MCD, your main focus is on making numbers. That is it. Your bonus is based on this, your options are based on beating expectations...nothing else matters. What this means in practice is that companies look for ways to cut costs and fill gaps when a number comes in light (because you can cut costs immediately but growing revenue requires long-term investment). And, ov…

Since you brought up McD's, then how do you explain why they're now rolling out Big Macs with more sauce, not less [1]? Along with a bunch of other improvements like melting cheese rather than sticking it on burgers cold. If nothing else matters than making numbers in a quarter, if companies "only ever cut back on things like product", then how do you explain this example of actual corporate behavior? It's not like M…

Is there a serious competitor to Google Search?

Like, not a distant competitor like Bing that poses some hypothetical future threat, but like, a present threat to Google Search that they battle against daily.

Likewise for the major other properties - Gmail? YouTube?

The only products where there is IMO intense daily competition is Android and Chrome, where Google's dominance is far from complete. In Google's top money-making properties the competition is pretty mild, and IMO we're seeing user-hostile changes because of it.

I would liken McDonald's more to Android than to Google Search. It exists in a furiously competitive landscape where market share moves significantly year-to-year, and despite being a dominant brand within its space it doesn't even come close to owning the entire space.

In any case, that's neither here nor there, I would like to engage with something you brought up that I do think is interesting:

> "On the other hand, if consumers are actively seeking out sesame seed buns, there is absolutely a point at which they notice and say, what the hell, this brand hardly has any sesame seeds, I'm going to buy the competing brand that still has a normal amount of sesame seeds."

This is true! And I think this moment is coming for Google. You are right - there are limits to how much you can shit up a product before consumers respond. I think the main thrust of your idea is legitimate: while a near-monopoly in a product category gives you a lot of leeway to fuck about with the product, that leeway is not infinite! At some point you're accountable to your users!

The argument isn't so much whether or not that threshold exists (IMO it clearly does), it's what happens organizationally when the company reaches that threshold and can't deal with it. If you've spent the last 10 years staffing your corporate management with sesame-removers, what happens when you finally hit the thresholds and your customers flee?

That to me is the more interesting question - whether or not Google's culture and staffing can navigate what's coming. They have hobbled along on early successes for too long, and IMO it remains to be seen if they are constitutionally able to handle a product crisis.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#168

I liken this to a sesame seed bun manufacturer. After some experimentation, they realize that shaving roughly 10 sesame seeds from each bun means they save one cent every 100 buns. They continue to sell the buns at the normal price and consumers are none the wiser: After all, who's going to notice 10 sesame seeds missing? But the sesame seed bun manufacturer continues the experiment. They continue to remove the seeds…

This is actually a real thing. I worked at a consulting company partnered with McDonald's and they asked if we could help them optimize the number of sesame seeds on their burger buns.

Now I wish I could see a timelapse segment of McDonald's burgers over the years to watch the progressive loss of sesame seeds.

Similarly, I believe Oreos have been optimized to death. A current Double Stuff is actually smaller than the original regular Stuff.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#169

Google now seems deep into the enshittification [1] process. Of all the big tech companies, they seemed the most customer-friendly, the least constrained by the need to optimize their money hose. But I guess the economic logic of tying executive compensation to short-term share price simply overwhelmed other considerations. The stock must go up, so revenues must grow, so Google must monetize everything to the maximum…

Am I naive to think that when you make $226 million in a year like Pichai that money should stop being your major driving force and that your reputation is more important? Like what else could he buy? But his reputation is taking severe hits. Maybe I just don't understand ultra rich people though. Maybe money is everything.

>Am I naive to think that when you make $226 million in a year like Pichai that money should stop being your major driving force and that your reputation is more important?

Perhaps it is, but your reputation among which group? HN users or the other billionaires that you're hanging out with?

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually a real thing. I worked at a consulting company partnered with McDonald's and they asked if we could help them optimize the number of sesame seeds on their burger buns.

Also raises the question: why does an executive need a consulting company to tell them to put less seeds on the bun? We can accept that "optimize" does not mean more...so...?

I think consulting company could just mean someone to do market research.

Produce buns with 200, 100, 50 seeds and do consumer surveys. Find that sweet spot before people start doubting the value proposition.

Edit: Any idiot can build a burger that people like, but it takes an engineer to build a burger that is just tolerable.

Post reply on HN