Live data from Hacker News

I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

dayzlegame.com

221–230 of 433 posts

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#221
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And the pay for these things is "access to 500+ TB Jellyfin-like movie services for free" Of course, it's all pirated out of country. And the pay is being a residential proxy. And piracy being the only way to actually own, I'm not imaging this will stop anytime soon.

Wait, so I can have free movies and subvert the adtech business model at the same time? What's the catch?

[deleted]

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> advertising isn't nearly as effective as advertisers let on Most marketers should know exactly how effective their ads are by measuring to the end of the funnel. This is standard for most business and while bots are a problem, if you're judging online advertising at the front end of the funnel that's to a large part on them for a bad setup and/or optimisation.

If the marketer is an employee or a consultant, is it in their interest to show that the ad-spend they are controlling is high ROI, or low ROI. Maybe this is a cynical take, but, if they get to the bottom of things, and show their boss/client that the ad-spend is not returning so much, it seems it would portend bad things for the marketer. I really don't know, and it seems like a very hard problem. Maybe this is the…

That's not how ad performance is measured. Your ROI is based on end conversions. You need to know if your leads are _good_, not just plentiful. A company that doesn't do this at the start will figure it out pretty quickly.

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that makes no sense. They only need a tiny device to act as a proxy. It makes no sense to colocate the expensive GPUs

Yeah, the usual approach here is to offer a free VPN service, and then piggyback traffic over the user’s internet provider. Much, much more scalable and cheaper than offering to put GPUs at a user’s home.

Wow, that's genius. Basically, user gets a VPN but so does provider, in a sense.

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happened to us. We were large enough to have an admob rep who reached out to the IVT team for help. After our first appeal was rejected, our rep negotiated a second appeal attempt but he said “This time make sure you take full responsibility for the IVT getting through. Funny part to me was Google was the only network bidding on these bots while others must have detected something and stayed out. We submit…

I keep hearing this same story over and over. It's starting to sound like that's just Google's business model.

I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly no reason. Wouldn't maximizing all legitimate participation be much better? Also seems a lot more possible to do now with AI to check all campaigns, landing pages, etc.

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in large, it works. We only hear from people for whom it doesn’t work.

I think Google's business model in large part is having a super complicated ad console that very few, if anyone, actually knows how to most efficiently operate. So what happens is that the savvy media teams figure out what works through meticulous trial and error, and constantly monitor Googles weird changes to the levers you are given to operate the "console."

That seems in the interest of the savvy media teams, but surely Google would be better off having a market that encourages all healthy competition?

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#227
post #226

The article summary says:how a bot farm gets paid" But that's not in the article and I don't get it: what's in it for these bot networks, how do they get paid?

My guess is they own accounts which show the ads, so they get paid for showing ads. This is similar how those "get free money" apps work, they own Ad account and get paid when you view/click that ad.

Another theory is since lots free games have where you can earn in-game currency for viewing ads, the bot farms might be abusing this method.

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#228
We had a similar issue with Reddit, spent $500 and got a lot of clicks - none of them ever did anything else, not even by mistake. When we reported this behavior to Reddit, the rep who helped us set up the campaign just vanished. No answer. After a while, another rep came out and asked if we were interested in advertising on Reddit. Explained the situation and... poof! this other rep disappeared too.

My feeling is that this is systemic, and basically it's the very business model. I remember the first account explaining how the initial budget should be a few thousand dollars, so that "the AI could target effectively". It did target effectively - our wallet.

Re: I spent $220 on Google app ads and 60% of the installs were robots

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in large, it works. We only hear from people for whom it doesn’t work.

I think Google's business model in large part is having a super complicated ad console that very few, if anyone, actually knows how to most efficiently operate. So what happens is that the savvy media teams figure out what works through meticulous trial and error, and constantly monitor Googles weird changes to the levers you are given to operate the "console."

For a good chunk of businesses, ROI tracking is really not that hard. It gets harder as your business becomes larger, or oriented more towards B2B, or in specialized niches, or online only businesses. I know first hand small/medium businesses (whom I've helped myself in the past) that basically survive on traffic coming from ads.

Obviously it all depends*. But I just wanted to chime in that it's not all totally useless, and "nobody clicks on ads". Us (tech-adjacent people), are less likely to be prone to it, but still get swindled through other sort of ads as well. It works more effectively for people not in our group. And keep in mind, we're in extreme tiny minority.

Post reply on HN