Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#11

Post by shostack »

anilgulecha wrote: post #2

Weren't the advertisers paying for the results by proxy -- clearly they saw that the results were worth the payment made. And they continued paying what they felt was a fair price for the results they saw. So while the numbers measured may be different, the advertisers weren't naive enough to use that as the only metric to plan ads.

Smart advertisers were (and not just direct response advertisers... brand advertisers to), but not advertisers are savvy enough to know what to measure. Also, Facebook could benefit from clarifying some of their definitions definitions as you might think they represent one thing when really they are another.

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#12

Post by tyre »

sean_patel wrote: post #3

This is not new, and I've spoken about this here before. Facebook used fraudulent methods to artificially inflate their view counts, and pedelled those fake and grossly exagerrated #s for "eyeballs" to the unsuspecting advertizers. "How Facebook is Stealing Billions of Views" - Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell exposed this with detailed analysis and evidence. Watch it here => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q I c…

I watched the video you linked to, which is mostly about people who rip content from YouTube and upload it to Facebook.

The people who view the pirated content are still viewing content on FB. That isn't "artificially inflat[ing] their view counts." Those are real views, which is what advertisers are paying for, even if what they are viewing is stolen.

The point about counting 3 seconds of auto-play as a view is problematic, unless advertisers know that is what they are paying for. Maybe 3 seconds is enough for someone to glance at it and at least read the brand name in their mind, which does seem to count as an "impression".

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#13

Post by Dylan16807 »

krige wrote: post #5
elgenie wrote: post #4

FB audited a bunch of metrics and found issues with 4 out of 220. The narrative being pushed here is that all of them nefariously favored FB. The only problem with that is that it's not true. > """Elsewhere, Facebook admitted to exaggerating the number of full views that video ads received""" You can tell they didn't do any homework, since the issue was that full views were under reported when the audio and video tra…

"FB investigated FB and found FB not guilty"

A valid point, but it's ludicrous to report it as "FB found guilty".

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#14

Post by lifeisstillgood »

shostack wrote: post #8
krige wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"FB investigated FB and found FB not guilty"

Fwiw sounds like they are opening up to independent third party review with viewability vendors like Integral. Now if only they'd let me use DCM tags to measure impression data and VTs.

DCM tags? VTs?

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#15

Post by rebuilder »

Is there any way for advertisers to independently verify FB's reported numbers at will? Or do they all rely on FB being honest? If FB's self-reporting is all that advertisers rely on, that seems like it would be an obvious problem, and the same goes for any other platform. The problem seems so obvious there must be checks in place, so I'm curious what they are.

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#17

Post by kingkawn »

elgenie wrote: post #4

FB audited a bunch of metrics and found issues with 4 out of 220. The narrative being pushed here is that all of them nefariously favored FB. The only problem with that is that it's not true. > """Elsewhere, Facebook admitted to exaggerating the number of full views that video ads received""" You can tell they didn't do any homework, since the issue was that full views were under reported when the audio and video tra…

'Actually roughly' is the best

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#18

Post by krige »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #13
krige wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"FB investigated FB and found FB not guilty"

A valid point, but it's ludicrous to report it as "FB found guilty".

Well, yes, it was just a paraphrase, maybe a bit exaggerated in this context.

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#19

Post by vthallam »

elgenie wrote: post #4

FB audited a bunch of metrics and found issues with 4 out of 220. The narrative being pushed here is that all of them nefariously favored FB. The only problem with that is that it's not true. > """Elsewhere, Facebook admitted to exaggerating the number of full views that video ads received""" You can tell they didn't do any homework, since the issue was that full views were under reported when the audio and video tra…

Forget about this article and consider the video metrics they inflated. They counted a 3 sec play as a video view and that's a big thing. 4 out of 220 is still a big number for a big company such as FB to be wrong at.

Re: Facebook’s ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg’s headache

#20

Post by tonyedgecombe »

anilgulecha wrote: post #2

Weren't the advertisers paying for the results by proxy -- clearly they saw that the results were worth the payment made. And they continued paying what they felt was a fair price for the results they saw. So while the numbers measured may be different, the advertisers weren't naive enough to use that as the only metric to plan ads.

I get the impression a lot of Facebook/Google advertisers aren't making any money on their campaigns, I know from my own experience it was a lot of work to get a positive result from them.
Post reply on HN