11–20 of 34 posts
Google's pageviews have more value (because they know exactly what people are looking for), Google IPOed at a valuation of 20% of what Facebook wanted in valuation, and Google is already entrenched into the market that the author is suggesting Facebook is going to have such an easy time moving into. My money is on Google.
Facebook still has a lot to prove, but they also have a lot more opportunity to improve.
I hope he's not actually putting his retirement money on the line here. It's not about the quality of the ads, which he argues will get better with more data. It's about intent. When I search on Google, my natural next action is to click a link. That link can be organic or an ad. If it's an ad Google stands to make money. When I browse Facebook, my natural next action is not to click a link to an outside service/stor…
From my point of view as an advertiser, how is the CTR even relevant? Why do I care if google has 1% CTR and Facebook has 0,1%? If you assume both has the same cost per click. And I spend $100 on each. I'll still get the exact same amount of people clicking my ads on both.
Why does everyone keep repeating that facebook ads are only for branding, there's no intent, CTR is low? Doesn't the pay per click auction makes all of these irrelevant?
I hope he's not actually putting his retirement money on the line here. It's not about the quality of the ads, which he argues will get better with more data. It's about intent. When I search on Google, my natural next action is to click a link. That link can be organic or an ad. If it's an ad Google stands to make money. When I browse Facebook, my natural next action is not to click a link to an outside service/stor…
We've debated this point to death. By your argument, advertising on TV should be a failure, since people watch TV to be entertained, not to buy stuff right away. And still, 99% of TV shows are paid for by commercials. How come?
I hope he's not actually putting his retirement money on the line here. It's not about the quality of the ads, which he argues will get better with more data. It's about intent. When I search on Google, my natural next action is to click a link. That link can be organic or an ad. If it's an ad Google stands to make money. When I browse Facebook, my natural next action is not to click a link to an outside service/stor…
Adsense is a $10b a year segment not based on intent - it's based on advertising you see when you are on random pages on the internet (like the New York Times). Facebook will know what you want better than Google: they track you across multiple retail sites, see what you are looking at and even get structured data volunteered to them about that stuff.
There are many more adsense ads displayed than adwords - it's google searches vs. most of the rest of the web. Yet it only makes up 1/4 of google's revenue.
Last I checked there was an order of magnitude difference between the value of an adwords vs. adsense ad.
I hope he's not actually putting his retirement money on the line here. It's not about the quality of the ads, which he argues will get better with more data. It's about intent. When I search on Google, my natural next action is to click a link. That link can be organic or an ad. If it's an ad Google stands to make money. When I browse Facebook, my natural next action is not to click a link to an outside service/stor…
I just checked and Facebook gives you the option to buy ads per click, around $0.25 per click in my category. So why does it even matter if it has a low CTR? If the user didn't click, you didn't pay for it anyway. If the user does click, well there's your intent. From my point of view as an advertiser, how is the CTR even relevant? Why do I care if google has 1% CTR and Facebook has 0,1%? If you assume both has the s…
So even if users coming from Facebook are more likely to actually buy something than those coming from Google (which would make Facebook ads more valuable than Google ads, all else equal), the CTR still creates a cap on how much they can earn.
I hope he's not actually putting his retirement money on the line here. It's not about the quality of the ads, which he argues will get better with more data. It's about intent. When I search on Google, my natural next action is to click a link. That link can be organic or an ad. If it's an ad Google stands to make money. When I browse Facebook, my natural next action is not to click a link to an outside service/stor…
I just checked and Facebook gives you the option to buy ads per click, around $0.25 per click in my category. So why does it even matter if it has a low CTR? If the user didn't click, you didn't pay for it anyway. If the user does click, well there's your intent. From my point of view as an advertiser, how is the CTR even relevant? Why do I care if google has 1% CTR and Facebook has 0,1%? If you assume both has the s…
I hope he's not actually putting his retirement money on the line here. It's not about the quality of the ads, which he argues will get better with more data. It's about intent. When I search on Google, my natural next action is to click a link. That link can be organic or an ad. If it's an ad Google stands to make money. When I browse Facebook, my natural next action is not to click a link to an outside service/stor…
We've debated this point to death. By your argument, advertising on TV should be a failure, since people watch TV to be entertained, not to buy stuff right away. And still, 99% of TV shows are paid for by commercials. How come?
Online advertising is cursed by a near-infinite supply and excellent metrics that immediately connect impressions to actions.
If you want to start investing based on your beliefs, go ahead. But have a pool of money for that and be ready to lose it.
But for your retirement, diversify.