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

Google Web Designer (2013)

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#131

Post by hueving »

Daviey wrote: post #116
FussyZeus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So since you're either a marketer or someone who works closely with them at least, I have a serious question. Why can't you guys be happy with simple, unintrusive text ads on websites? Why do you need to bombard people with autoplay video, audio, etc. and annoy them to death? I have never heard of a single consumer who enjoys this experience yet it's employed by everyone.

Nobody enjoys getting email spam, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works. Marketers aren't dumb.. they wouldn't invest so heavily in this if it wasn't effective.

>Marketers aren't dumb.. they wouldn't invest so heavily in this if it wasn't effective.

So they're just unethical? Your logic can be used to justify a bunch of terrible things.

>Nobody enjoys getting raped, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works.

>Nobody enjoys getting scammed, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works.

>Nobody enjoys getting robbed, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#132

Post by hueving »

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #74
logicallee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the clarification! I suppose I can see why they would call it something other than "ads" (which obviously has negative connotations.) When reading the link I quoted from, I actually didn't realize it was talking about ads. I thought it was talking about any kind of content. I do wonder about something. I thought that Mobile platforms have a distinct advantage in displaying ads, in that most people (for exa…

> I can see why they would call it something other than "ads" (which obviously has negative connotations.) No, that's wrong. "Creative" is professional jargon, it refers to the content of the ad when divorced from the medium or the delivery channel.

When I refer to an 'ad', I'm usually referring to the content. Whether I see it in a newspaper, on TV, or on a website, I call it an 'ad'. What are marketers referring to when they say 'ad'?

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#133

Post by Daviey »

hueving wrote: post #131
Daviey wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody enjoys getting email spam, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works. Marketers aren't dumb.. they wouldn't invest so heavily in this if it wasn't effective.

>Marketers aren't dumb.. they wouldn't invest so heavily in this if it wasn't effective. So they're just unethical? Your logic can be used to justify a bunch of terrible things. >Nobody enjoys getting raped, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works. >Nobody enjoys getting scammed, but it is still very popular.. why? Because it still works. >Nobody enjoys getting robbed, but it is still very popular.…

No.. this is an unreasonable argument. Whilst you might think garish adverts are unsavoury, I don't think you should compare it to illegal and terrible things such as rape.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#134

Post by shortformblog »

logicallee wrote: post #127
shortformblog wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have to work on the creatives to show to the client next week."

would you be equally likely to utter, "We have to work on the creatives to show to the client next week." and "We have to work on the ads to show to the client next week." (in the way that a programmer could just as easily write, "I have to make some changes to the code" and "I have to make some changes to the program.") ? If, however, you're not equally likely, is it because the second one has some different meaning…

Every industry has its own jargon. This is the marketing industry's. Instead of trying to find meaning in it, just accept that this is how it's explained in the industry.

This is way less awful than KPIs, by the way.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#135

Post by ozaark »

elmigranto wrote: post #30
themodelplumber wrote: post #13

I just checked out the included templates. At least the first 20-30 are all ad templates, one of which is a full-screen mobile interstitial! That's the same element that just got an SEO finger wag from the Google Webmaster Central Blog[0]. _Just_ as the list of templates started getting interesting with some Youtube slider-thing integration, it came to an end. So yeah, this seems to be aimed at folks who need to buil…

> That's the same element that just got an SEO finger wag They are not going to wag themselves, so it only makes sense to include Google's ad template into Google's editor for creating Google Ads :) (I guess half of this comment that's not a joke is it looks like internal tool gone public for mostly PR opportunity.)

Google encourages mobile full page ads through Adsense. Seriously, it's just called 'Page-level ads/Vignette ads' - "Mobile full-screen ads that appear between page loads on your site and can be easily dismissed by your users."[1]

Certainly don't want anyone else getting better ad positioning than Google, no sir. That's a penalty.

[1] https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/6245304?hl=en

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#136

Post by Gracana »

shostack wrote: post #100
username223 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole site is a treasure, the apogee of marketers marketing to lesser marketers: "Today we’re excited to announce new DoubleClick precision marketing innovations..." Including this: "a new JavaScript API in Google Chrome, called Intersection Observer, which provides viewability measurement for your mobile and desktop web placements without the need for Flash. Built directly into the Chrome Browser, Intersection O…

The negativity is really uncalled for. You could simply say "I don't understand, and haven't bothered to Google for 5 seconds what some of these confusing terms mean--can someone please clarify?" This stuff is all geared at advertisers who want better tools for designing ads and landing pages, and publishers who want to create ad supported sites more easily. So they are using industry jargon that people in the space…

> The negativity is really uncalled for. You could simply say "I don't understand, and haven't bothered

Well... That didn't last long.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#137

Post by logicallee »

shortformblog wrote: post #134
logicallee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you be equally likely to utter, "We have to work on the creatives to show to the client next week." and "We have to work on the ads to show to the client next week." (in the way that a programmer could just as easily write, "I have to make some changes to the code" and "I have to make some changes to the program.") ? If, however, you're not equally likely, is it because the second one has some different meaning…

Every industry has its own jargon. This is the marketing industry's. Instead of trying to find meaning in it, just accept that this is how it's explained in the industry. This is way less awful than KPIs, by the way.

Oh, I'm just asking whether you never say "ads" at all? (Just like a programmer wouldn't use the term, say, "Electronic computer program." Like a programmer wouldn't say to another programmer, "I just have to write a quick electronic computer program".) You guys didn't use "ads" at all? Or did you use them interchangeably?

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#138

Post by Le_SDT »

FussyZeus wrote: post #117
Le_SDT wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no marketer but nobody want to read an ad for fun. You have to shove it onto their face. Even if you are angry, now you know about the product and the idea of buying it might get to you later on. I guess it is something along those lines.

See now I disagree with that, when it comes to for example, podcast ads, I don't mind them. They're usually read by the host of the podcast, it's done in a very clear "this is an ad, this company is helping us make this thing," it's not an attempt at trickery, it's not a lie, it's just there. And it's over and done with and I'm %10,000 more likely to follow up on one of those products (not to mention they're usually…

There must be some kind of reward for doing this. Maybe there's a study about this kind of behaviour.

But I get what you're saying. I feel the same. But like I said, there must be a reason.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#139

Post by shortformblog »

logicallee wrote: post #137
shortformblog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every industry has its own jargon. This is the marketing industry's. Instead of trying to find meaning in it, just accept that this is how it's explained in the industry. This is way less awful than KPIs, by the way.

Oh, I'm just asking whether you never say "ads" at all? (Just like a programmer wouldn't use the term, say, "Electronic computer program." Like a programmer wouldn't say to another programmer, "I just have to write a quick electronic computer program".) You guys didn't use "ads" at all? Or did you use them interchangeably?

The thing is, though, "creatives" don't always mean "ads" in this sector. "Creatives" can mean articles, or infographics, or illustrations. It basically draws attention to the fact that an "idea person" created the item. Limiting it to "ads" is a very narrow definition.

You're overthinking it. It's not akin to saying "electronic computer program"; it's akin to a programmer saying "code" as opposed to "software" or "an app." It's a building block, just as a piece of software often requires front-end and back-end development, the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there.

Post reply on HN