131–140 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When i use Google news , there's so much waste in web journalism: a million journalists rewriting the same article, and often a useless and low quality article, at that. So maybe there's a better way.
So maybe there's a better way. There's a reason those articles are so bad https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/06/robo_journalism_goo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google were to ask for a monthly fee for the search engine (and hopefully cut down on the data collection a not), I'd totally pay them.
You are worth ~26€ to Google. On average, only ~5% of users are willing to pay, so each paying user would have to subsidize ~19 non-paying users for such a model to be profitable. This would result in you paying around 600€ to use Google. Alternatively, in a paid-only scenario (where you just pay the 26€), Google would become such a niche product that it'd become irrelevant.
And would 26€ per month also remove all Google ads from the Internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google were to ask for a monthly fee for the search engine (and hopefully cut down on the data collection a not), I'd totally pay them.
You are worth ~26€ to Google. On average, only ~5% of users are willing to pay, so each paying user would have to subsidize ~19 non-paying users for such a model to be profitable. This would result in you paying around 600€ to use Google. Alternatively, in a paid-only scenario (where you just pay the 26€), Google would become such a niche product that it'd become irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google were to ask for a monthly fee for the search engine (and hopefully cut down on the data collection a not), I'd totally pay them.
You are worth ~26€ to Google. On average, only ~5% of users are willing to pay, so each paying user would have to subsidize ~19 non-paying users for such a model to be profitable. This would result in you paying around 600€ to use Google. Alternatively, in a paid-only scenario (where you just pay the 26€), Google would become such a niche product that it'd become irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps rather anecdotal, but this is why I joined Uber, and did not take my Facebook or Google offers. It feels nice to work on tech that directly impacts lives and how a persons day flows. As opposed to, as you correctly put it, optimizing click bait.
If Google or Facebook were gone tomorrow, I'd definitely notice. If Uber was gone tomorrow, I'd use Lyft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are worth ~26€ to Google. On average, only ~5% of users are willing to pay, so each paying user would have to subsidize ~19 non-paying users for such a model to be profitable. This would result in you paying around 600€ to use Google. Alternatively, in a paid-only scenario (where you just pay the 26€), Google would become such a niche product that it'd become irrelevant.
Is that figure a monthly value or a "total customer value", e. g. One-time indulgence payment? And would 26€ per month also remove all Google ads from the Internet?
I've read they are "hurting" wondering if this is just cost cutting and not a deep analysis of ad/$ performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a real argument though. Just assuming that they have a magical way to solve attribution for traditional ads because they're a bit corporation. If they did have that, they could just use the same tools on digital and report fake clicks and bots to Facebook and Google to get reimbursed. (Google at least refunds all impressions and clicks that were later detected as being fraudulent)
The sort of data they have would macro-, that's not telling you if any particular click is fake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they not ad companies? Together, FB and GOOGL receive a massive proportion of online ad spend.
A thought experiment: suppose my company makes and sells shoes. We're a shoe company, right? Then one day some soda company calls us and says they'll give us money (a generous $10 a pair, our pairs sell for $100, cost $90, hello double profit) if we put their logo on the tongues. Sure, we try it out, shoe sales don't seem negatively affected (they're great shoes) so we keep it and keep taking money for the ad. Basica…
A better analogy, in my opinion, is to that of a company that makes billboards: they sell ads, delivered by billboard. They'd stop making the billboards if the ad revenue stopped coming in. Likewise Google would stop working on anything ad-related (and probably switch focus to GCE) if ad revenue dropped appreciably.
"after finding that ultra-niche targeting compromises reach and has limited effectiveness" “The bigger your brand, the more you need broad reach and less targeted media,” This is quite interesting. I see that other companies are cutting down on agency spending as well and some are focused on having an internal agency. The idea is to know the consumer and have a quick response to what is trending. So, apparently, the…
It's not about efficiency, it's about quantity. Let's say I profit $20 for each customer my ad engages. If I reach 1000 people with amazing targeting and get a 10% response rate, I'm making on average $2/person. If I broaden the reach to 100,000 people and get only a 1% response rate, I'm making on average $1/person. Clearly, bringing in $1/person is less efficient than bringing in $2/person, but at the end of the da…