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

Brands need to fire adtech

artplusmarketing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#141

Post by michaelt »

nonsince wrote: post #137
mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

Adtech, I'd say, is less slimy than traditional advertising. With traditional ads, you pay for the product (newspaper, TV, etc.), and then you _also_ see ads on top of that, and significantly more than you'd see nowadays at that. As the cost of running an entertainment service have decreased, ads have become noticeably better. That said, adtech still fucking sucks, but I'd rather that than TV's alternative of almost…

  I'd say, is less slimy than traditional advertising.
Eh, traditional newspaper-billboard-and-broadcast-TV advertising doesn't try to follow me around and build an identifiable profile of me personally* - or serve up viruses then claim they're unable to stop doing that.

The only virtue of online ads is you can remove them with an ad blocker (and that's not a benefit I've heard ad companies promoting).

*Obviously, there's still some profiling, but it's orders of magnitude coarser than Google has.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#142

Post by EwanToo »

busterarm wrote: post #83
wtvanhest wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most large companies use a quantitative model with various inputs and outputs. For example, if you know you spend X in market Y, but not market Z you can measure lift within some confidence level between the markets. Imagine a model with every market, and sku, plus the inputs also know where you spent ad dollars and on what product.

Definitely quantitative. And just like everything with advertising, you run experiments constantly. We also have this fun problem where nobody's actually been verifying that TV ads actually run when they're supposed to. We have physical offices in all of the locations we advertise for the most part, so we're talking about setting up slingboxes and programmatically verifying that our ads actually run.

There's various companies that do this for you as a service, including verifying the reach across market research panels.

If you want a fairly raw build-your-own solution you could speak to someone like TVEyes who'll give you an mpeg or mp3 feed from 100s of channels across the USA.

If you insert a fingerprint into your advert audio, you can then auto-detect plays across the entire country.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#143

Post by michaelt »

zeta0134 wrote: post #91
clubm8 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. Is Netflix totally ad free? I've gotten the impression they were paid for product placement a few times. (Ex: Frank Underwood plugging Sony)

Very few mediums are totally ad free, and Netflix is no exception. If a movie or TV show on Netflix (including their original stuff) has product placement, the product placement remains a part of the media and is not altered. That would be generally prohibitively expensive. I notice this especially with criminal investigation shows, where for some inexplicable reason the whole division is using iPads, or every monito…

If it's their original stuff, it wouldn't be cost-prohibitive to remove the product placement. They'd just have to not put that in in the first place

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#144

Post by josefx »

mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

> If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your audience won't ever see those ads in the first place.

Often I don't care about ads. What I care most about is performance and usability. I don't want to wait the five seconds it takes the ad network to serve up an ad. I do not want hundreds of tracking scripts served from some ancient pre pentium box to make this worse. I also do not want to close 20 pop-ups.

Give me a nice eye catching traditional ad that just sits in the corner and leaves me alone any day. The cancer that is used for ads currently can just drop and die.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#145

Post by wastedhours »

tomlock wrote: post #122
maroonblazer wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you know if they were exposed to the advertising? You don't. Even if you did, how do you know they actually saw it/were paying attention? You don't. And even if you knew that, how do you know that it was because of that particular ad that they ventured to your location?

That's also true of 99.99% of digital ads. Plenty of businesses are using attribution models that aren't that deterministic.

This is my current hesitancy with "view through conversions" and the industry's rather, optimistic, definition of an impression (especially when running remarketing with VTC... essentially paying to target people who have quite likely found us via organic means and aren't being influenced by our ads). Currently trying lots of experiments with direct, tracked clicks from specific ads through to the CRM. Seeing only a handful of ads get any kind of direct click > conversion response with a reasonable attribution window.

So a larger scale programmatic campaign is either a much earlier part of the pipeline than a lot of the adtech companies would have you believe, or is fairly pointless.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#146

Post by tgragnato »

dottedmag wrote: post #140
tgragnato wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cookie banner is annoying ... You're right > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13802068 The last time one of these "ordering services" [ https://www.justeat.it ] targeted me with ads (via sms), I tracked back the data, crawled the web for their mails, sent them a good list of laws, so they have been forced to reply and delete all my personal data in a timely manner. Never seen a single ad again, I am unsure th…

Could you share the list of the laws to send? I find it quite problematic to force companies on Malta to do that.

Please remember that the laws are only modeled on the EU directives, one have to expect a substantial compatibility, but the specific terms may change on a country basis.

One of the aims of the GDPR has been to standardize the protection, zeroing the differences.

http://194.242.234.211/documents/10160/2012405/Personal+Data...

Specifically ask the removal of any information that may lead to any form of authentication (prior or post any processing, the deanonymisation trick is not allowed).

You just need to prove they have obtained your data in violation of anyone of the provisions.

In my case "they incorporated a company, embedding the data in the datastore in such a way that they violated the term of service of the previous company, their own tos (I never subscribed to their website yet they insistently phoned and texted me) and the actual privacy law, adding to this the delete form was unmaintained and didn't work, which is another violation".

Edit: sorry for the multiple updates, I am typing from my iPhone.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#147

Post by manigandham »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #128
manigandham wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume what you personally like is what your readers will like? But relevancy to your sites and readers is what adtech is all about. It doesn't help anyone to have irrelevant ads, they do care about making sure the fit is as good as possible. Stay away from the crappy "recommended links" widgets and popup videos and you'll find plenty of ad networks that can help.

It took you one sentence to refute your own claim about the quality of adtech ads -- you recommend them and then say don't use the most popular/successful/well-known ad systems.

I'm not sure what you think I refuted here. You realize not every network is the same right?

When it comes to relevancy then yes, many (but not all) ad networks do well at it because irrelevant ads don't help anyone.

But the quality of the actual ad content and user experience matters. There are annoying ad formats like outstream video, interstitials, in-image ads, and more that just arent worth it. Same goes with the taboola widgets, which do work since they get millions of clicks daily, but are usually filled with low-quality clickbait which reflects poorly on the parent site.

The most popular ad networks are the ones that have the lowest standards and run the worst ads because that's how you get more scale. It's simple math and has no bearing on how good they are. And yes you should avoid them if you want better "quality" in both ad content and UX.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#148

Post by BukhariH »

I feel like a lot of people here are really confused about how digital marketing works. I hope I can dispel a lot of assumptions people are making!

Yes, there can be a lot of fraud (not that I've ever seen that much) when it comes to CPC but, clicks most new age marketers aren't that focused on CPC that much anymore.

Instead they focus on CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) which is essentially how much you paid e.g £40000 and how many customers signed up as a result of that channel e.g 150. So, in this case your CAC would be ~£27. This calculation takes everything from fraud clicks, CPC costs, conversions into account.

CAC is the first step, next step involves working out the LTV for that specific channel.

Finally, the marketer compares the CAC to LTV and the ones with the best ratio are channels we focus on. The reality is most of the time the best channels are digital and targeted.

If any would like me to go into detail about how marketers go about targeting people then I can do that too!

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#149

Post by Chaebixi »

losteric wrote: post #62
Hasknewbie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A.K.A the Amazon Suggestion Effect ("You just bought a fridge, here are 12 more fridges!"). I thought Amazon was keeping their suggestions dumb on purpose, so as not to appear too creepy, apparently I was overestimating how smart adtech is in general.

I always assumed they showed those ads in case the order was cancelled or returned.

Never attribute to intelligence that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#150

Post by _jal »

bosie wrote: post #33
phamilton wrote: post #16

My favorite version of nonsense in ads is the current mobile space. Assuming mobile data is $10/GB, a 1MB video ad costs the end user 1 cent. Quality (though not premuim) mobile ad space has a CPM of about $5, or a cost per impression of half a cent. So whenever you see an ad in a mobile app and you aren't on WiFi, you are paying 1 cent to use the app _and_ watch an ad and the publisher is getting less than half a ce…

> Assuming mobile data is $10/GB That is incredibly steep though. I pay around $1/GB in the UK, which gives the publisher a nice margin, no?

You live in a place with a competitive market.
Post reply on HN