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

P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 282 posts

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#141

Post by _jal »

smhost wrote: post #98
flohofwoe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since ads on the web are mostly produced by bots for bots, and distributed through shady borderline-criminal ad-networks I think we've already reached rock bottom years ago and it can only get better.

Wasn't that always true though? The earliest internet I knew was through AOL cd's, but it still seems like the internet as we know it was born of cancerous (mostly pornographic) ads.

The first spam campaign that looked like the spam we know and love today way a "green card lottery[1]" campaign on Usenet by a couple of lawyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#142

Post by criddell »

nitwit005 wrote: post #20
wyc wrote: post #8

Bob Hoffman at the Ad Contrarian called this in January: "P&G To Online Ad World: We've Had Enough" - https://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2017/01/p-to-online-ad-wor... Digital advertising is rife with (what should be considered) fraud. Advertisers feel as though they are getting fleeced, and the advertising middlemen reap massive margins. The accountability isn't where it needs to be; there are websites that hide ads u…

> there are websites that hide ads under other ads, still reporting displays for all ads per page load. While people have done that, most ads seem to load load with some JS to confirm if the ad is visible, and if it's above or below the fold.

Why does it matter if the ad is visible? When those same companies post in People magazine, they pay for the placement they want and get no data about how many people saw the ad.

The agencies that buy the ad verify it was placed in the right spot at the right size and that's about all they can do.

Why should the web be any different? As long as they insist on bundling javascript with their ad, I'm going to run an ad-blocker.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#143

Post by samfisher83 »

nostromo wrote: post #45
michaelvoz wrote: post #35

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.

You could use bing. Its about 90% as good.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#144

Post by mbesto »

sah2ed wrote: post #97
saimiam wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they not ad companies? Together, FB and GOOGL receive a massive proportion of online ad spend.

They are tech companies not ad companies. It just happens that Google and Facebook draw most of their revenue from being middlemen in the advertising industry, the same way Uber is a middleman in the transportation industry -- Uber doesn't have the fixed costs that you'd expect a large cab company to have.

"Tech" is not an industry per say, it's a medium for delivering business value.

Straight from the horses mouth: Mark Zuckerberg Finally Admits Facebook Is a Media Company http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#145

Post by cubano »

soneca wrote: post #119
Jach wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What else FB sells instead of ads?

social engagements...doesn't sell but provides.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#146

Post by Silhouette »

jsemrau wrote: post #32

This reminds me of my experience with Google Adwords. My target was to increase signups for travellers to selected cities looking for 'events nearby'. So, I selected my cities and customer segments and had a limit set of 30 Dollars / day. Regularly, I paid for 2-5 Dollar more per day than my max price. I reduced the price to actually match my max price, but this would as a result out-price me of the relevant keywords…

Our brief experience with Google's ad network was similarly disappointing. A tiny fraction of the visitors we received were genuine, unless you think people coming from pages at bizarre domain names where the content is mostly a bunch of keyword spam in tiny, almost-white text are likely to be legitimate...

I'm delighted to see a big, influential advertiser pulling serious money out of the market and openly saying why. Both Google and Facebook have some very dubious practices and very little transparency around their ad programmes. The little guy can't do much about that, but it won't take many nine-figure advertisers pulling the plug to force a change in how the whole online ad market works.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#147

Post by nine_k »

oliwarner wrote: post #95
elorant wrote: post #66

I have to admit that at a deeper lever I'd love if advertisers get the fuck off of the web. I don't have a problem with advertising per se but the way it's used today hurts the medium in so many ways. Sites are bloated with ads, journalism is riffled with native advertising articles, malware is mainly spread through infected ads and on top of that we have a legion of companies out there which are collecting every kin…

The good thing about Google's cost-combative platforms like Adwords and DoubleClick is it prices the lowest rung of spammers out of the market. Multinationals leaving these platforms means the price drops down. This not only means more illegitimate entities can afford to compete, but that publishers need more of them, in more places, just to stay afloat on the same income. You could argue that this is falling apart b…

I'm afraid that the situation is backwards. Media aren't published for an ulterior reason and propped up with ads to cut costs. Most digital media exist to show ads, and it props them with "viral content" to lure in readers.

Paper media can sell a paper copy and (theoretically) run without ads. Digital media would have to sell subscription (when they can offer high-quality content), or run entirely on ads (then the content is secondary). Guess which type is prevalent.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#148

Post by _jal »

manigandham wrote: post #55
tomjen3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My algorithm for that kind of stuff is what is cheapest in the store I am in? I think that is what a lot of people do.

A lot of people love brands and pick the one they last remember - which is why advertising is so powerful. It maybe sound cheesy/irrational/unbelievable but it's true and there are 100s of billions in market value built on it.

I actually do this, more or less, and consider it rational. For a large number of household goods, I really don't care about them past some baseline quality threshold. So if something worked last time and the price doesn't seem out of line, I'll use that. I generally don't remember brand names for most of these things, but generally can pick out what packaging looks like. And I'm sure advertising influences my first-choice and whatnot on the margin.

I'm sure paying attention would save some money, or, who knows, I might even be "delighted" by a "new" "product experience", but I'd rather just not think about it.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#149

Post by sah2ed »

mbesto wrote: post #144
sah2ed wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are tech companies not ad companies. It just happens that Google and Facebook draw most of their revenue from being middlemen in the advertising industry, the same way Uber is a middleman in the transportation industry -- Uber doesn't have the fixed costs that you'd expect a large cab company to have.

"Tech" is not an industry per say, it's a medium for delivering business value. Straight from the horses mouth: Mark Zuckerberg Finally Admits Facebook Is a Media Company http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/

Tech is indeed is an industry.

Look at it this way: Big law firms are called that because they hire a lot of lawyers (and lawyer-types); big 4 accounting firms hire a lot of accountants and big 5 tech firms hire a lot of software engineers (or CS majors if you will).

They are called that not because they don't hire HR, IT, finance or other professionals, they are called "big X" because specific professions (lawyers, accountants, software engineers) dominate their hiring.

The quality and quantity of their hires from those professions in turn determine the amount of profit they are able to extract from whichever industry they choose to focus on/dominate.

Post reply on HN