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

Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 215 posts

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#141

Post by lywald »

maximusprime wrote: post #42
richcollins wrote: post #7

Is This Evil Or Just Evil Genius? Once upon a time I was an engineer totally scornful of effective marketing, but I have gradually gotten over it. After thinking it over, this is aggressive but within my comfort envelope. The ad is honest about being an ad, makes a straightforward commercial proposition (“Sign up for a free trial”) to an audience that I think will respond well to that, and is pretty true by the stand…

There's little difference between organic and adverts. It's just content that the webmaster has put there. It clearly says "sponsored content", which discloses the fact it's a paid advert. So personally, obviously it's not evil. If people were being mislead into clicking, then none would convert to sales.

"It clearly says "sponsored content""

Haha no it clearly doesn't. If it was about doing things clearly he would stick to banners and highlighted ads. It doesn't even matter what bias'd SEO guys with twisted morals think, anyway. The majority gets to decide what's right, and obviously the majority thinks it's wrong. Nobody likes to be treated like a fool.

What if when you clicked on a HN story, a third of the time it were an ad? Maybe we could generate false comments to minimize the difference between organic and adverts... Anyway it'd just be content that the webmaster has put there. With a little warning in the footer, to stay morally sound.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#142

Post by bambax »

patio11 wrote: post #130
bambax wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> males, twenty-something, techies, etc. My parents are 80 years old. That includes my mother, who is not male (or else I was lied to about EVERYTHING!) They are not techies by a very long shot. I installed Adblock for them on Firefox and Chrome. Sometimes they use IE by accident; inevitably they complain to me that the blocking of ads is broken or inconsistent because they just saw ads all over the place. You're rig…

But ads? Who ever speaks publicly in favor of ads (who isn't, like yourself, an advertiser)??? Have you ever had the after-the-Superbowl conversation? Or, take a look at the Youtube stats / comments / etc for e.g. Real Men of Genius or Old Spice Guy or Angry Birds or whatever. Or, watch HN when a new Google Doodle comes out. Or, talk to people who read trade press. Or, talk to people who read fashion magazines or bri…

> Have you ever had the after-the-Superbowl conversation?

I'm not American and don't live in America, so no, I've never watched the Superbowl or talked about it, or its ads, afterwards. Over here when there are very popular sporting events (the World cup every four years, or maybe tennis every year) people talk about what happened during the game, not about the ads.

But fashion magazines, yes, point taken. But as you say, there's nothing but ads in them; people buy them just for that. Ads are not interfering with other content in fashion magazines.

Anyway -- in my experience, once people know about AdBlock they can't do without it. Therefore I'm wondering what's going to happen when everyone knows about it (which will happen eventually).

What you're saying is that many people actually like ads; you may very well be right.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#144

Post by three14 »

Funny. I didn't realize that I had Adblock Plus installed until the I noticed the images in the blog post were missing.

(Apparently, Chrome syncing will actually install Adblock for you when you switch computers(!), but will leave the default lists set. I had it on without any lists, and just blocked the egregious stuff... except now I suddenly blocked everything.)

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#145

Post by ericd »

staunch wrote: post #71
patio11 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google ad that I note-for-note copied has a CTR in excess of 20%. It should - it is exactly what the user was looking for, presented in a way that makes that obvious. [Edit to add: I thought I might have been exaggerating, so I looked it up. Nope, 21.3% this year for [bingo card creator]. For [bingo creator], which is not a brand term, it is 18.5%. [printable valentine's bingo card]? 8.7%. Do people get the pictu…

Ugh. Can we get some intellectual honesty here? Of course you have a high CTR to bingocardcreator.com when people search for "bingo card creator".

Yes, but look at the other terms he mentioned, which are not at all brand specific. What that tells me is that many of Google's users take that ad to be Google's suggested best result.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#146

Post by nl »

bambax wrote: post #61

I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from. I often set up computers for family and friends and installing AdBlock is one of the first things I do. Who is computer-savvy enough to buy and install their own computer, and yet not computer-savvy enough to get AdBlock? Or do (most) people actually like ads?

I don't understand who still sees ads.

I've been working in IT for over 15 years, with hundreds of highly proficient people. I've met one person who runs AdBlock.

Or do (most) people actually like ads?

I saw a statistically significant survey a couple of days ago that said ~25% of people "liked" or "liked a lot" ads on mobile devices. Over 40% were undecided, and ~15% "neither liked or disliked" mobile ads. only ~20% "disliked" or "disliked a lot" mobile ads.

The effectiveness was another thing altogether - interestingly, they didn't seem to be any less effective for people who disliked ads.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#147

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #123
TylerE wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's defiantly at least gray. He openly admits to trying to trick visitors into thinking the ad is organic content. That's well over the line in my book.

I think, as respectfully as I can be on what I think is a thoroughly stupid thread, you are "defiantly" naive about what it is that black hat SEOs actually do. "Tricking visitors into thinking ads are organic content". Heh. Black hat SEO is so much worse than anything we ever talk about on HN threads about advertising.

[deleted]

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#148

Post by mmcdan »

lywald wrote: post #141
maximusprime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's little difference between organic and adverts. It's just content that the webmaster has put there. It clearly says "sponsored content", which discloses the fact it's a paid advert. So personally, obviously it's not evil. If people were being mislead into clicking, then none would convert to sales.

"It clearly says "sponsored content"" Haha no it clearly doesn't. If it was about doing things clearly he would stick to banners and highlighted ads. It doesn't even matter what bias'd SEO guys with twisted morals think, anyway. The majority gets to decide what's right, and obviously the majority thinks it's wrong. Nobody likes to be treated like a fool. What if when you clicked on a HN story, a third of the time it…

Your hn hypothetical statement sounds a lot like the YCombinator job postings embedded into the main news stories... deceptive but not necessarily bad.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#149

Post by mkr-hn »

icebraining wrote: post #131
revorad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I find advertising such a ridiculous business model for a search engine. Let's spend all this time and money and invent the most amazing technology to find the best results for any search and then... let's sell the top spot to the highest bidder. I don't have a better business model to offer, but I do think the world would be better off if Google were more honest about ads and made it more obvious that the…

I don't get it: the ads I see on Google have a clearly different background color. How are they not obvious?

They're barely distinguishable on my screen.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#150

Post by dhruval »

jacquesm wrote: post #136
dhruval wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually is not a gray area at all. It is specifically against Adsense TOS. See here under 'encouraging clicks': https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answ... Nor is this a new idea. Google addressed this issue back in 2007, and specifically warned publishers not to post images next to ads. I know because I was one of them. Here is a snapshot of my earnings from a site I ran back in 2007. Note…

These are not adsense ads, so adsense t.o.s. do not apply. The ads are served up by buysellads.com. (see last line of the blog post)

Fair point. Didn't see that line earlier and made the assumption it was adsense as the author talked about how Google serves up ads.
Post reply on HN