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

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#151

Post by seppin »

sfifs wrote: post #14
unabridged wrote: post #3

Youtube is used horribly by advertisers. Don't make a video ad that plays before the content that people can't wait to click Skip. Just make a video that's entertaining/informative and post it to youtube. People will share it for free and watch it willingly.

I work at an advertiser. Most so called "viral" ads we've researched involve significant levels of paid impressions before they got to a "viralable" level. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Also it's significantly difficult to make a highly entertaining ad as well as convey your product benefits/superiority at the same time - strains creativity of the ad agencies though some are adapting faster to the online…

> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

You can't even pay to have people watch your ads anymore. Isn't this the death of the industry as we know it?

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#152

Post by foobarchu »

baddox wrote: post #78
brongondwana wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Facebook and every other site with adtech tends to spend most of its time filled with ads for the last major purchase that I researched online and then bought something for, often advertising the exact thing that I just got one of and won't need to replace for years.

It took about six months for the online mattress ads to settle down after I quickly (within a day or two) researched and purchased one. I recently purchased an expensive pair of headphones and I suspect to see those for the next several months.

Often its not even smart enough to pick up on things you're really going to buy. A few months ago I did some research on designs for folding wooden tablet stand to base my own build on, and one of the images I clicked on from Google Images shows up to this day as one of the prominent ads on every Wikia fansite I visit with that particular computer. I didn't even visit the store it's sold on, and they're still clinging for dear life to this one scrap of information on what I might buy.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#153

Post by maroonblazer »

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.

Depends on the objective of the media buy. In digital our goal is awareness and perception, not conversion, and we can measure lift in those metrics.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#154

Post by busterarm »

ithinkinstereo wrote: post #123
gregw134 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of tool do you have to monitor traditional ad spend? According to op this should be impossible.

Two ideas: 1) Coupons or discount codes in print and tv/radio ads (or using a unique URL, phone number, etc.) 2) Simply watching to see if leads traffic (however you define it: foot traffic, hits to website, calls, etc.) surges in the period post ad campaign (assuming you stagger your campaigns for better individual campaign tracking)

#2 is the right way to do it and how we do it.

#1 isn't an option for us because we don't take upfront payment, or really any money directly, from our clients. Tons of companies try this and it's expensive and doesn't convert well for everyone. In certain kinds of sales pipelines this works, but many times it's just people searching for a coupon code online and you don't get accurate information about what converted.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#155

Post by dredmorbius »

draw_down wrote: post #6

I guess I'm not sure of the value of parsing these fine distinctions between good and bad ads. Doesn't seem like the good kind are winning out. And the solution is that ad buyers need to have kinder hearts? Hmm.

Gresham's Law / Market for Lemons.

Both have very strong information-theoretical roots.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#156

Post by dredmorbius »

manigandham wrote: post #120
camgunz wrote: post #116

Advertising is a race to the bottom. The way I shop is I figure out what my needs are, I survey the state of the art, I narrow down some options, compare them (price, stats, reviews, company rep, etc.) and then buy. Advertising, on the other hand, exists to subtly influence an emotional, impulsive, subconscious choice, and it's far more effective in the macro. The problem is that when your brain is engaged, you resen…

You are never as rational as you think you might be when it comes to shopping or anything else. And advertising drives the economy and is quite literally the reason the company you work for is in business - so it's just not that simple to say "it's all bad" because it isn't. In fact it's quite the opposite.

Some people may be.

But the vast majority, who feed the dynamic, are not.

And hence the downward spiral.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#157

Post by dredmorbius »

sfifs wrote: post #14
unabridged wrote: post #3

Youtube is used horribly by advertisers. Don't make a video ad that plays before the content that people can't wait to click Skip. Just make a video that's entertaining/informative and post it to youtube. People will share it for free and watch it willingly.

I work at an advertiser. Most so called "viral" ads we've researched involve significant levels of paid impressions before they got to a "viralable" level. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Also it's significantly difficult to make a highly entertaining ad as well as convey your product benefits/superiority at the same time - strains creativity of the ad agencies though some are adapting faster to the online…

One of the wierd things about a network is that, no matter how much you scale it, there are always only ten "top ten" slots on it.

(Or 100, or 1,000, or ...)

Clearly, we're going to have to throw more resources at this problem to break a stubborn scaling bottleneck.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#158

Post by manigandham »

dredmorbius wrote: post #156
manigandham wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are never as rational as you think you might be when it comes to shopping or anything else. And advertising drives the economy and is quite literally the reason the company you work for is in business - so it's just not that simple to say "it's all bad" because it isn't. In fact it's quite the opposite.

Some people may be. But the vast majority, who feed the dynamic, are not. And hence the downward spiral.

What downward spiral? This isn't unique to adtech, this is human behavior. We all influence each other.

When your friend recommends a product, they are influencing you, but might not know what's actually good for you or what your needs/wants are and might not even be honest with you. At least with advertising there are some standards and it's that same human behavior/influence harnessed and purchased through technology. Politics, news, communications, etc. It's all the same.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#159

Post by camgunz »

manigandham wrote: post #158
dredmorbius wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people may be. But the vast majority, who feed the dynamic, are not. And hence the downward spiral.

What downward spiral? This isn't unique to adtech, this is human behavior. We all influence each other. When your friend recommends a product, they are influencing you, but might not know what's actually good for you or what your needs/wants are and might not even be honest with you. At least with advertising there are some standards and it's that same human behavior/influence harnessed and purchased through technolo…

Advertising companies do not act in the interests of consumers. We're not their customers. Any benefit is totally coincidental. The following would be helpful to us:

- "These products from a different company look more like what you're after"

- "Based on your income/debt/bills, you probably shouldn't buy this"

- "A better version of this will be out in a few days, just wait!"

- "This product explodes, buy this other one instead"

Of course advertising companies will never do this, because it would be acting against the interest of their actual customers (companies). Can I even hire an ad firm to help me shop? The very idea sounds ridiculous. It's just not what advertising is for.

Advertising exists only to convince more people to buy goods and services. It specifically employs devices to do this even if:

- the consumer doesn't want or need them

- the consumer can't afford them

- the consumer could get a better deal or product elsewhere

- the product is defective

Advertising is really good at reframing this stuff (your post is a pretty good example of it actually), but given these facts I don't know how to think of advertising in positive light.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#160

Post by RugnirViking »

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…

Its worth pointing out that until recently, as I understand it, most forms of product placement were not allowed in the UK. As such, many american tv shows and movies literally had scenes cut out. Turns out, it rarely seemed to affect the content, but perhaps thats because anything important got another take without the overt product placement
Post reply on HN