Google: End of the Online Advertising Bubble

Post by manigandham » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #162

manigandham wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that 1 out of a 1000 person might buy a product/service worth millions which makes the marketing and acquisition costs worth it. You're looking at this through personal assumptions and ignoring all the data when this entire industry is completely data-driven and calculated in decisions.

Of course. I'm not saying that the advertisers are wasting their money. I'm saying that it seems that both the advertisers and the ads network could have made more money with a better targeting. At least in my case, they've wasted the cost of the impression and the potential gain from showing a more relevant ad in that space. And this is probably happening millions of times a day.

Post by Scramblejams » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

a_small_island wrote: post #107

onion2k wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google ads in search will always be valuable because you can advertise nail varnish to people who have just searched for "buy nail varnish". Google and Facebook both have the problem that their business model is predicated on having thousands of small advertisers bidding on ads. That's what they leverage to generate profit. In any market that's dominated by a single entity that smaller companies won't compete with fo…

>When the majority of people who want to buy nail varnish bypass search entirely and go straight to Amazon Do you even do this? My guess is the majority will never do what you're setting out to believe. Strictly speaking of Amazon, they don't even have the best prices these days.

Post by qaq » Wed, May 04, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

geocar wrote: post #160

qaq wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not working for a company they are working for themselves, they place ads that drive traffic to gaming properties and receive a share of profits. They put their own money at risk for traffic acquisition, if they are wrong they will loose money. So basically they generated enough sales to receive a 100K profit share payment from partner network to them for a given week and spent 40K on ad inventory netting 60…

Okay, if that's true, that's very impressive: You're saying that these guys invest 2 million each and bring home 3.1 million each? I'd absolutely want to hear about this.

Post by kafkaesq » Wed, May 04, 2016, 8:08 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #164

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read about adtech and is clearly written by someone who has never worked in it and knows nothing about it. It's all summed up by this at the end of the article: > Q: It’s all baseless speculation. > We base our research on subjects that are gaining traction in the overall news flow. We have found 94 articles about "ad fraud" over the last 5 years, only looking at influentia…

Post by calbear81 » Wed, May 04, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

novaleaf wrote: post #125

red_admiral wrote: post #15

"Facebook on the other hand, has a better control of who is actually seeing its ads, and will benefit from the turmoil by gaining market share." Did they pay you to write this? Google ads in search will always be valuable because you can advertise nail varnish to people who have just searched for "buy nail varnish". This is also about the millionth post I've read which assumes that companies simply throw money at adv…

This article may be hype, but the Google Adwords monopoly is very real and I wish it died. I run a SaaS startup (PhantomJsCloud) and tried adwords. No advertising competition, and targeted very specific actionable search queries. Google charges upward of $5.00/click. I can understand they want to cut spammers saturating every random search query, but how am I going to get a positive RoI on that kind of cost?