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

Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 220 posts

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#171

Post by UncleMeat »

zo1 wrote: post #135
shimon_e wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah its a politic war. I believe it all started when some people on the left got some companies to pull their ads from some right wing Fox anchor. Unless someone knows of events older than this?

The earliest notable one I can think of is the whole Kellogs and Breitbart incident. However, specifically relating to Google, I'd say it's the James Damore political silencing by Google. And even more recently, Youtube has started censoring controversial videos and putting them inside a "gimped" version of Youtube. I.e. no likes/shares/related videos. It really is turning into a 1984 scenario.

1984, where the government literally rewrites books, changes the language to be incapable of expressing dissent, and murders its citizens.

Comparable to firing a guy who upset a huge portion of the company and false positives on hate detection algorithms. Sure.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#172

Post by srean »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #149
srean wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those descriptions are a little too subtle and too nuanced. Broader generalizations that make more sweeping claims would work better to make the point.

Absolutely. Broad, biased statements are indisputably the best way to gain deep insight into an issue. Details and worries about correctness often muddy the waters.

Indeed sir, glad that you concur. My downvoters dont seem to agree. Poe it is.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#173

Post by CaptSpify »

neotek wrote: post #156
kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that can only support itself with ads has no right to exist at all in my view.

What a ridiculous way to think.

Why?

I can't think of any quality product that relies solely on advertisement, and I can't think of any product that has become better once advertisements became a part of its funding.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#174

Post by MichaelGG »

runeks wrote: post #55
runeks wrote: post #41

I find this really interesting. We’re all familiar with exploiting vulnerable software, but this appears to be exploiting a vulnerable business model. Does this attack work with Facebook as well? I think the difference in client authentication might prevent this attack on Facebook (just ban accounts that click too many ads). But, on the other hand, Google might be able to use IP-addresses to accomplish the same. Taki…

Possibly profitable attack vector: 1) Accumulate short position in Google stock 2) Develop and deploy malware that delivers fraudulent clicks from regular users 3) Cash in on now-profitable short position, caused by negative media attention regarding Google’s business model 4) Repeat

Step 3 is actually "lose everything because Google announced something neat" or "lose everything because that quarter Google announced better fraud control and increased revenues".

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#175

Post by malyk »

teej wrote: post #168
redm wrote: post #152

A few honest questions for anyone who's an ad buyer for mixed media: I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. There's also no direct accounting of who actually saw it, just a best guess based on Neilson numbers. It seems to me that DVR's are akin to ad blockers as well. Why is digital so conversati…

The way people handle it is to triangulate on the value based on a couple different sources. For example, you may test your TV ad in a handful of markets first and see if you experience lift in those areas. In addition, you may offer a unique coupon/promo code in that ad and measure uptake. Then you survey customers and ask them how they heard about you. So maybe in your test regions you saw 2% promo uptake, 3% lift,…

In the US you can buy national ad spots on major channels pretty cheaply (couple hundred $ per spot) if you buy "remnant" inventory. Basically that means that the network hasn't sold all of their "run my ad in the 9:22am commercial break" spots and so you can try to by a spot in the "morning" day part and it might run in the 9:22am commercial spot...or it might not. But they will tell you if/when the ad ran at some point so you can go back and check your stats.

Attribution is kind of a bitch, but the methodology above tends to work very well given the right traffic size/mix.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#176

Post by gasof »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

Demonizing the anti-advertisement camp doesn't help your case. There are legitimate reasons people dislike the deep penetration of advertisements in every area of life. I personally consider ads unethical, and I don't care if I decrease the effectiveness of what I consider to an unethical practice, in fact it's a joyous thing to me.

Your tone convinced me to go to the distance of moving to AdNauseam, and I'll be changing my recommendations to friends on unmetered connections as well.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#177

Post by throwaway284728 »

redm wrote: post #152

A few honest questions for anyone who's an ad buyer for mixed media: I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. There's also no direct accounting of who actually saw it, just a best guess based on Neilson numbers. It seems to me that DVR's are akin to ad blockers as well. Why is digital so conversati…

I work at a major advertiser who's media budgets measure in the billion dollar zone.

> I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital.

At our levels of spend, we build econometric models to understand media spend effectiveness and spend a fair bit on tracking and vetting the methodologies of trackers.

> For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television.

Correct. Frankly, we're interested in valid human viewable reach, not clicks. Not even Impressions though most our buys are CPM today and we want to buy viewable CPMs. We use in fraud detection providers and generally don't pay for Impressions detected as fraud.

> Is broadcast advertising so much cheaper than digital that it makes sense to just blanket ads and hope for the best?

In many cases yes... In some cases no - especially when there are demographics who simply don't watch much TV which is increasingly a reality. At our scale, digital - even the biggies struggle to give us reach affordably.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#178

Post by osrec »

remline wrote: post #169
osrec wrote: post #148

I am finding Google adverts less and less effective for an e-commerce business my parents run. I think it may be because consumers are getting better at ignoring the ad-noise on the web, and this is potentially quite worrying for Google and other ad based businesses. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that this fake traffic could be an attempt re-bolster their main revenue stream, and they've been caught out b…

> It's not beyond the realms of imagination that this fake traffic could be an attempt re-bolster their main revenue stream It basically is beyond imagination unless you think they have a new income plan that just needs one more quarter. Google's long-term value is in the conversion rates of long-term advertisers: drop conversions in half with fake traffic and next month they are going to offer you less than half the…

I don't disagree with your comment, however, I am often surprised by the short-termism demonstrated by executives. It may not be Google's strategy, but I am sure they are well aware of it happening, and in that sense it feels like a lie of omission. Apologies if I sound cynical, but I would guess that a company that has been running an ad platform for the past 17 years clearly knows the difference between authentic and fake traffic.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#179

Post by hesarenu »

legopelle wrote: post #68
srean wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market cannot work without propagation of information. Curious what kind of mechanism you envision to solve that problem: public service anouncements in place of ads ?

I imagine a single state-owned database where merchants enter detailed product information. The consumers may then query the database at their leisure.

India has something similar. Datakart app from gs1 has product related information. You can scan using barcodes.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#180

Post by philipodonnell »

redm wrote: post #152

A few honest questions for anyone who's an ad buyer for mixed media: I've wondered how advertisers look at broadcast advertising compared to digital. For one there's no direct correlation (as in a click) with broadcast television. There's also no direct accounting of who actually saw it, just a best guess based on Neilson numbers. It seems to me that DVR's are akin to ad blockers as well. Why is digital so conversati…

My understanding is that even broadcast television advertising can be pretty well targeted based on the show's demographic profile, the viewership of the station/channel, known DVR usage trends, and the viewer's location. Surveys on brand awareness and recall can be delivered locally to confirm the ad was seen. The larger the company (large scale means more likely to do broadcast TV advertising), the more they can control other advertising channels in order to test whether the advertising is showing lift locally. There is a whole industry and 50+ years of experience using these things to gauge advertising effectiveness, so the limitations and usefulness is pretty well understood.

Then the internet comes along and digital advertising is promoted as being better at all types of advertising (which of course its not). And its new (new is risky/scary) and no one knows if exposure to digital advertising has the same "brand awareness" lift as non-digital, or how to quantify that. The results have been mixed. P&G recently announced they would dramatically scale back social advertising because they determined it wasn't effective.

So its on digital to prove its value, and the argument becomes "direct correlation/clicks" is proof, which is fine. Some people accept that and some don't. In 50 years, the limitations and usefulness of digital will be pretty well understood, but in the meantime, advertisers need more than "its new" to trust it.

Post reply on HN