21–30 of 137 posts
Every coin had two faces, wonder how many faces bitcoin will have in the future
Contrary to popular opinion, people want to see ads. A good ad is very much appreciated. This is why magazines still make money. This is why the SuperBowl is popular amongst non-football fans. Unfortunately, most ads are spammy which is why internet ads have earned this terrible reputation.
Super Bowl is sort of a good point, but what do you mean by magazines? Given a choice between a magazine with and without ads, are you saying some people would choose the one with ads? I don't think anybody seeks out ads, especially when they're paying for something. Super Bowl ads are only popular because they're essentially comedy skits and short films, they're basically free, and they're part of a cultural event t…
Quality marketing is fun to watch.
Hence the people (including myself) who only watch the ads. It's hardly isolated to the Superbowl—look at the millions of views which some better ads get on YouTube.
Likewise, I definitely think for many people advertising is part of the magazine experience. I certainly don't mind some of the nicer ads in The New Yorker.
Does anyone know of any startups or upcoming projects that are trying to compete with Facebook (i.e building a social network?). I still haven't managed to wrap my head around how exactly facebook makes money. Do so many people actually click on ads? And this somehow makes billions? I find it very hard to imagine (for myself).
On sites like Facebook? Yes. There's a lot of criticism, much of it justified, about spammy ads online. However, with a system like Facebook's or something like a search engine, the ads being shown are normally for something that might genuinely interest the viewer. That makes a favourable reaction much more likely, and it means far fewer resources are wasted showing ads to people who aren't likely to be interested.
Does anyone know of any startups or upcoming projects that are trying to compete with Facebook (i.e building a social network?). I still haven't managed to wrap my head around how exactly facebook makes money. Do so many people actually click on ads? And this somehow makes billions? I find it very hard to imagine (for myself).
Even if you don't click on ads, it's not possible for you to cut them out of your sight. People see ads. They learn about the brand. If they are interested, they click on it to see more about it and if not, the brand getting registered in someone's mind is in itself a valuable asset. I believe that's the genius of Facebook, they have made the ad experience so seamless and intuitive. Note that, people generally don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super Bowl is sort of a good point, but what do you mean by magazines? Given a choice between a magazine with and without ads, are you saying some people would choose the one with ads? I don't think anybody seeks out ads, especially when they're paying for something. Super Bowl ads are only popular because they're essentially comedy skits and short films, they're basically free, and they're part of a cultural event t…
> Almost nobody likes them because they appreciate quality marketing content or something. Quality marketing is fun to watch. Hence the people (including myself) who only watch the ads. It's hardly isolated to the Superbowl—look at the millions of views which some better ads get on YouTube. Likewise, I definitely think for many people advertising is part of the magazine experience. I certainly don't mind some of the…
Most of these "quality" commercials could swap out products and the exposure would be the same. People don't want to be sold something, they just want to absorb interesting content. That's what modern advertisement gets wrong.
Contrary to popular opinion, people want to see ads. A good ad is very much appreciated. This is why magazines still make money. This is why the SuperBowl is popular amongst non-football fans. Unfortunately, most ads are spammy which is why internet ads have earned this terrible reputation.
Which is why adblockers exist:-p
More seriously, you are right but people only like ads that are entertaining by themselves,introduce them to something new and worthwile or perfectly fit their needs.
Targeted advertising promises to do 3, can't do 1 and actively subverts 2. So I'd say it fails
Contrary to popular opinion, people want to see ads. A good ad is very much appreciated. This is why magazines still make money. This is why the SuperBowl is popular amongst non-football fans. Unfortunately, most ads are spammy which is why internet ads have earned this terrible reputation.
Super Bowl is sort of a good point, but what do you mean by magazines? Given a choice between a magazine with and without ads, are you saying some people would choose the one with ads? I don't think anybody seeks out ads, especially when they're paying for something. Super Bowl ads are only popular because they're essentially comedy skits and short films, they're basically free, and they're part of a cultural event t…
Contrary to popular opinion, people want to see ads. A good ad is very much appreciated. This is why magazines still make money. This is why the SuperBowl is popular amongst non-football fans. Unfortunately, most ads are spammy which is why internet ads have earned this terrible reputation.
> Contrary to popular opinion, people want to see ads. Yes, but they want to see other things too. Looking at the same banners upon viewing any page on a website; or looking at more ads than the actual content; or waiting for the content to show up because ads haven't downloaded yet doesn't help.
The only solution I see is Google implementing strict policies to curb the menace. I am pretty sure it's in their technical prowess to implement ad placement restrictions but why aren't they doing it? Maybe, it's in their best interest financially to just be easy on the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Almost nobody likes them because they appreciate quality marketing content or something. Quality marketing is fun to watch. Hence the people (including myself) who only watch the ads. It's hardly isolated to the Superbowl—look at the millions of views which some better ads get on YouTube. Likewise, I definitely think for many people advertising is part of the magazine experience. I certainly don't mind some of the…
Yeah, but quality marketing is almost always an isolated story/plot that has nothing to do with any products sold and they throw a logo and name on at the end. Most of these "quality" commercials could swap out products and the exposure would be the same. People don't want to be sold something, they just want to absorb interesting content. That's what modern advertisement gets wrong.
I think the Get a Mac campaign, for example, is both lots of fun and directly connected to the product being sold.
When people purchase GQ or Vogue, they are buying it as much for advertisements as for editorial content. When someone flips through one of those magazines, it's like they appreciate the designers hiring models, taking pictures, and sharing it in the magazine even though both they and the reader paid. Take the ads out of GQ or Vogue and there is almost nothing there. If I create an ad on Facebook and people click on…
Perhaps because you're looking at specific subjective examples, rather than the overall end-user experience of advertising.
Take your example of a Candelbox concert ad. Let's say that band made more revenue as a result of your ad. But that money was diverted from other uses, perhaps depriving another band of revenue.
So, how does the losing side compete with that? Advertise too! Louder, cleverer, sneakier, anyway that works.
It's that adversarial aspect that makes the overall experience degrading for the viewer. Did you consider that the people you targetted also saw, say, five other ads on the same page? And several hundred ads online that day let alone billboards, commercial broadcasts, posters on the back of buses... cumulatively it's a bombardment, with each ad designed to have a subtle psychological effect and intended to siphon people's money in one direction. It's not benign.
TLDR: one ad might be cute, 1000 ads causes push-back.