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

P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 282 posts

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#21

Post by mastax »

paulie_a wrote: post #12
RodericDay wrote: post #4

I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Origin on infected computers. Millions of infected people, with zero idea what an "ad-blocker" is, just wondering where all the YouTube ads went. And then, hopefully after a month or so of infection, companies realizing that their bottom-lines were unaffected, p…

Personally I have grown so tired of analytics and advertising my personal idea would be to build a plugin that doesn't block anything. But instead it simply visits websites on random topics over time and clicks ads here and there. Slowly degrading the data shitty advertising companies have and ruining ROI. I am starting to do this manually and randomly clicking ads. I honestly need to start doing that on facebook due…

https://noiszy.com/

Previously, on HN... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002995

Noiszy is a browser plugin that creates meaningless web data - digital "noise."

It visits and navigates around websites, from within your browser, leaving misleading digital footprints around the internet. Noiszy only visits a list of sites that you approve, and only works when you turn it on. Run Noiszy in the background while you're working, or start Noiszy when you're not using your browser, and it sends meaningless data to these sites for as long as you let it run.

This meaningless data dilutes the significance of your "real" data, by creating a campaign of misinformation. You become more difficult for an algorithm to understand, market to, or manipulate. You can outsmart the "filter bubble".

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#22

Post by ThomPete »

bkj123 wrote: post #14

Not sure what we can get from this article as there are so many variables... What "digital" spend was cut: paid search? online video? paid social media? brand vs. product oriented? What was the impact of non-marketing drivers like distribution, price, promo, competition, and the economy? What was the impact of (new) ad creative? Maybe take it as they are under pressure to cut expenses and cutting marketing, digital a…

I don't think it really matters. The reality is that the Ad space is ridden with fraud, poorly performing networks, platforms and methods and I believe we will see an increase of companies dropping spending in digital advertising or at least consolidate around what works and internalize their ad buying (which has been done by ad buyers who literally rip customers off in the fees they take compared to the value they deliver)

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#23

Post by surferbayarea »

Hopefully a step in the direction towards cleaning the internet from the blotch of online ads. Make the internet a place to learn again and an open platform where people and businesses can exchange ideas(and data), not the silo'ed short-term profit-mongering mess it has become.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#24

Post by tannhaeuser »

ekianjo wrote: post #11
kilroy123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's even necessary. The percentage of people using ad blockers keeps going up and up.

its still a minority. And even more so on mobile browsers.

You're probably right, though I don't get why. FF mobile with uBlock origin works really really well.

Me, I'm using even IE 11 lately on-site at a customer of mine. They provide a choice of Chrome and IE, but I don't feel like klicking through Google's privacy disclaimer.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#25

Post by vit05 »

"after finding that ultra-niche targeting compromises reach and has limited effectiveness" “The bigger your brand, the more you need broad reach and less targeted media,”

This is quite interesting. I see that other companies are cutting down on agency spending as well and some are focused on having an internal agency. The idea is to know the consumer and have a quick response to what is trending. So, apparently, the information that Facebook provides is not enough to put together a small niche group of people and say that they all would like that product. Or, at least, not worth the dollar invested. But knowing who the target consumer is, and building targeted advertising at it, but reaching a larger population has a more efficient return. Even when it reaches people who are not in the target audience of your product. Because it is a more general campaign about something that is happening, it helps in building the brand. And big companies care a lot about their brands and what people think about them.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#26

Post by DanBC »

paulie_a wrote: post #12
RodericDay wrote: post #4

I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Origin on infected computers. Millions of infected people, with zero idea what an "ad-blocker" is, just wondering where all the YouTube ads went. And then, hopefully after a month or so of infection, companies realizing that their bottom-lines were unaffected, p…

Personally I have grown so tired of analytics and advertising my personal idea would be to build a plugin that doesn't block anything. But instead it simply visits websites on random topics over time and clicks ads here and there. Slowly degrading the data shitty advertising companies have and ruining ROI. I am starting to do this manually and randomly clicking ads. I honestly need to start doing that on facebook due…

See "track me not".

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#27

Post by cyrusshepard »

surferbayarea wrote: post #23

Hopefully a step in the direction towards cleaning the internet from the blotch of online ads. Make the internet a place to learn again and an open platform where people and businesses can exchange ideas(and data), not the silo'ed short-term profit-mongering mess it has become.

I agree that would be amazing. Sadly, for every big advertiser that cuts back, a million others are willing to fill the void with a slightly smaller bid in order to gain exposure and eyeballs on their product. And publishers will sell it to them to keep the lights on. And yet, prices go up year after year on increased competition. Google's profit was up 29% last quarter on stronger ad sales, and Facebook was up 71% over last year. A race to the top, or the bottom?

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#28

Post by daveFNbuck »

vit05 wrote: post #25

"after finding that ultra-niche targeting compromises reach and has limited effectiveness" “The bigger your brand, the more you need broad reach and less targeted media,” This is quite interesting. I see that other companies are cutting down on agency spending as well and some are focused on having an internal agency. The idea is to know the consumer and have a quick response to what is trending. So, apparently, the…

It's not about efficiency, it's about quantity. Let's say I profit $20 for each customer my ad engages. If I reach 1000 people with amazing targeting and get a 10% response rate, I'm making on average $2/person. If I broaden the reach to 100,000 people and get only a 1% response rate, I'm making on average $1/person.

Clearly, bringing in $1/person is less efficient than bringing in $2/person, but at the end of the day you have $100,000 instead of $2,000 (ignoring the cost of the ad for simplicity).

With the broad campaign, you still get the people you would have targeted with the narrow campaign. So if you're going to do the broad campaign, you're already done.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#29

Post by dp-tyvek »

ekianjo wrote: post #15
colbyh wrote: post #2

A couple of things going on at once - it's hard for old guard companies to compete in digital marketing because consumers are being trained to buy based on reviews, price, and delivery times more than brand. And when you're spending $100M/quarter over a dozen brands all digital marketing is going to be brand marketing. It also raises a question about conversion being a lagging indicator here. It's possible after a fe…

well also nobody cares so much about digital marketing when it comes to buyIng stuff that is pretty much commodity.

In my (anecdotal) experience a lot of people just go for the familiar brands when buying commodity products. Surely creating brand awareness must have some kind of effect.

Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads

#30

Post by laythea »

Back in the olden days where ads where more sparse, they would have so much more impact. Nowadays after the awash of ads we have everywhere, companies are collectively loosing their ability to make ads impact. (by logic, the more we are exposed to it, the less effective it it).

Therefore they did it to themselves. They abused it, so that now people reject them where they can, and it becomes less profitable. No sympathy from me.

Post reply on HN