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

Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

checkmyads.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#21

Post by janalsncm »

kyleyeats wrote: post #16
changoplatanero wrote: post #4

Don't most advertisers invest in their own methods to tell if the ads they are buying are giving them value or not? I imagine that advertisers should have a pretty good idea of the quality of what they are buying.

No. There's a century-old quote for it: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker

I believe the context for that quote is that it was referencing TV ads, which makes sense. How can a TV advertiser know who is watching?

Online ads were supposed to fix this problem.

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#22

Post by specialist »

Dopameaner wrote: post #8
changoplatanero wrote: post #4

Don't most advertisers invest in their own methods to tell if the ads they are buying are giving them value or not? I imagine that advertisers should have a pretty good idea of the quality of what they are buying.

Thats correct, in my previous company, we had a full internal infrastructure that provides daily or hourly perforamnce of advertisements that hits all major social media APIs.

Did prev company then compare with performance claimed by google, facebook, etc?

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#24

Post by nkozyra »

paxys wrote: post #19

Meh. I read the original report when it was released, and it was a whole lot of nothing. Their claim was basically – "we found some Google video ad fraud!". Well guess what, Google knows and agrees that there is fraud. So do all the advertisers who pay them. The question is really about how much fraud there is. Google says that it actively keeps it under a certain %, and advertisers are generally okay with that numbe…

Yeah they really want to sell this as a bombshell but don't provide enough specifics or quantified data to do anything but say "well yeah ... and?"

I'm trying to find them motivations behind this thing.

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#25

Post by codedokode »

As I understand, the problem here is that Google wants to run your ads on third-party sites (to earn more), but you don't want to run ads there because third-party sites employ every trick possible to generate impressions even if real user never sees the ads.

If you care about money spent, you should calculate ROI for each third-party site and filter out those which give low returns. And not expect that Google will do that for you.

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#26

Post by [deleted] »

paxys wrote: post #19

Meh. I read the original report when it was released, and it was a whole lot of nothing. Their claim was basically – "we found some Google video ad fraud!". Well guess what, Google knows and agrees that there is fraud. So do all the advertisers who pay them. The question is really about how much fraud there is. Google says that it actively keeps it under a certain %, and advertisers are generally okay with that numbe…

[deleted]

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#27

Post by floomk »

paxys wrote: post #19

Meh. I read the original report when it was released, and it was a whole lot of nothing. Their claim was basically – "we found some Google video ad fraud!". Well guess what, Google knows and agrees that there is fraud. So do all the advertisers who pay them. The question is really about how much fraud there is. Google says that it actively keeps it under a certain %, and advertisers are generally okay with that numbe…

> Google says that it actively keeps it under a certain %, and advertisers are generally okay with that number

How about actively keeping that at 0%?

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#28

Post by changoplatanero »

ketzo wrote: post #10
changoplatanero wrote: post #4

Don't most advertisers invest in their own methods to tell if the ads they are buying are giving them value or not? I imagine that advertisers should have a pretty good idea of the quality of what they are buying.

Sure, if you're a medium-large company with a whole marketing department. But Google has a massive long tail of small businesses who have no chance of doing that kind of analysis.

My uncle ran a small business out of his garage where he got all his customers from advertising. Pretty sure he kept track of his return on each campaign and would only run them if they were profitable to him.

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#29

Post by kyleyeats »

janalsncm wrote: post #21
kyleyeats wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There's a century-old quote for it: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker

I believe the context for that quote is that it was referencing TV ads, which makes sense. How can a TV advertiser know who is watching? Online ads were supposed to fix this problem.

That quote's from around 1900 but your point stands for print. Nielsen actually got really good numbers for TV using statistics, self-filled form sheets and crisp one-dollar bills.

Re: Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

#30

Post by [deleted] »

janalsncm wrote: post #21
kyleyeats wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There's a century-old quote for it: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker

I believe the context for that quote is that it was referencing TV ads, which makes sense. How can a TV advertiser know who is watching? Online ads were supposed to fix this problem.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN