Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

211–220 of 282 posts

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

#211
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One or two seconds is not too quick for a human to reject your page after clicking on an ad.

It is totally too quick if they are looking for content. If they are looking for a car and click on a lumber store then I agree. But anything other than a clear mis-click and you can't absorb the page that fast.

I regularly click back from search results in under 2s if they're not what I was looking for; if I clicked on ads I would expect to do the same.

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

#212

Honestly, I'm waiting for the internet advertising apocalypse wherein retailers cut digital ad spending because ROI is too low - and only advertise on Facebook or other sites with super targeting. That would effectively kill a good chunk of internet services. [1] https://marketinginsidergroup.com/content-marketing/marketer...

Search ads for retailers have solid ROI, it would be counterproductive to reduce them. Ads on random websites are more challenging, as the intent is further removed, but still could have good ROI, just need to be cheaper.

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

#213
Marketing is the price you pay to get attention. All marketing is a hack for attention. Being data-driven and figuring out the 1% of your digital ads that are working, then capitalizing on them, is a hack. Using a unique marketing distribution channel or method is a hack. Embedding the marketing into your product is a hack. These are all "growth" hacks.

Cutting in front of the line is a hack to get your lunch faster, but if everyone's doing it, the hack starts to lose effectiveness.

Not that digital ads today are ineffective, but I do think its methods have reached notable saturation points.

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

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a great point, and definitely hard for a huge company like P&G. But for a small company, it can be easier, because when your volumes are low enough, it's often very easy to directly see sales uplift in your top line numbers when you run the ad. If I normally get 20 orders a day, I run an ad and get 40, then the ad budget runs out and I'm back to a steady 20, I'm not too worried about cannibalization.

For a huge company it's even harder. I think the internet ads serve partly the same as news paper ads. There is no click through for them either. Actual paper ones.

We have a couple different phone numbers exclusively for advertising campaigns. We can note the line it came on when receiving the call. We're a small-mid business, so I assume larger businesses have budgets for a lot more ways to track printed media advertising that isn't too obtrusive.

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost feel like there are two factions. I'm pretty similar to you. I have clicked on ads a handful of times, but it's very rare. However, I have worked in jobs where I had visibility into the metrics, and I have seen internet ads be EXTREMELY effective. Not in terms of clicks (which could easily be accidental or fraudulent), but in terms of people clicking and then purchasing. People aren't going to "accidentally"…

Not only are there definitely people who click ads, but there are people _like us_ who click ads. All the dev tool companies run ads! CircleCI runs them, but the dozen or so other dev tool companies where I know the founders or early hires also run ads. You would think given comments like this on HN that they would be useless, but we all run the numbers. The numbers say that not only are they effective, but that usua…

Or, they just don't have the slightest clue...

"Everyone is doing it, must be good."

I believe this summarizes the ad industry quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TysKyHXXtYQ

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

#216
post #180
post #82

Fucking downvotes? Why can't someone say something matter-of-factly? HN, you broken.

Please stop violating the guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14879917 and marked it off-topic.

You wrote guidelines! (But still the only way to find out about them is to violate a few. Ex post facto.)

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

#217
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of suspect adblocking is doomed to die rather quickly if it ever seriously threatens the ad industry. As anti-adblock has shown even fairly trivial measures can be effective; and if you control the platform in more depth you can be a lot trickier about it, e.g. by doing minification-esque transforms to the complete dom tree.

Markets and competition should prevent this outcome. Unless we're not in a competitive market situation, in which case regulators can step in.

How would markets prevent this? The only party interested in adblocking is the consumer, who isn't the supplier nor the customer of ads. Now, if there were some real alternative to ads; but nobody has found that yet. I suppose regulators could create that alternative, but that doesn't seem politically likely for the foreseeable future.

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

#218

Marketing is the price you pay to get attention. All marketing is a hack for attention. Being data-driven and figuring out the 1% of your digital ads that are working, then capitalizing on them, is a hack. Using a unique marketing distribution channel or method is a hack. Embedding the marketing into your product is a hack. These are all "growth" hacks. Cutting in front of the line is a hack to get your lunch faster,…

I think you're painting with too broad strokes by likening all marketing to hacks. Marketing is more like finding alpha in a changing, inefficient market. There are going to be short term and long term strategies that work. The only guarantee is that things will change with time and those with more information will beat those with less.

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

#219
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long time ago I used some free $ on adwords to advertise Dropbox. I maxed out the free storage upgrades within a day or two. I am sure I am not the one who did that. People click on ads. Plus ads are not always meant to lead to sales. For companies like P&G who sell products with many substitutes it's also about maintaining brand awareness.

I took a different route. I spent a few hours coding up a script that would launch a VM and create a new account with a catch all email, then confirm the email. Worked well also. Your approach was much less work, though. ^^

And had the advantage of not being immoral.

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

#220
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop violating the guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14879917 and marked it off-topic.

You wrote guidelines! (But still the only way to find out about them is to violate a few. Ex post facto.)

They are linked in the footer appearing on nearly every page of HN (and have been for years). Comments about downvotes are explicitly addressed in them, so not much room for interpretation there either.
Post reply on HN