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.
P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
211–220 of 282 posts
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#212Honestly, 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...
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#213Cutting 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
#214Earlier 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.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#215Earlier 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…
"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
#216Fucking 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.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#217Earlier 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.
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#218Marketing 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,…
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#219Earlier 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. ^^
Re: P&G Cuts More Than $100M in ‘Largely Ineffective’ Digital Ads
#220Earlier 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.)