Live data from Hacker News

Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

posthog.com

221–230 of 290 posts

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#221
post #127
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly sure the Twitter portion is because they named their product synonymous to a common social media expression for “share a picture of your (male) genitalia”. It’s an unfortunate scenario for anyone who had to look at those tweets, I’m sure.

I'm confused, do you mean "PostHog"? I've never heard of this being used that way.

Yes, "hog" is slang for penis. Telling someone to "post hog" is a particularly common expression among more... online leftists. A degradation of their character, basically telling them that their opinions are worthless so they had better have a large member to make up for it.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#222
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes, I'm the founder of this company (one of my colleagues wrote this piece) - just saw it appear here. We shipped a rather huge change to the website recently (we're trying to let other people post stuff too), think we accidentally made it janky and missed this. Will fix when the right person wakes up - he's west coast US! Sorry for QA via HN :)

FWIW, fully a quarter of the screen is taken up by fixed position elements that are entirely irrelevant to a reader. When I see this on sites I want or have to use, I add cosmetic rules to delete the sticky elements. When I see it on sites I don't have to use, I close the tab. I don't claim that this makes it a net loss for you from a money standpoint, nor that I'm representative of a majority of your market, but I _…

If you're talking about that obnoxious left sidebar, I agree. The table of contents widget on the right too. The article itself is squeezed between a bunch of shit I don't want to look at. It makes the page feel crowded and like it's trying to get me. Please just let us read the content! If it's any good, it'll speak for itself.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#223
Disclaimer: I run a small European marketing agency (though our minimum monthly budget for clients is a few times bigger than discussed & recommended in the article).

I think this is a really good article, and I definitely agree both with the suggestion to use an agency (though I suppose I could be biased here!) - there's a lot of low-hanging fruit and it's definitely possible to do plenty yourself, but unless you really can't afford an agency there's surely more important things to work on yourselves. While hiring dedicated marketing people makes sense when you're a certain size or bigger I've still seen the best arrangement to be as few people internally as possible and being people who are not only good at marketing but more importantly good at managing, and have the bulk of the work handled by an agency. Rather than having to deal in giving whole people specific jobs, an agency can provide small amounts of time as needed from a wide range of experts on different aspects.

I also agree that it's a good idea to be familiar with with it all too, though, because that way you can actually judge which agencies are worth working with and you can actually work with them, rather than leave them alone and hope they're going to do a good job.

This article itself is a really great example of what they explained at the beginning - about writing. It's not a paid ad, but it got me interested in potentially using their analytics product from having previously not heard of them.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#224
post #75

> we ask all users where they heard about PostHog whenever they sign up or book a demo – it's a simple (optional) free text field. Enough of our users say 'ad on Google' or similar that we know paid ads do actually reach a large chunk of them. Caveat: I always type in "search engine" or "google" despite the fact that I only use Brave/Bing/DDG. I often find things on random interesting post where the author remarks so…

"I don't remember" needs to be an option for this question.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#225
post #54
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SponsorBlock ( https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock ) to the rescue!

I feel more bad about using this than a regular ad blocker. With a regular ad blocker it's blocking ads for which the lion's share is probably going to $facelessabusivecorporation, whereas sponsorships go 100% into the pockets of content creators who typically aren't exactly rich. It feels less like downloading pirated music and more like sneaking into an indie concert without paying.

You can support most of them with Patrion if you want.

Other than that making the video is a sunk cost, the only company you cost money is Google.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#226
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is 'not really good'? We had spectacular ROI on adwords ads. BUT, and the article mentions this somewhat, not for tech/freemium saas products. Developers avoid ads like the plague. For consumer stuff that are just immediately paid (there is no free; you pay or you leave the landing page) it works incredibly well in our experience.

"Developers avoid ads like the plague." If they can. They can't avoid them on Instagram or Tiktok.

I would assume most devs are smart enough to stay away from those places.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#227
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the economics of VPN companies is that they have a quite inexpensive, commodity product which has a lot of churn. The ads get people to sign up for a month or two at any price, which pays for the cost of the ads. Tom Scott’s video a few years ago helped, but some creators still seem to be saying or implying that using a VPN makes your browsing “safer,” which unless you have a very specific need for a certai…

In the vast majority of cases, these creators are only taking slight liberties with talking points provided by the advertiser. If basically every NordVPN ad on YouTube is talking about safety, you can be fairly confident that it was a talking point provided by NordVPN.

Nordvpn seemed like a decent choice for streaming bbc but I won’t use them because of a company advertises that hard it must be bad. I would never trust them for privacy they are too big

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#228
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it can work in the opposite direction as well. Eg, all the Youtube ads of NordVPN only did was to convince me that if I'm ever in the market, I'll use someone else. Part because all that advertising has to cost a lot of money, which of course the subscription has to pay for. Part because some of their advertising is less than completely honest about what they provide.

Apparently VPNs are stupidly high margins so the more lemmings to convert, the more pockets lined.

There did not seem to be a lot of lower cost options for watching bbc they all cost about the same dispite high margins

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#229
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get paid for the sponsorship based in part on how many people watch the sponsorship sections of past videos. That can be and is measured, and has a material effect on the amount companies will pay.

Sounds like they're still being paid then. There's zero pay when blocking ads.

There's zero pay if 100% of their viewers blocked ads. There would also be zero pay if 100% of their viewers used SponsorBlock.

I'm not saying that on the balance it's wrong to use SponsorBlock (I'm a heavy ad blocker myself, and most of the arguments against SponsorBlock also apply to ad blocking in general), just that you can't justify it by pretending that you using SponsorBlock doesn't cost them anything.

Re: Burning money on paid ads for a dev tool – what we've learned

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you can get data with such a tiny spend, to be honest. From experience, I would have thought at _least_ $2000 per test. I've been doing PPC stuff for 20 years. As soon as someone tells me they are doing PPC I ask them how they enjoy setting fire to all their money. Unless you have oodles of time to spend optimizing it and measuring it, you are guaranteed to just burn all your cash. It is very, very h…

geez. I've been thinking of doing some fake door tests but wanted to launch something like 10-20 experiments. Even at $500 that's 5-10k, which is not feasible. How can any startup afford these tests? If I ran 10 experiments/week, with the $2k measure, you're looking at 80k/month, just to get some validation.

It depends on your cost-per-click, or cost-per-action. If you were in a niche that was pennies per action then you could do it on a smaller budget. It's just that you require a lot of data to get any meaningful results. My PPC traffic wavers up and down and it would be hard to know if it was the weather or some other factor unless you had enough traffic to average things out.
Post reply on HN