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

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

posthog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 290 posts

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

#231

Post by sfink »

dale_glass wrote: post #18

> This is why 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. You have to be careful with how you word questions. If you ask how I first noticed that something exists, then yes, an ad may well be it because ads are so in your…

Aren't you mostly talking about what the article calls awareness vs conversion? You're saying that ads made you aware and technical discussion is what would make you convert.

The other thing is controversial. "There's no such thing as bad PR" is a saying for a reason. I am also convinced that there are some things that make me never, ever consider a product. And yet: there was this one brand I hated, but it's been a while, and this one looks familiar... was it the good one or the bad one? Never mind, I don't have time to try to dredge that up, this looks familiar at least so I'll just grab it and remember for next time. (Sure I will...)

And that's just one way that bad PR can still be effective. Another is that it gets people talking about you, and some people will argue the other side because the main person's arguments are just bad.

Bad PR is good for awareness. Conversion is often based on different criteria than you expect. You may hate X, but you have a client who has heard of X and hasn't heard of Y, your preferred option.

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

#232

Post by carlosjobim »

Liquix wrote: post #99
pydry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be happy to pay content creators the money they deserve for high quality content. But no matter how good the video is, it's not worth sitting through pitches trying to convince or manipulate you into spending money. At that point I would rather receive lower quality content with no ads. It's not that people don't want to financially support creators. It's that the targeted advertising business has become so m…

> I would be happy to pay content creators the money they deserve for high quality content.

You can do that with YouTube Premium + Sponsorblock. Or pay them in other ways while blocking all ads.

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

#233

Post by carlosjobim »

lolinder wrote: post #132
corobo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whereas sponsorships go 100% into the pockets of content creators They get paid ad revenue based on ads served, they already got paid for the sponsorship. Personally I feel that this is the wrong way round (however I'm totally morally ok with blocking ads of all kinds, I'd be a hypocrite otherwise, ads suck)

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.

Are you sure about this? Is this a service that YouTube provides? Otherwise they wouldn't know except for the usage of promo codes.

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

#234

Post by lolinder »

carlosjobim wrote: post #233
lolinder wrote: post #132

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.

Are you sure about this? Is this a service that YouTube provides? Otherwise they wouldn't know except for the usage of promo codes.

I know that the content creators have access to this information, and anecdotally I've heard that it's part of the negotiation process, but to be fair I don't know that for sure.

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

#235

Post by kouru225 »

dale_glass wrote: post #18

> This is why 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. You have to be careful with how you word questions. If you ask how I first noticed that something exists, then yes, an ad may well be it because ads are so in your…

Wouldn’t that still be a beneficial thing? It’s like how I don’t need a plumber but if I did need a plumber I’d go reach for the last one I remember.

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

#236

Post by 22289d »

joshstrange wrote: post #91

Quora being a good option is incredibly surprising to me. I never click on Quora links as 90% of the time the "answers" are just ads or people who want to pretend they are a bigger deal than they are and know more than they do. I'm a little surprised podcast ads weren't tried, mostly because I'd love to know how well those do/don't work out for a tool like this.

That's my impression of Quora today too.

It was such a special place in the early years. Sad to see what they let happen to it. The saddest part is that it's surely deliberate. They have some really, really smart people working there. And they decided this is what they want.

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

#237

Post by corobo »

lolinder wrote: post #234
carlosjobim wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about this? Is this a service that YouTube provides? Otherwise they wouldn't know except for the usage of promo codes.

I know that the content creators have access to this information, and anecdotally I've heard that it's part of the negotiation process, but to be fair I don't know that for sure.

Aw man, I knew that was bollocks! Haha

I've not come across this as a negotiation thing directly or anecdotally, gave you the benefit of the doubt as maybe it was a super new thing that's not hit my radar yet.

We'd be giving ChatGPT the business for hallucinating, my theory is it learned to do that from internet forums :P

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

#239

Post by 22289d »

nlunbeck wrote: post #194
callalex wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s great for advertisers for the same reason people still use Nigerian prince scams: the victim has already demonstrated a clear lack of judgment and high susceptibility to bullshit.

Most people I know who actively use Quora are in the 65+ demographic. I've asked what's keeping them, and it turns out they have much more tolerance for things like sponsored posts and mandatory signups than most users would

a) that isn't what's keeping them. people don't stay somewhere because things that bother you, don't bother them. you didn't name anything they like about it.

b) the mandatory signup meme is and has always been ridiculous. it takes 8 seconds to create an account. for anyone who gets value out of something, that's not a big ask. if you're not willing to spend 8 seconds then it wasn't for you anyway.

Post reply on HN