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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 282 posts

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

#261

Post by manigandham »

wyc wrote: post #8

Bob Hoffman at the Ad Contrarian called this in January: "P&G To Online Ad World: We've Had Enough" - https://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2017/01/p-to-online-ad-wor... Digital advertising is rife with (what should be considered) fraud. Advertisers feel as though they are getting fleeced, and the advertising middlemen reap massive margins. The accountability isn't where it needs to be; there are websites that hide ads u…

Advertisers are the most complicit in all this. They always have the option of using whitelists and buying properly but they (meaning the dozens of layers in the agency/vendor supply chain) always go for the cheap impressions and clicks to make their reports look good.

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

#262

Post by manigandham »

criddell wrote: post #142
nitwit005 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are websites that hide ads under other ads, still reporting displays for all ads per page load. While people have done that, most ads seem to load load with some JS to confirm if the ad is visible, and if it's above or below the fold.

Why does it matter if the ad is visible? When those same companies post in People magazine, they pay for the placement they want and get no data about how many people saw the ad. The agencies that buy the ad verify it was placed in the right spot at the right size and that's about all they can do. Why should the web be any different? As long as they insist on bundling javascript with their ad, I'm going to run an ad-…

> Why should the web be any different?

What? Because it can - it's the biggest reason so much money is transferring to digital and away from print, because of data and accountability. An ad that was at least scrolled into view is better than one that isnt and many campaigns are now bought on that basis.

It's not perfect but it's far better than before and we're not going back.

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

#263

Post by mercutio2 »

saalweachter wrote: post #168
briandear wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business is ad delivery. Apple is a consumer electronics company as they make and sell hardware directed primarily at consumers (as well as niche professional markets – kind of like Panasonic.) Google is an advertising company; the tech they produce is nearly universally focused in some way on the delivery of ads. They make and sell ad delivery. Search: ad delivery. Any innovations around search are all built f…

It's disingenuous from the perspective of what it's like to work at a company. I worked at a comparison shopping site that turned into an SEO house towards the end, after we failed to get direct traffic. The entire company slowly shifted focus improve our SEO, because that's what dragged us away from bankruptcy. Our engineers were tasked with finding ways to get indexed in Google higher, tweaking our site layout cons…

“Disingenuous”?

That’s absurd. Your argument appears to be “I wish people outside Google didn’t pay so much attention to what business Google is in, because it’s super fun being an engineer working at a place that has a geyser of money coming in from the ads division so engineering can ignore business pretty much completely.”

Yes, that is fun (so say all my friends who work there)! But it’s pretty irrelevant to the conversation about what business Google is in. It’s an advertising company.

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

#264

Post by Terretta »

pbiggar wrote: post #210
zippergz wrote: post #189

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…

Buyers make the world go round. Salespeople make commissions.

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

#265

Post by ekianjo »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #24
ekianjo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its still a minority. And even more so on mobile browsers.

You're probably right, though I don't get why. FF mobile with uBlock origin works really really well. Me, I'm using even IE 11 lately on-site at a customer of mine. They provide a choice of Chrome and IE, but I don't feel like klicking through Google's privacy disclaimer.

sadly ff mobile share is very close to 0 percent.

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

#266

Post by jacobush »

pointytrees wrote: post #214
jacobush wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, but think Coca Cola, BMW or something large. Often there is no phone number. They are just showing they arr still around

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

#267

Post by satori99 »

abritinthebay wrote: post #257
satori99 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet Hyperbole much? That statement is just rubbish. Personally I think it would be the most constructive thing to happen to the Internet. Hell, maybe even society in general. Advertisers are scum, they ruin everything they touch, and any 'content' producers whose businesses died if this was to occur would certainly not be missed by me.

Not hyperbole. Having the majority of content producers be unable to continue operation would be a blow the Internet has never seen. Massively destructive. Nothing would come close that’s happened before.

If no-one is willing to pay for their 'content', then it isn't worth anything anyway.

The Internet did just fine without corporate advertisers running the show and tracking everybody for years.

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

#268

Post by mrcn »

dp-tyvek wrote: post #29
ekianjo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well also nobody cares so much about digital marketing when it comes to buyIng stuff that is pretty much commodity.

In my (anecdotal) experience a lot of people just go for the familiar brands when buying commodity products. Surely creating brand awareness must have some kind of effect.

they may buy a familiar product, but they definitely buy the available product.

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

#269

Post by tjoff »

pbiggar wrote: post #223
tjoff wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you not read my comment? If you did read my comment, why would you write this one?

Thought it was pretty clear that I didn't buy into yours.

I guess you could rephrase your comment as this: People who run ads believe ads works.

As an outsider that is not very convincing.

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

#270

Post by oliwarner »

laser wrote: post #107
oliwarner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good thing about Google's cost-combative platforms like Adwords and DoubleClick is it prices the lowest rung of spammers out of the market. Multinationals leaving these platforms means the price drops down. This not only means more illegitimate entities can afford to compete, but that publishers need more of them, in more places, just to stay afloat on the same income. You could argue that this is falling apart b…

50-68%? You mean 32%-49%? https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en

I do. I was using very old numbers.
Post reply on HN