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

271–280 of 282 posts

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

#271

Post by nkurz »

tjoff wrote: post #269
pbiggar wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People who run ads believe ads works.

Even then, I think you are being too generous. The stricter criterion is something like: "People who run more ads believe they will personally benefit from running more ads."

Ideally (and occasionally) this means that ad buyer believes the company as a whole will benefit from the advertising. But even if this belief is real, if the influence or income of the decision maker correlates positively with increasing spending on ads (and decreases with cutbacks) it can be difficult to distinguish belief from reality.

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

#272

Post by Retra »

jpttsn wrote: post #252
Retra wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech isn't a blanket "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" rule. It is the freedom to communicate with interested parties about the matters of your choosing. It is not supposed to be a freedom to perform mass campaigns of dishonesty in economic or political domains.

I don't think this is a true dichotomy. 1) "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" I agree, that would be silly; the perpetrator could choose to call any action speech. 2) campaigns of dishonesty Could these campaigns be carried out by actions that fall under a commonly before hand agreed on definition of speech?

Sure they could, but it's not the definition of speech that needs to be fixed, it's the definition of "dishonesty campaign."

And there, the problem is not about speech, but identity-protection for the religious. One person's lies are "protected tradition" while another person's lies are "dangerous fake news."

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

#273

Post by mbesto »

sah2ed wrote: post #149
mbesto wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tech" is not an industry per say, it's a medium for delivering business value. Straight from the horses mouth: Mark Zuckerberg Finally Admits Facebook Is a Media Company http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/

Tech is indeed is an industry. Look at it this way: Big law firms are called that because they hire a lot of lawyers (and lawyer-types); big 4 accounting firms hire a lot of accountants and big 5 tech firms hire a lot of software engineers (or CS majors if you will). They are called that not because they don't hire HR, IT, finance or other professionals, they are called "big X" because specific professions (lawyers,…

> They are called that not because they don't hire HR, IT, finance or other professionals, they are called "big X" because specific professions (lawyers, accountants, software engineers) dominate their hiring.

Except that's fundamentally not true: http://tomtunguz.com/saas-spend-allocation-benchmarks/

Should we just call them "sales companies"?

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

#274

Post by heliophobicdude »

I'm sorry to be that person, but if others start pulling their digital ads too, what effects with this have on the whole tech industry. Google and Facebook, who both are the face of the industry, would most likely get most of the blow. They both control over 77% of digital ad revenue [1]. Will that scenario only hurt those two and other ad providers in isolation or will investors reconsider tech company stocks as a whole?

[1] http://fortune.com/2017/04/26/google-facebook-digital-ads/

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

#275

Post by sundvor »

nkurz wrote: post #271
tjoff wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People who run ads believe ads works. Even then, I think you are being too generous. The stricter criterion is something like: "People who run more ads believe they will personally benefit from running more ads." Ideally (and occasionally) this means that ad buyer believes the company as a whole will benefit from the advertising. But even if this belief is real, if the influence or income of the decision maker correl…

All this talk about "belief" like it's religion or something. It's reasonably feasible to get hard, scientific numbers that prove the effectiveness of advertising spend. Ie tracing click throughs vs conversion rate.

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

#276

Post by criddell »

manigandham wrote: post #262
criddell wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's far better than before

That's not really what P&G has found.

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

#277

Post by manigandham »

criddell wrote: post #276
manigandham wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> it's far better than before That's not really what P&G has found.

CPG can't be tracked is the problem, there's a major last mile / offline attribution issue and it's only getting tougher as security/privacy gets more regulated.

That being said, we work with P&G, they definitely know more now than decades before with older mediums.

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

#278

Post by dhimes »

cbr wrote: post #211
dhimes wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How the hell do you know? How do you know that the furniture store doesn't have what you are looking for in under 2 seconds? Seems impossible to me.

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

#279

Post by tomrod »

zaroth wrote: post #235
eps wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "lift"?

New customers or orders brought in by the ad which you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Lift is a basically unmeasurable quantity which directly relates to the ROI of the ad.

Measurable via test design, with a control population establishing the baseline.

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

#280

Post by rajnathani »

tzs wrote: post #208
reitanqild wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the amount of stupid ads I see I sometimes click one when I see something that is remotely interesting (dev tools etc), hoping to train googles AS (Artificial Stupidity) to serve me more relevant ads. (No, I'm still happily married and I cannot figure out why a company that sits on my personal email and most of my internet searches for the last 15 years cannot figure that out. Especially as I have even configur…

I can't figure out why Zillow thinks I'd be interested in houses in Palo Alto. They regular send me emails about houses they think I might be interested in, and they are in the Palo Alto area. The only reason they have my email address was because I made an account so I could claim my house on Zillow, so they know exactly where I live, and that is 850 miles from Palo Alto.

Do you use or at any time have used a Cali VPN?
Post reply on HN