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

31–40 of 282 posts

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

#31

Post by VMG »

laythea wrote: post #30

Back in the olden days where ads where more sparse, they would have so much more impact. Nowadays after the awash of ads we have everywhere, companies are collectively loosing their ability to make ads impact. (by logic, the more we are exposed to it, the less effective it it). Therefore they did it to themselves. They abused it, so that now people reject them where they can, and it becomes less profitable. No sympat…

Recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14833508

> The growth of “zero-sum” activities may, however, be even more important. Look around the economy, and it’s striking how much high-talent manpower is devoted to activities that cannot possibly increase human welfare, but entail competition for the available economic pie.

Advertising seems to be a zero-sum game. I can imagine some industries cartellizing to stop it altogether.

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

#32

Post by jsemrau »

This reminds me of my experience with Google Adwords. My target was to increase signups for travellers to selected cities looking for 'events nearby'. So, I selected my cities and customer segments and had a limit set of 30 Dollars / day. Regularly, I paid for 2-5 Dollar more per day than my max price. I reduced the price to actually match my max price, but this would as a result out-price me of the relevant keywords. In addition, it never brought the clicks they charged me for. Yes, I was tracking the other side of it as well. I believe there is a whole world of click-fraud with Google and Facebook in this which noone is tracking. I am looking forward to a world where Silicon Valley is tackling the 'hard' problems of this world again (Space/ Marine Exploration, Artificial Intelligence, Big Data Analytics, etc) rather then the optimization of click bait.

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

#33

Post by Ellie_ »

madeofpalk wrote: post #19
tomjen3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My algorithm for that kind of stuff is what is cheapest in the store I am in? I think that is what a lot of people do.

I'll happily admit I usually go with the 'coolest' looking packaging.

just as Micheal responded I am amazed that any body able to get paid $4334 in 4 weeks on the internet

——————–

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

#34

Post by csomar »

madeofpalk wrote: post #19
tomjen3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My algorithm for that kind of stuff is what is cheapest in the store I am in? I think that is what a lot of people do.

I'll happily admit I usually go with the 'coolest' looking packaging.

Me too. I think my reasoning goes "if they didn't care about the packaging, why would they care about what it is inside?"

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

#35

Post by michaelvoz »

jsemrau wrote: post #32

This reminds me of my experience with Google Adwords. My target was to increase signups for travellers to selected cities looking for 'events nearby'. So, I selected my cities and customer segments and had a limit set of 30 Dollars / day. Regularly, I paid for 2-5 Dollar more per day than my max price. I reduced the price to actually match my max price, but this would as a result out-price me of the relevant keywords…

Perhaps rather anecdotal, but this is why I joined Uber, and did not take my Facebook or Google offers. It feels nice to work on tech that directly impacts lives and how a persons day flows. As opposed to, as you correctly put it, optimizing click bait.

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

#36

Post by prostoalex »

colbyh wrote: post #2

A couple of things going on at once - it's hard for old guard companies to compete in digital marketing because consumers are being trained to buy based on reviews, price, and delivery times more than brand. And when you're spending $100M/quarter over a dozen brands all digital marketing is going to be brand marketing. It also raises a question about conversion being a lagging indicator here. It's possible after a fe…

> It also raises a question about conversion being a lagging indicator here. It's possible after a few more months of lower spend they will start to see consumers pulling back.

Why would online lag be different from other media? It's unlikely consumers drop everything and stock up on Downy Fabric Softener after viewing the ad on TV or hearing a cheerful radio/podcast commercial.

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

#37

Post by jy1 »

michaelvoz wrote: post #35
jsemrau wrote: post #32

This reminds me of my experience with Google Adwords. My target was to increase signups for travellers to selected cities looking for 'events nearby'. So, I selected my cities and customer segments and had a limit set of 30 Dollars / day. Regularly, I paid for 2-5 Dollar more per day than my max price. I reduced the price to actually match my max price, but this would as a result out-price me of the relevant keywords…

Perhaps rather anecdotal, but this is why I joined Uber, and did not take my Facebook or Google offers. It feels nice to work on tech that directly impacts lives and how a persons day flows. As opposed to, as you correctly put it, optimizing click bait.

There are a lot of teams at Uber optimizing for click bait lol.

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

#38

Post by tmnvix »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
disc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's possible that digital marketing is not all that effective for commodity items? I admit to having brand preferences for laundry detergent and garbage bags, though I like to believe (perhaps wishfully) they are a result of first-hand and family experiences.

My algorithm for that kind of stuff is what is cheapest in the store I am in? I think that is what a lot of people do.

For many of the types of things that P&G sell, I look at the ratio of active ingredients to cost.

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

#40

Post by gaius »

abritinthebay wrote: post #13
RodericDay wrote: post #4

I've often dreamed of coding up some kind of worm-virus, but instead of stealing data or demanding ransom or corrupting storage, it would just install uBlock Origin on infected computers. Millions of infected people, with zero idea what an "ad-blocker" is, just wondering where all the YouTube ads went. And then, hopefully after a month or so of infection, companies realizing that their bottom-lines were unaffected, p…

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet

Content worth paying for is worth paying for the old-fashioned way. Movies are not an ad-supported industry, nor is music. We'd only lose the crap that has to trick people into paying indirectly, and good riddance.
Post reply on HN