Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

41–50 of 282 posts

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

#41
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…

Ads worked differently back in the days. A hiking site would accept sponsorships by outdoor brands, basically copying the magazine model, where the targeted audience gets served targeted ads with publishers inserting themselves in the middle and collecting a fee.

The big brands have figured out that in cost-per-click (or any cost-per-action model) retargeting delivers the best results, so if you go and search for flights to Barcelona or some shoes, those flights and those shoes will follow you around - there's a high probability that a click will lead to a purchase, and it costs advertisers essentially zero if they're wrong, since you likely won't click.

The Web ads industry thus turned into a raffle industry - ads for same flights to Barcelona will turn up on outdoor enthusiast sites, CNN, Wired magazine, ESPN, your local newspaper site, Facebook and whatever else you happen to visit the next few days. In a raffle scenario the entity with the most raffle tickets gets higher chances of winning, so publishers are locked in a war to accummulate as many raffle tickets as possible with the hopes that one of them will be a major winner, i.e. you finally buying those tickets to Barcelona and those shoes on Zappos.

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

#42

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…

An ad never clicked usually doesn't get billed, but gets reported as expanding "the reach", so counterintuitively it might actually boost a campaign (CTR fell, but the reach is now pretty cheap).

Every single ad clicked every single time without an intent to act on it, however ... https://adnauseam.io

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

#43
Some of the responsibility for the failure of this should fall on the marketing managers and their lack of knowledge on what decent online advertising looks like.

I worked in AdLand for a while and remember the agencies impressing clients with bullshit results and pure vanity metrics.

Nothing about actual business results, just another thing marketing managers were seen to need to do.

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

#44
post #18
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.

Often it's a false economy. Dish detergent for example... the more expensive stuff is often far thicker concentrate and lasts many times longer than the cheap stuff.

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

#45
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.

If Google or Facebook were gone tomorrow, I'd definitely notice. If Uber was gone tomorrow, I'd use Lyft.

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

#46
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…

Yeah, but it's not like traditional advertising is free of fraud either. You can't even really pretend to measure the effectiveness of campaigns there. And there's much more money in it.

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

#47

Online works better for PR, "astroturfing", manipulation of fundamental attitudes and opinions than for explicit ads. Buy some reddit, facebook and twitter accounts, and with the right consultants, you will move the world.

For example, instead of spending millions on ads, write a story about "how you're not going to spend millions on ads" and get noticed by a lot of wealthy consumer in the prime pages of their Business Review newspapers.

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

#48
It is very easy to waste big spends in online advertising. There are large swaths of revenue absorbing points that are completely useless or nearly useless.

There are also ways to do it effectively on limited spends. Just like anything else, it requires effort.

With as many channels as there are, and as many people who have found a way to avoid commercials, TV advertising is a shadow of what it used to be.

These days effective and valuable marketing, especially for large brands, is hard work. No one vendor is a complete solution, and you have to consistently experiment and determine what the best options are where your target customer eyeballs happen to be landing in an ever-changing landscape.

Advertising in general is ripe for disruption.

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

#50
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…

inside google adwords you have a invalid click rate, right now i have cca 13% per search campaign and 70% display from the start of this month till now, im sure thats not everything because for some time i tracked those invalid clicks from my side and those where bigger then what google reported. its frustrating but i can hardly do anything.
Post reply on HN