Earlier quoted context omitted.
> overwhelming majority of digital ad formats just don’t work Doesn't it? It may have miserable conversion rate, limited target audience but it apparently is commercially viable. People would hardly spend money on sending e-mail spam in 2020 if it didn't work.
Mobile games run on this. They have a target user acquisition cost and spend based on that. It seems to work for some very profitable companies. People shouldn’t try to over read into this. Businesses can’t run on irrationality for very long
Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
491–500 of 933 posts
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#492Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about clicks or traffic. The real issue is selection effect vs. advertising effect SEO traffic benchmarks don't measure the right ting or show real ROI. FB or Google don't want you to measure the right thing. Traffic to the website has licks, purchases and downloads that are happening anyway (selection effect) and clicks, purchases and downloads that would not have happened without ads (advertising effect) m…
These are pretty easy to measure on Google or FB with their "lift study" tools and a conversion pixel. The lift tools will let you create a holdout group of X% of people who should be targeted by your ad. They won't see the ad, but you can still measure the rate at which they convert on your site. Then, you can compare that conversion rate to the rate of people who actually saw/clicked the ad. Conversion pixels are n…
I hate that Facebook and Google have normalized this invasion of privacy.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the podcast transcript. An economist proposed turning off print ads in one market to find out if they mattered, and the head of marketing said he’d rather not know.
Only because the head of marketing realized it would expose his past misjudgments - not because he didn't realize it would actually be a good thing for the company. You'll see this type of behavior in every department - people trying to cover up their mistakes.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ratio can't be negative, they can either be above of below 1. What you are talking about is "$benefit - $cost", not "$benefit / cost".
We tend to call most rations below 1 'negative'. Its technically wrong but most people get what you mean when you say it.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coca Cola sells water with flavouring and quite astonishing amounts of sugar. Apple sells nice devices made by what might as well be slave labour. Both are propped up - actually maintained - by huge and vastly expensive brand management strategies. The criticisms of individual campaigns here are missing the point. It's not about micro ad spend, but the perception of value and manipulation of behaviour created by the…
> Both are propped up - actually maintained - by huge and vastly expensive brand management strategies. In the case of Coca Cola, I agree - in the case of Apple, not at all . "Keyboardgate" aside, their products are vastly superior to the competition in build quality and life time. A typical Windows laptop is unusable after two, three years (almost all are made from plastic which breaks or looks extremely ugly rather…
Marketing the new thing is what Apple does. It is good at it. That is not the entire spectrum of customer value.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#497You can A/B test ads pretty easily, and this is quite common. With some degree of statistical certainty, you can tell how one ad performs to another. You don't have control over your SEO results as well - but you can also measure against SEO traffic with a high degree of certainty. All big companies do this. Sure, you're never going to know exactly how many people you advertised to would have organically, eventually…
> Sure, you're never going to know exactly how many people you advertised to would have organically, eventually found your product and bought it. But that honestly doesn't seem that important compared to the other metrics... Wait, why wouldn't that be important? It seems like the most important question since it asks whether advertising has any significant impact at all.
Having worked with a decent number of small teams without a lot of brand recognition, ads bring in a lot of customers: it was pretty obvious in our metrics when we ran ad campaigns vs when we didn't. Sure, eventually a few of those people may have found their way to us somehow anyway, but there was a step change in volume from ads. At least in my experience, the idea that ads have no significant impact is not really supported by the evidence. I assume that's what the OP meant by it not seeming important: they're working under the assumption that "do any ads do anything" is clear and you don't need to prove the worth there — instead you need to prove which ads work better than others, and cull the ones that don't perform well (which will also help save you from scammers).
One could argue that advertising for large brands with name recognition could be less valuable. I don't really have data or experience to know that one way or another, but in a competitive market that seems a little hard to believe. Tesla is an interesting counterexample, but I think it may be in part due to the EV market in the US not being particularly competitive; no one makes attractive, mid-priced cars with long range other than Tesla, let alone having an established charging network for road trips. And Elon's antics are, tbh, a form of marketing in and of themselves; "all press is good press."
Edit: I wrote the above paragraph badly. I can definitely believe ads are less valuable if you're a big brand vs a small one. But I'd be surprised if they're useless, at least in a competitive market. People don't have infinite money, so if they're looking to buy X and an ad for X from your competitor pops up, it seems reasonable to me that some percentage of the time your competitor would make the sale and thus you wouldn't, even if organically that sale might've gone to your company instead.
Also, I wouldn't argue that even small companies need ads — just that they do seem to be effective at increasing the volume of people interested in using your product at a given time. That may or may not be necessary/useful depending on your situation. I have been on teams where we intentionally turned off ad campaigns because we learned what we needed to learn from the cohort of new users, and now wanted to improve the product based on their feedback before spending money on more ads.
Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#498Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#499Re: Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their ad spend
#500>Stopped [some] Spending on Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why? [Added "some" for clarity.] Let me try to restate the author's article because he presents it in a confusing way. The issue is that both Google and Facebook have "core ad tech" that works decently with proven ROI -- and they both have "additional ad tech inventory" (a.k.a the partners/affiliates) that's much lower quality : Facebook "quality" ad placemen…
Funny that Goole/Facebook currently don't seem to be running ads for complements of products too often; Amazon is better at that (if you bought this book, then you might also want this one).