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

Brands need to fire adtech

artplusmarketing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#51

Post by mschuster91 »

Mithaldu wrote: post #47
mschuster91 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While in general I support your opinion, there is one critical question: where should the line between legal and illegal be drawn? For example, consider DLCs, a form of IAP. In the Fallout universe, what you get as a DLC would in other franchises be an entire game... should this be made illegal too? In my opinion, not - but instead it should be made illegal to ship games with bus so serious it requires weeks of waiti…

Almost nobody thinks of DLC when they talk about F2P games, except for the people making decisions in the Google Play store dev while being clueless and divorced from the actual market. I think there's no need to worry about or bring that up.

I'm not talking about a definition for nerds, I'm sure everyone on this forum knows the difference. I'm more after something that can be presented to a politician and be acted upon.

And most politicians either have no clue or don't care about the difference between DLC and IAP, for them it's the same - you pay for "new" content in a computer game. Have enough voters complain to them and they'll cluelessly enact crap as laws.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#52

Post by Mithaldu »

mschuster91 wrote: post #51
Mithaldu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nobody thinks of DLC when they talk about F2P games, except for the people making decisions in the Google Play store dev while being clueless and divorced from the actual market. I think there's no need to worry about or bring that up.

I'm not talking about a definition for nerds, I'm sure everyone on this forum knows the difference. I'm more after something that can be presented to a politician and be acted upon. And most politicians either have no clue or don't care about the difference between DLC and IAP, for them it's the same - you pay for "new" content in a computer game. Have enough voters complain to them and they'll cluelessly enact crap…

I'm not sure if i disagree or not, but you're diving into a veritable pool of what-ifs there.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#53

Post by sixQuarks »

I don't think this author is being fair to direct response advertising. One of the most important pillars of direct response marketing is to target effectively. That means spending a lot of time getting to know your target audience, their habits, the media they actually pay attention to.

Direct response marketing done right should make advertising go from "unwelcome pest, to welcome guest" - mainly because you're targeting your audience so well.

Many people may think they're doing direct response marketing, but that doesn't mean they're actually doing it.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#54

Post by bitmapbrother »

unabridged wrote: post #3

Youtube is used horribly by advertisers. Don't make a video ad that plays before the content that people can't wait to click Skip. Just make a video that's entertaining/informative and post it to youtube. People will share it for free and watch it willingly.

You make it sound so easy. You should be in advertising so that you can show them how easy it is. The truth is good ads are hard to come up with and the ones that really strike gold go viral [1]. I'm content that I can at least skip them after 4 seconds.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA_An6LcWtc

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#55

Post by losteric »

alkonaut wrote: post #22
mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

> Companies want to know that their advertising dollars are actually producing results, and traditional advertising completely sucks at this. The argument can be reversed though: Despite the fact that traditional advertising is more or less blind to outcome and shows untargeted ads, it has survived for a very long time. This would indicate that businesses would be willing to pay to show untargeted dumb ads online too…

Or, that those advertisers are targeting a demographic that still prefers older mediums over the internet.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#56

Post by Hasknewbie »

brongondwana wrote: post #49
tomjen3 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see ads on facebook so that I can laugh at how badly targeted they are. I don't believe this ad'tech' hype for a second, because there isn't any actual intelligence it it. Right now Facebook suggests I like some furniture store - it should know by now that I don't give a shit about furniture or shoes or womens clothing, just because I am friends with people who do (mostly, funny enough, women). Really facebook know…

My Facebook and every other site with adtech tends to spend most of its time filled with ads for the last major purchase that I researched online and then bought something for, often advertising the exact thing that I just got one of and won't need to replace for years.

A.K.A the Amazon Suggestion Effect ("You just bought a fridge, here are 12 more fridges!"). I thought Amazon was keeping their suggestions dumb on purpose, so as not to appear too creepy, apparently I was overestimating how smart adtech is in general.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#57

Post by makomk »

criddell wrote: post #8

I hadn't heard about the Zuckerberg's claim about authenticity on Facebook was surrounded by fraudulent ads. That's hilarious. Also, I've never thought about it before but I think the writer's claim that modern ads are really direct response marketing is right on. There is a difference.

It's not even that surprising. Most of the major news sites are stuffed full of ads that look like fake news articles these days. They probably have the sense to turn them off on articles about fake news, but otherwise they don't care. You just don't hear about it as much because news sites don't generally criticise their fellow news sites in the same way they do sites like Facebook and YouTube that are a threat to their entire industry.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#58

Post by gregw134 »

busterarm wrote: post #27
mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

> Companies want to know that their advertising dollars are actually producing results, and traditional advertising completely sucks at this. If you've never run a traditional ad campaign, I suggest giving it a try and then decide how much value you think you got out of it. You can spend thousands to millions of dollars and have absolutely no idea if your money impacted sales even the smallest amount. Compare that to…

What kind of tool do you have to monitor traditional ad spend? According to op this should be impossible.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#59

Post by angry-hacker »

tgragnato wrote: post #48

> What Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism” is going to be illegal a year from now in the EU anyway, thanks to the General Data Protection Regulation, aka GDPR. Mark your calendars: on 25 May 2018 will come an extinction event for adtech, because here are the fines the GDPR will impose for unpermitted harvesting of personal data: 1) “a fine up to 10,000,000 EUR or up to 2% of the annual worldwide turnover…

Most likely it will turn out as the accept cookie crap every site is now showing. We just have more if those notifications... Nothing to be proud of.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#60

Post by losteric »

tomjen3 wrote: post #25
mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

I see ads on facebook so that I can laugh at how badly targeted they are. I don't believe this ad'tech' hype for a second, because there isn't any actual intelligence it it. Right now Facebook suggests I like some furniture store - it should know by now that I don't give a shit about furniture or shoes or womens clothing, just because I am friends with people who do (mostly, funny enough, women). Really facebook know…

Do you use adblockers or other privacy tools? It'd possible that marketing companies simply haven't recorded information beyond your Facebook friends.

Anecdotally disabling blockers drastically improves relevance... though I still block them because relevant ads are as bad as untargetted ones.

Post reply on HN