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

61–70 of 282 posts

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

#61

Post by baybal2 »

wyc wrote: 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…

Well, this is the thing that needed to be said.

I worked in online ads for bigger part of my career, I certify that fraud is that industry's second nature. But the type of fraud they engage in is the one for which they can't be prosecuted (disclaiming, audits, etc)

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

#62

Post by eecc »

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.

Better yet: seller that delivers to your local supermarket so you don't have to stay home and wait for them. In NL it's pretty much the preferred option for carryable items

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

#63

Post by nikanj »

csomar wrote: post #34
madeofpalk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Oh they care about the packaging, they care very much. They're doing price discrimination in stages:

The fancy toothpaste with the beautiful box comes from the same conglomerate as the cheaper one does. If you consider yourself hot stuff, you pick the fancy brand with the shiniest box. The middle class, humble folk pick the same product sans color whirl and foil insets on the box, but it's still Colgate brand shaving cream. None of that Value-By-Walmart crap for our house, no sir.

The in-store, value-add generic products look even cheaper and less attractive. My rational mind knows that Safeway doesn't own any shampoo factories, and Safeway Compliments brand shampoo comes from the same vats as the more expensive stuff on the higher shelves.

It's not like fancier graphics take more money to print. Rather, P&G, Tesco et al pay the designer to make the boxes look "cheap" or "expensive", so us suckers would opt for the more expensive option - and bring more revenue.

We are all suckers. I learned this like 10 years ago prepping for my economics admittance exam. Our house is still filled with brand-name items, because monkey be dumb.

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

#64

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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…

Sadly, we would just end up with more sponsored content.

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

#65

Post by mjevans »

nikanj wrote: post #58
simooooo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it have any clue if it's below another div? Pretty much impossible

Because this is running on the customer's browser, CPU efficiency doesn't matter at all. They can do all sorts of stupid things, like grab the DOM from the browser, lay it out in a JS rendering engine and see if their div ends up being visible. I haven't had the time to look through the ad javascripts on your typical fat webpage, but when there's tens of megabytes of code and it pegs my CPU at 100%, I know it's doing…

This kind of resource misuse is one more reason people run adblockers.

That and the security risks of running other people's code on your system.

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

#66

Post by elorant »

I have to admit that at a deeper lever I'd love if advertisers get the fuck off of the web. I don't have a problem with advertising per se but the way it's used today hurts the medium in so many ways. Sites are bloated with ads, journalism is riffled with native advertising articles, malware is mainly spread through infected ads and on top of that we have a legion of companies out there which are collecting every kind of personal information imaginable without permission or any kind of regulation. Enough is enough.

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

#69

Post by manigandham »

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…

Digital advertising is absolutely effective. 2 of the biggest companies in the world are digital advertising companies, with several other giants. Don't be fooled by random examples.

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

#70

Post by manigandham »

prostoalex wrote: post #42
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…

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

That is a piece of junk. Digital advertising can filter out silly clicks like that without a problem.
Post reply on HN