61–70 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What will it take for this advertising bubble to pop? Browsers shipping with uBlock Origin included.
90%+ of relevant traffic is mobile 95%+ of mobile traffic is native Don’t delude yourself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What will it take for this advertising bubble to pop? Browsers shipping with uBlock Origin included.
90%+ of relevant traffic is mobile 95%+ of mobile traffic is native Don’t delude yourself
And hey, if Apple will crack down on Facebook's espionage over privacy concerns, who says they won't do the same to these advertisers and their abusive surveillance capitalism? Maybe they'll realize that advertising is pure noise nobody cares about and block all ads in order to improve usability. Maybe one day they'll get pissed they aren't getting their fair 30% share of advertiser revenue and block them out of spite. Maybe they'll wake up one day and simply decide to kill the ads industry. Now that's a delusion worth having.
Many of the adverts aren't even for products I'm interested in. They're either get-rich-quick schemes, or repeat-ad-nauseum ads for software like Grammerly, which I will never use.
If Google has some sort of complex picture about me, by invading my privacy, then they're certainly not using it to sell me anything I am interested in.
I guess if Google are funalling cash from advertisers to the record companies, then it will continue. But I have to wonder what would happen if advertisers actually look at how effective their advertisements are.
I feel I'm getting a good deal out of this arrangement.
One thing I don't get: if in the entire industry $273bn were spent on ads in a year, how come that one company which derives most of its revenue from ads, such as Alphabet has a market cap several times larger?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the point of the article is that ROAS is not a very good metric, and while most of the article is wrong in that it effectively calls all advertising worthless as a result, it's not wrong about that one methodological point. What matters is incremental ROAS - not the conversions following exposure, but rather the conversions that would not have happened but for the exposure. For small companies that have n…
The point you're talking about ROAS/incremental ROAS is quite moot actually. Every online ad tracks the user from the moment they click the ad to whatever events they make (e.g. add to cart, purchase, etc). So the measured ROAS is exactly for the users who'd come via the ad and not any others. I don't want to be offending but this is honestly a very basic point, of course one would only measure the Return On Ad Spend…
... Until a competitor starts advertising against the the term "eBay".
At which point, online advertising becomes protection money.
The article explains why eBay shouldn't advertise against the term "eBay", all very logical. ... Until a competitor starts advertising against the the term "eBay". At which point, online advertising becomes protection money.
The article explains why eBay shouldn't advertise against the term "eBay", all very logical. ... Until a competitor starts advertising against the the term "eBay". At which point, online advertising becomes protection money.
escape meta alt ctrl shift AAARGGHHHH.... try VIM.
The article explains why eBay shouldn't advertise against the term "eBay", all very logical. ... Until a competitor starts advertising against the the term "eBay". At which point, online advertising becomes protection money.
Click-through rates will be very low. In most countries you cannot impersonate another company, so they cannot call themselves „eBay“ in the ad copy.
[0] https://fortune.com/2019/09/04/google-trolled-search-ads/