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

Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#81

Post by mpeg »

afghanPower wrote: post #43
huhtenberg wrote: post #36

In http://imgur.com/B86pJHi.png , what are the columns exactly, does anyone know? The 7th column in particular, with the %-ages. If that's a click-through rate, then the numbers look inflated.

Pretty sure that's CTR. It's really not that hight considering we're talking about a mobile app. People tend to tap at ads when they're trying to do something else, and that often leads to insanely high CTRs. Pretty sure this dude is paying someone to click on his ads and generate impressions so that the CTR is average.

80% CTR would be stupidly high, mobile app or not, anything over 5% would already be incredibly good.

The 80% figure is fill rate (AKA the percentage of impressions to requested placements), the 1.80-2.00% figure is the CTR, which matches the third column being impressions and fourth clicks.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#82

Post by icantdrive55 »

caf wrote: post #56
ChoHag wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Speak to a lawyer" does not mean "make legal threats". It's possible and even advisable for lawyers to do other things.

Right. Lawyers are basically professional negotiators.

The right lawyer. Lately, I've seen some lawyers work on Internet related matters, and basically just took customers' money.

I'm suprised ABA hasen't offered specialization certification--like in medicine.

I recently dated my brother's lawyer. Yes--it was a aweful. I went into it with an open mind. She talked about the lawyers in her office, and talked about the lawyers in her office, and talked about her law school, and of course had to tell everyone she was a Lawyer. At one point, in the evening someone asked me if I had legal trouble because of all the legal talk. I told him yea, as always, but this was just a bad date. At the end of the inquisition, she asked why I seemed tired. I actually told her the truth. She claimed if she was a guy, it wouldn't matter how much shop she talked, and I was insecure. I just agreed. On the drive home, I asked her some basic chapter 7 bankruptcy questions, and got most wrong.

I then get a email from her office. Yea--kinda suprised. I thought "my judgement holder has my email address?". It was her, and she referred to herself as "That Lawyer you had dinner with?"

Never again.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#83

Post by achow »

Comment from one of the redditor:

I know this developer's app because I compete in a similar space. His app violates copyright laws and a bunch of other Google Play policies. Facebook was correct in withholding payment to him. As far as I'm concerned, AdMob should be withholding payment to him too. If anyone from Google wants me to describe the very illegal techniques being used by this app, please email me with a (@google.com) at finokioto@gmail.com . I would prefer not to share what this developer is doing in a public forum because of copycats.

I'm an admin at https://www.reddit.com/r/badapps

https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/570gco/facebook...

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#84

Post by tluyben2 »

downandout wrote: post #62

Google, through its Adsense program, has turned this kind of behavior into an art form [1]. Facebook must have decided that their legal team is now strong enough to perform the same scam without legal consequences. The elements of the scam are essentially the same between the two: 1) Pay on a net-30 basis, so that in most cases publishers send two months of traffic before they are paid; 2) Wait until the last minute…

Yes! Please read this as this is not FUD; people just tend to believe big corps like G and FB but yes, I (and I have seen this with many of my friends over the years) have missed $10000s of revenues because of this with Google. Vague reasons and policies right before payday, no one to talk or raise a dispute to. Canned responses and a closes door after. Luckily we survived. Unfortunenately it was not the last time; stupid of me right? It seems that is how Google makes a lot of money. And no, not bitter: I learnt to dislike ads for many different reasons because of it, also I learnt how to never treat my customers like that. No recourse, just screw you and thanks for the free money. I still would like an explanation from Google but as that will never happen... So indeed: I hope ads are dying. Facebook will be helping it along doing this.

Edit; this is offtopic somewhat as this particular app might have been in violation. Just the blind believe that G&FB do not abuse their perverse interests (as in: there are more publishers than advertisers, many more) here seems weird. And for me, as far as I know, not true either.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#85

Post by mpeg »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

After that I appealed to them many times but never got the answer. I must be missing something somewhere. This story doesn't sound right to me, but I don't know the systems involved. Can somebody tell me how over 100K can be at stake and this guy can't even get a real person to talk to? Ok, I understand the old "push popular stuff on the web and let the robots handle support" routine. But 160K? Really?

Ok this guy has a 2% CTR which is pretty good for what I assume is a super low quality app / content.

I would bet you that he's doing something dodgy that breaks the FAN tos, I assume he's hiding ads within content or nudging users to click on them.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#86

Post by tluyben2 »

annnnd wrote: post #74
downandout wrote: post #62

Google, through its Adsense program, has turned this kind of behavior into an art form [1]. Facebook must have decided that their legal team is now strong enough to perform the same scam without legal consequences. The elements of the scam are essentially the same between the two: 1) Pay on a net-30 basis, so that in most cases publishers send two months of traffic before they are paid; 2) Wait until the last minute…

I worked for online advertising platform for a while and I must say it's difficult here to decide who to trust. In case of Google I would way G, but with Facebook... who knows. It is simply incredible what scammers do to get the money from advertisers (except delivering any value, that is) and what lengths they will go to to get "their" money. Of course G and FB can't reveal their countermeasures, so we must trust th…

If they indeed can distinguish between those then they surely are frauding publishers out of money. As they use the fraudulent clicks story a lot: if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense. It is just a perverse incentive and powerplay (after all these years there is no competition).

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#87

Post by pbhjpbhj »

codelike wrote: post #72
roryisok wrote: post #70

this might seem silly or off topic, but one of the many things I love about HN is that the mods (I assume) rename thread titles to be a little clearer and less cryptic. This morning the title of this post was "Facebook stole my $160000 For those who use Facebook ads in their Android apps" - incorrect grammar, and stripped punctuation made this a pain to process in my sleep-deprived brain. I'm delighted to see it's no…

Yes, in this case it was a good change. On the other hand, some of the mods' title changes significantly reduce the information content, as for example the title that was changed for that other thread today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12690853 Originally that title was something like "Microsoft SQL Server 2016 in Docker", which gave some helpful context. But they replaced that with: "Microsoft SQL Server 20…

Which is why I advocate for a subtitle, so that mods can alter the local title but the original can still be given.

Another problem with retitling is knowing if you've seen the story already.

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#88

Post by pbhjpbhj »

zazpowered wrote: post #45

I feel like something must be wrong here. It's in Facebook's best interest to keep high performing publishers because thats how they make their money. I don't think they would try to harm that relationship just to prevent paying out publishers because they would just bounce and use a different network.

>"because they would just bounce and use a different network." //

Yeah, just switch to the other network that everyone and their granny uses ...?

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#89

Post by dandare »

downandout wrote: post #62

Google, through its Adsense program, has turned this kind of behavior into an art form [1]. Facebook must have decided that their legal team is now strong enough to perform the same scam without legal consequences. The elements of the scam are essentially the same between the two: 1) Pay on a net-30 basis, so that in most cases publishers send two months of traffic before they are paid; 2) Wait until the last minute…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least some evidence. Any evidence. And no, possibility does not count as evidence.so,do you have any evidence for your extraordinary claims?

Re: Facebook seems not to be paying app developer $160K in ad revenue

#90

Post by dandare »

annnnd wrote: post #74
downandout wrote: post #62

Google, through its Adsense program, has turned this kind of behavior into an art form [1]. Facebook must have decided that their legal team is now strong enough to perform the same scam without legal consequences. The elements of the scam are essentially the same between the two: 1) Pay on a net-30 basis, so that in most cases publishers send two months of traffic before they are paid; 2) Wait until the last minute…

I worked for online advertising platform for a while and I must say it's difficult here to decide who to trust. In case of Google I would way G, but with Facebook... who knows. It is simply incredible what scammers do to get the money from advertisers (except delivering any value, that is) and what lengths they will go to to get "their" money. Of course G and FB can't reveal their countermeasures, so we must trust th…

Even with the best intentions and technology they will inevitably make mistakes. Unless they have a resolution process of any kind (and it seems they don't) they are crushing innocent people.
Post reply on HN