821–830 of 933 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but marketers don't really care about math. Only about the numbers! This is hilarious.
And sad. Same thing happens in data science now - people are happy to have any number regardless of correctness. They just need something to report on and keep the work going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't true. Google search ads are rarely malicious - Google does a pretty good screening them.
I have recently been getting straight up spam (“you won 1 million dollars!” type) as ads in Gmail. No idea how these managed to show up when these would have been easily marked as spam if it was an email.
The difference is that Google got paid for one and not the other. Pay them the protection money, and they’ll let you through.
This is now at 700 comments, and no one is talking about the math in the Twitter "thread". Found no mention in the Twitter replies either. Is it just me or is the math hilariously off? [0]: "10% of $150M is $15M". Correct, but do we need a screenshot of a calculator for that, let alone Google? (why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?) [1]: Talking about "2/3", but putting in "0.75". So which…
I use google for maths because it's the fastest thing I can get to and TYPE my maths in without having to open a new application. You can even just type it in the search bar of Chrome/Edge and see the result immediately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I think should be made illegal is that Google (and others) is essentially collecting another toll even when users enter in the brand name of the target business in the first place. That is: 1. User types CompanyFoo (whose real URL is www.companyfoo.com) into their address bar, which lands them on Google (because Google owns Chrome and pays billions for the privilege on other browsers). 2. Since Google will sell…
What do you expect should happen? The browser should automatically load the first google search result? Google should prevent companies bidding on their own name? Or that they should make bidding on their own name free?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> De Beers is obviously highly derided, but this a pretty clear cut case that advertising is NOT zero sum If you take into consideration the money wasted on overpriced stones, it's zero sum. How did people ever get engaged before De Beers?
That is not at all what zero sum means. If you're going to use a widely-used term at the core of an argument, you should be sure you're doing so correctly.
This is now at 700 comments, and no one is talking about the math in the Twitter "thread". Found no mention in the Twitter replies either. Is it just me or is the math hilariously off? [0]: "10% of $150M is $15M". Correct, but do we need a screenshot of a calculator for that, let alone Google? (why do people rely on an internet connection and Google for this?) [1]: Talking about "2/3", but putting in "0.75". So which…
I use google for maths because it's the fastest thing I can get to and TYPE my maths in without having to open a new application. You can even just type it in the search bar of Chrome/Edge and see the result immediately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The result can be split two ways. Either the advertiser wasted money on a click because the consumer will seek out the true XYZ. Or the consumer will be satisfied with what they've clicked and choose to buy it. Hopefully the metrics show that the latter is mostly happening. It's only fraud if the advertiser counterfeits XYZ's brand on their website.
I'm worried about trademark law, not fraud per se, and consumer confusion is the gold standard. The ad can violate trademarks even if the site behind the ad is squeaky-clean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use google for maths because it's the fastest thing I can get to and TYPE my maths in without having to open a new application. You can even just type it in the search bar of Chrome/Edge and see the result immediately
Both Windows and macOS support calculations in their respective system-wide search bars (Win key on Windows vs Cmd-Space for Spotlight on macOS). They both support pretty cool stuff like sqrt(9), 13^37, but Spotlight edges it slightly by also support bit shifting like 1 << 10 == 1024.
We did a similar kind of experiment some time back and found both FB ads and Google ads were doing jack shit for us. Google was better. FB ads were absolutely useless. So we stopped our ad spend. We observed no change in our customer acquisition. Another way these ad engines extract money out of you is by allowing competitors to bid for your brand name keyword. Try searching for Ozonetel on Google. There will be six…
If anything, FB ads were worse than useless for my business, all they attracted was 90% fraud. Looking at what business Ozonetel is in (i.e. sales are directed towards business owners), I'm not suprised FB ads were also worthless for you. I get the sense FB ads are really only good for things a consumer might impulse buy (e.g. clothing, games, small gifts, etc.) but anything where the user is probably going to do som…
They do work but like anything it's about choosing the right tool (platform) for the job. We wouldn't run ads on LinkedIn and B2B SAAS companies shouldn't advertise on FB/Instagram.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily bidding on your competitors name is illegal in Germany. We did get our competitors to not do that with some letters from lawyers.
I always thought that it was clear cut decided by Interflora case in EU court, and that such bidding is only prohibited if impersonation happens.
In Germany there is a law against dishonest competition, called "Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb".