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

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#91

Post by zeta0134 »

clubm8 wrote: post #84
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…

>People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. Is Netflix totally ad free? I've gotten the impression they were paid for product placement a few times. (Ex: Frank Underwood plugging Sony)

Very few mediums are totally ad free, and Netflix is no exception. If a movie or TV show on Netflix (including their original stuff) has product placement, the product placement remains a part of the media and is not altered. That would be generally prohibitively expensive. I notice this especially with criminal investigation shows, where for some inexplicable reason the whole division is using iPads, or every monitor you see features a prominent Dell logo, etc etc.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#92

Post by rpeden »

clubm8 wrote: post #84
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…

>People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. Is Netflix totally ad free? I've gotten the impression they were paid for product placement a few times. (Ex: Frank Underwood plugging Sony)

I also noticed a ton of Windows phones in the latest House of Cards season.

I'm not sure why they'd have used so many if it weren't a paid product placement. The phones were much more numerous in HoC than they are in the real world.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#93

Post by rhino369 »

clubm8 wrote: post #84
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…

>People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. Is Netflix totally ad free? I've gotten the impression they were paid for product placement a few times. (Ex: Frank Underwood plugging Sony)

Definitely not totally ad free. Love s2 had like 5 uber placements.

Their licensed stuff does but they can't rightfully edit it out since they didn't create the content.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#94

Post by wtvanhest »

robertlagrant wrote: post #75
wtvanhest wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most large companies use a quantitative model with various inputs and outputs. For example, if you know you spend X in market Y, but not market Z you can measure lift within some confidence level between the markets. Imagine a model with every market, and sku, plus the inputs also know where you spent ad dollars and on what product.

The "some confidence level" is the problem - how do you come close to quantifying and removing all the other effects that are involved? This stuff always just becomes something that can be debated away if the advertising lead is popular, or otherwise used as an excuse to fire him/her.

Multifactor model

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#95

Post by fasquoika »

pmoriarty wrote: post #89
guitarbill wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 audience won't ever see those ads in the first place. I think this is spot on. And some people are willing to pay. Another example of this is Youtubers and Patreon. Now, you can finally block ads without guilt and support tho…

"some people are willing to pay" Isn't it a little perverse that the willingness of people to pay to block annoying ads provides an incentive to make ads ever more prevalent and annoying?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#96

Post by srtjstjsj »

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…

Big brands will always be able to afford dumb advertising, like sponsoring the Olympics. adtech exists mainly for small brands, of which there are many, many more.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#97

Post by tomlock »

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…

>2) 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 adtech, where you get real data on outcomes on a regular basis. Even if it's crap data, it's often better than "well we think the brand is stronger now".

The data to do this already exists in many cases.

For example, Google, Facebook - both know when people visit a location, and could cross-reference this with store visits now. If advertising exists in a physical location, and is effective, there is the potential for either of these companies to determine whether the customer visited a location where that physical inventory exists.

Traditional advertising only sucks at quantifying results because "new media" has no incentive to share the loads of data they are now collecting.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#98

Post by srtjstjsj »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #74
pavel_lishin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that unfortunate? One of my favorite Youtube channels recently picked up a meal-prep-delivery-thing sponsorship, and they work it into the content well - it's obvious that they're jamming it into the program, but they manage to remain funny while doing it. Much better than rolling my eyes for 15 seconds during an unskippable pre-roll.

Because being obvious and funny about it is so rare that it's practically unique. What most advertisers want and pay for is "native advertising," i.e. ads masquerading as normal content. When native advertising is done "properly" you have no way of knowing if your favorite YouTuber actually likes the product or is just being paid to shill it. That's unfortunate as hell.

Of course you know. The answer is always "They are being paid to shill it." unless they have invested in cultivating a reputation of independents, like Consumer Reports.

The youtubers I respect (best content), have the format:

1. main content.

2. "Here comes an ad for X"

3. mildly entertaining ad for X

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#99

Post by srtjstjsj »

mschuster91 wrote: post #29
elsewhen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the is another space where ads are going to appear: in content... I am not talking about being blended into the content itself. Think paid placements in movies. podcast/youtube sponsorships etc.

> Think paid placements in movies. podcast/youtube sponsorships etc. Well, product placement in movies is well known. Nearly everyone should know that companies pay millions of dollars to e.g. have James Bond drive their car. What is way more evil is that what is called "influencer marketing", which you are addressing in your last part. It's especially evil because the target group for "influencers" is usually little…

the US has had "truth in advertising" always since before the Internet, but here they always fall down because cases go to court and the judge rules that "people should know that this was a lie, so it's not deceptive in an illegal way"

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#100

Post by phaed »

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…

> 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 audience won't ever see those ads in the first place.

If Netflix was free but with ads (with ad-less subscriptions optional) their viewership and subscriptions would skyrocket, and end up supporting traditional advertising on a modern medium. The only thing I see in the way of something like this is ISPs refusing to give Netflix the bandwidth needed for something this massive. For this to be a possibility either the FCC makes ISPs a utility, or net-neutrality is repealed.

Post reply on HN