When Big Brands Stopped Spending On Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why? (forbes.com) 238
This weekend Forbes ran a thought-provoking article by "a digital marketer of 25 years" who now helps marketers audit their digital campaigns for ad fraud:
When P&G turned off $200 million of their digital ad spending, they saw NO CHANGE in business outcomes. When Chase reduced their programmatic reach from 400,000 sites showing its ads to 5,000 sites (a 99% decrease), they saw NO CHANGE in business outcomes. When Uber turned off $120 million of their digital ad spending meant to drive more app installs, they saw NO CHANGE in the rate of app installs. When big brands stopped spending on digital ads, nothing happened. Even further back in time, in 2012, eBay turned off their paid search ad spending, and saw NO CHANGE in sales coming from those sources...
Big brands turned off millions of dollars of digital ad spending, and saw no change in business outcomes. Small businesses tuned their digital marketing and reduced the number of ad impressions, clicks, and traffic to their sites, but saw business activity go up, instead of down. Much of the problem with digital advertising today stems from marketers' obsession with big numbers. But big numbers of ads and clicks do not translate into more business activity and sales. They are just large numbers in dashboards and spreadsheets. Marketers could be spending far fewer dollars and getting the same levels of business outcomes; or spending the dollars more smartly in digital and getting even more business outcomes than they are now.
Big brands turned off millions of dollars of digital ad spending, and saw no change in business outcomes. Small businesses tuned their digital marketing and reduced the number of ad impressions, clicks, and traffic to their sites, but saw business activity go up, instead of down. Much of the problem with digital advertising today stems from marketers' obsession with big numbers. But big numbers of ads and clicks do not translate into more business activity and sales. They are just large numbers in dashboards and spreadsheets. Marketers could be spending far fewer dollars and getting the same levels of business outcomes; or spending the dollars more smartly in digital and getting even more business outcomes than they are now.
Speaking of ads... (Score:5, Informative)
https://pi-hole.net/ [pi-hole.net]
Re: Speaking of ads... (Score:2)
Re: Speaking of ads... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
(Linux users only re
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not doing this, start doing this.
https://pi-hole.net/ [pi-hole.net] [pi-hole.net]
Used to but everyone kept telling me to shut mine.
Re:Speaking of ads... (Score:5, Informative)
If you cannot or will not do this, do this at least: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
If you some reason you use Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webs... [google.com]
If you use Internet Explorer: https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/... [mozilla.org]
>but but but websites need to make mone-
The online advertising industry is completely unregulated and there is no such thing as a safe ad. There is no way to tell where an ad will go or what it will do if you even allow it to load. The refusal to regulate justifies the existence and usage of adblocking technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever happened to that guy with his hosts file?
This guy? [someonewhocares.org] Dan Pollock still seems to be updating it.
Thanks for reminding me, I just loaded up the latest version on my machine.
Obviously, ads do not work (Score:5, Interesting)
Digital ones are worse: They just get on everybody's nerves and never make anybody buy anything. Well, maybe one in 10'000, the established approximation for SPAM, but that is so low as to not matter. There may also be people that look for brands that do not annoy them with constant ads, I know I have.
Re:Obviously, ads do not work (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said this numerous times on here, but ads do work! They get the ad deliverer paid. They don't necessarily do much more than that, however.
My theory for spam two decades ago and which extends to digital ads today is that someone puts out a million of them and they don't do anything. But one or two people see them and say, "Damn, they wouldn't be spamming/using digital ads if they didn't work! I should do that!"
And then those people go and fund another spam campaign/ad campaign, rinse and repeat. It never needs to work as intended, it just needs to reach enough new suckers that they'll fund more ads. It doesn't matter if the people funding these things ever see a cent in return - it just matters if there's enough exposure to dig up some additional suckers.
Re: (Score:3)
So you mean they are a gigantic circle-jerk of stupidity? Makes sense. A lot of other collective stupidity by non-thinkers and shallow thinkers is going on, this one would just be one of the more obvious ones.
Re: (Score:3)
When Big Brands Stopped Spending On Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why?
When I stopped praying obsessively to the sky-fairy, nothing happened. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
YOU, numb nuts, ;D, are the wrong target audience. At this time the target audience is broke, the victims of marketings, they will borrow and buy for as long as they possibly can, no matter how great the debt and how little hope they have of paying it off. They have stopped buying, pretty much, they are at their limit. The ads do you work on you to the same degree and you ignore them, preferring to choose the product you buy, not the product you are told to buy, well, as much as you are individually resista
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That said, let's hope the gravy train goes on
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work for an advertising company, and I can tell you, they do work. Spam actually works too, for some reason or another. People have no fear buying viagra from a discount shop that emailed them.
Re: (Score:3)
"People have no fear buying viagra from a discount shop that emailed them."
Why would they? Unlike heart disease or blood pressure pills even an idiot can see if they work or not.
Groupthink, Dilbert, Elbonians (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The ad industry is portraying this as fraud. The assumption is that if they stopped paying and it made no difference then they were victims of clickfraud.
That seems a bit dubious to me. Surely they would have noticed if all the click-throughs were not leading to actual sales.
Re: (Score:3)
All ads are ads for ads?
Re:Obviously, ads do not work (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you stop advertising and sales go down?
It doesn't matter if sales go down. Businesses don't exist to maximize sales, but to maximize profit.
So if you spend $1000 on advertising that generates $2000 in additional sales of a product that has a 40% profit margin, your advertising isn't effective and you should stop doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
in the case of you numbers, i would agree. More broadly and generally speaking with all other aspects of the business being equal (certainly would be exceptions at the extremes like your example and issues of cost structure, is the market stable or cyclical, etc) I'd rather make 50M profit on 1B in revenue and increased volume than on 500M in revenue.
The former means I probably have a greater share of the market. Having the bigger share of the market (or better yet a natural monopoly) confers all kinds of
Re: Obviously, ads do not work (Score:5, Insightful)
Last company I worked for did just that. We stopped all paid adveetients I. Google and bing. Instead we spent a year to improve our organic search results. Updating the product files and adding things like hyperlinked productanuals that a user could down load and then be taken back to our website to order parts with a couple of clicks.
Those things increased our sales. Ad budget was mostly slid into other marketing campaigns.
While ford doesn't need to ford could have a 50 state 50 bronco giveaway. Where you can do a test drive and register to win A bronco. And put 50 new broncos into the hands of customers who will rave about them.
Total advertising cost $5-10 million.(no tv spots)including the 50 broncos.
What ford is actually spending on advertising is closer to $100 million.
Re:Obviously, ads do not work (Score:5, Interesting)
Even to the extent that advertising does work, it is often a prisoner's dilemma.
P&G advertises Crest while CP advertises Colgate, but the ads cancel out. They would both be better off if they agreed to mutually refrain from advertising.
Agreements to mutually reduce advertising should be exempted from anti-trust laws.
Corporations would be more profitable, and the public would be less annoyed.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article, that "cancelling out" seems not to be happening. Ads simply do not work to influence buyer decisions significantly.
Re:Obviously, ads do not work (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article, that "canceling out" seems not to be happening. Ads simply do not work to influence buyer decisions significantly.
Do you really believe that greedy profit-seeking capitalists just failed to notice that they were throwing away trillions of dollars until this brilliant journalist enlightened them?
Most big companies do "image advertising" that works over long periods, even over generations. Of course, turning them off for a week didn't make much difference because they aren't designed to work over short time periods.
They paused advertising to save money during the pandemic. Once the economic situation stabilized, guess what they did? They started running the ads again.
The small business example was a business owner that failed to track incoming clicks from source to check-out. Failure to record sales sources just means one incompetent business owner, not a failure of the concept of advertising.
TFA does not say that ads don't work. It just says that some ads don't work and that ads that do work are tested and measured for effectiveness. But that has always been true in advertising. The same point was made in the book Scientific Advertising [amazon.com]. It was published in 1923.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article, that "canceling out" seems not to be happening. Ads simply do not work to influence buyer decisions significantly.
Do you really believe that greedy profit-seeking capitalists just failed to notice that they were throwing away trillions of dollars until this brilliant journalist enlightened them?
That brilliant journalist did not "enlighten them". And yes, I believe that immediately, because I have seen corporate decision making from the inside.
Re: (Score:3)
Ads do two things, ...and that's it - everything else just falls into these two categories
they give brand recognition - so I've heard of the company, or been reminded it still exists
They give product recognition - so I know something exists at all, or that a particular company makes one
Which means that once the majority of people you are ever likely to sell to know you and your product exists all you can do is occasionally remind them, and let newcomers know
This means 99% of advertising is wasted (not the
Re: (Score:2)
> P&G advertises Crest while CP advertises Colgate, but the ads cancel out. They would both be better off if they agreed to mutually refrain from advertising.
How would I remember to brush my teeth without daily ads?
Re:Obviously, ads do not work (Score:4, Insightful)
Advertising works in another way though... it puts money in the ad inventory sellers pocket, and it lets the ad inventory seller know that the advertiser put it there. That creates a relationship, makes influential people like you.
I think a lot of the media hate towards Elon Musk is that he refuses to advertise his cars the conventional manner and relies on "free" publicity instead. Automotive ads are a really important source of revenue for media. (Not that there aren't real reasons to dislike the guy, but probably not more than to dislike your average billionaire).
$45 for three ounces of lotion (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm suspicious of this claim. I wish I wasn't. I wish advertising wasn't really a thing, because I hate ads. I dislike advertising so much than in the companies I ran, I did no advertising.
The difference between Tide and Bob's Soap is advertising. It's the same stuff in the box. Tide sells a BILLION dollars a year. That's not because Tide is better soap than all the others.
The Target brand has the exact same ingredients as Oil of Olay. Oil of Olay can charge 3X as much. The difference is advertising.
I know someone (who shall remain nameless because I have to sleep beside her tonight) who will spend $45 on three ounces of lotion after seeing the advertising. She's not the only one - Ulta always has customers.
I know that Coke specifically, and even some FAR smaller companies, track their advertising effectiveness in excruciating detail - they know how the effectiveness of an ad changes depending on how many a given user sees it, they've compared the effectiveness of the same ad with 24pt don't vs 30pt, they've compared an ad that loads in 0.5 seconds to an identical looking one that loads is 0.7 seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with advertising is the metrics you use to establish effectiveness. Big companies are more about building brand awareness than actually trying to make a sale. Smaller companies tend to rely more on do-er/seller where you grow relationships over time.
There is very little Coke can do to measure the effectiveness of any one change other than focus groups, and since their goal is to make you think of Coke when you are thirsty for the next several decades, getting clarity on what is actually making
Re: (Score:2)
"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." –John Wanamaker
Re: (Score:3)
The difference may have been advertising at first, but now that those big brands are established people already know them so any further advertising has diminishing returns. People don't buy a coke because they saw an advertisement for it this morning, they buy coke because they already know what coke is.
Some people also intentionally avoid products that had intrusive advertising.
Re:$45 for three ounces of lotion (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people also intentionally avoid products that had intrusive advertising.
I have started doing that quite a while ago. Have yet to find a case where I did not find an alternative product that was of the same quality or better. Quite often it was better because there are still brands that try to compete on merit.
Re: (Score:2)
Some companies try to build their brand. Other companies save money on advertising and instead compete on price.
Clorox Bleach and Great Value Bleach are the exact same product. GV is 30% cheaper, yet Clorox has twice the shelf space which I assume means twice the sales. So advertising is obviously working on many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, you think brands get shelf space simply according to how well they sell?
The phenomenon here is called price discrimination. Probably (not 100% sure in the case of american bleach!) it's mostly the same people who make money whether you buy the brand product or the store label product. They run the two brands to charge different prices to different market segments.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, you think brands get shelf space simply according to how well they sell?
Roughly, yes. The products have expiration dates and they are not expired. So they are obviously selling, and since there are plenty on the shelf, they must be selling well.
The phenomenon here is called price discrimination.
Except the products are obviously identical. Even the jug is exactly the same. They are likely made in the same factory. The only difference is the label, the color of the cap, and the higher price to pay for the ads that are shoved in your face.
Re:$45 for three ounces of lotion (Score:5, Informative)
Shelf space in grocery stores is often bought. I've worked with companies whose job it was to design shelf layouts at Target for a brand who had bought enough presence to control a section of shelf space. Even weirder, they pay another company to maintain the planned organization of the shelves, it's not done by Target employees. Not all shelf space is bought, but a meaningful chunk is bought, often when you see large amounts of the same company's products, especially in the prime shelves at eye level.
I don't think sales drive that much of it, either. I've noticed by own grocery store has a section for a brand's products and one of their product lines consistently is sold out, yet the other lines is consistently available, usually with twice the units. In theory they should be adjusting the inventory and having more of the sold out product since demand exceeds supply. But they don't, and it's not like they raise the price, either, as its semi-regularly on sale, too.
I worked in advertising a couple of decades ago and most people seemed to think the primary purpose of advertising of common products was just forcing awareness so that when you shopped in a sea of like products, you bought the one you felt most familiar with thanks to the ads. The purpose was different with products that were more expensive and more optional, these tended to sell key differentiating features and meatier details.
Re:$45 for three ounces of lotion (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is brand recognition. Part of that is advertising, but not all of it. If you're an established brand like Chase, Uber, or anything sold by P&G, current advertising might not really be needed. Essentially, they're still banking off ads from years ago - maybe generations ago, if you buy X brand because that's what your mom always bought for you. They could probably cut their "traditional" digital advertising in half permanently and not suffer any ill effect. Lesser-known brands may need it more to seed brand recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the difference in that case just price discrimination, though? Usually store-branded goods are made to look cheap, so they can charge lower amounts to more cost-conscious buyers, without forgoing the extra from buyers who have enough that it makes sense for them to just grab the most prominent and appealing product.
Freakonomics found the same thing (Score:5, Informative)
Freakonomics found [freakonomics.com] that eBay was spending $1 billion/year on advertising. When they turned off their ad spend, they found no changes.
Re: (Score:3)
eBay doesn't need to advertise. They're well known and have network effects that pretty much ensure they stay on top - regardless of user policies or fees.
Think about it this way - eBay is the de-facto auction site. Let's say you want to run your own, and you plan on doing it by offering lower fees and everything. You'll get sellers and buyers of course, but buyers, since there is less compe
As Fry Said... (Score:3)
I'm shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked.
"Fry" said??! Captain Renault was not actually shocked either, so Fry added nothing.
I was going to make a snaky comment about millennials until realising how old you were.
Have you never seen Casablanca? You really should.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Don't give me ads when you can give me content (Score:2)
If they create good content, people will go to it. That's what we've known for a long time regarding the web.
Create good videos for your products. Both telling me the features (pre-purchase) but also instructions (post purchase).
I have been looking for a small motorcycle. I go on YouTube for info. I won't ever click on an ad, but I will gladly view informative videos from the manufacturer. Or any vloggers who create content regarding the motorcycle I want to buy. Spend a few hundred bucks giving someo
Re:Don't give me ads when you can give me content (Score:4, Interesting)
Concur. I'm also amazed at how many ads are just, well, stupid. They don't really tell you anything about the product. A lot of ads try to be cute with some weird lead-in, but they don't tell you what the product is, or even what type of product it is, so you don't know if the advertisement might be something that interests you.
I wish YouTube had some additional options with their ads (yeah, yeah, I need to get an ad blocker), like "Stupid", "Amusing", or "Neat". I see a bunch of ads that are just stupid, and really a waste of the advertiser's money. If I have to suffer through them,I wish I had some ways to give the advertisers more appropriate positive and negative feedback.
Re: (Score:3)
With youtube specifically, i find i'm seeing the same ads repeatedly. This doesn't make me want to buy the product, it makes me annoyed with the company and want to avoid their products at all costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would The Goog let you give them feedback? If an advertiser cuts back on ads, even just for a couple weeks to produce a new one, that's money out of their pocket. They need advertisers to think people like their "cute" ads, otherwise that puts the brakes on the gravy train.
It's almost like... (Score:4, Interesting)
advertising serves no real purpose for established brands that already have a following. I don't need to be told who Chase bank is. If people have already heard of you you're more likely getting new business based on referrals from existing customers or consumer research, not annoying pop-up ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's almost like... (Score:4, Insightful)
At that level, ads aren't about switching, but about reminding you they still exist. And subliminally, to make you want their product.
How many things have you not had in years, and one day you see and say "hey, I used to love these, I had no idea they were still in business!".
Re: (Score:2)
advertising serves no real purpose for established brands that already have a following. I don't need to be told who Chase bank is.
You might not but before I lived for a while in the US I had never heard of them. Companies like banks don't use ads to make people go out and open bank accounts they use ads to let people know they exist so if you are in the position where you are opening an account you'll look them up and see what they have to offer. The same goes for other businesses - they just want you to know that they are out there.
That's why there is no sudden drop in business if they stop ads for a short while - everyone in a c
That's what I've always thought (Score:3)
I've always been amazed of how "ads" are the key fuel for silicon valley (Google, Facebook, many others have "ads" as their revenue source) when I've never thought they're that effective.
Don't get me wrong, ads have some value. Awareness of product, brand re-enforcement, etc. But IMO, the worth is nowhere near the amounts of money sloshing around in this eco system.
I'm glad people are actually testing this. For too long, it has seemed like this could not be questioned.
It will impact a lot of big companies and industries though. Watch out for a HUGE discrediting campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late for a discrediting campaign, the cat's out the bag, the jig is up, we have seen the emperor and he is nude. It will take decades for the money-obliterating superstitious business habits that were just shattered to be re-formed. And that's a good thing for most of us. We mere mortals should take this opportunity to push our governments to restrict advertising in general, both societies and economies are better off with less of it. French-style restrictions on public advertising would be a good start
Re: (Score:2)
Basically nowadays everything is an app. A large segment of young internet users don't really browse the "general web", but instead lock themselves into apps.
To reach that segment you basically have to pay facebook. They (their algorithms) cure content for their users in their multiple outlets (facebook, instagram, youtube, etc). They will NEVER see your "local business" facebook page unless you pay for them to show it to these people.
And these people don't read traditional news or TV. The only way to reach
Re: (Score:2)
But IMO, the worth is nowhere near the amounts of money sloshing around in this eco system.
I had a customer who was proud of the fact that he spent five times more on advertising that he did on making the product. It was a specialist electronic product, that needed advertising in the right place. It appeared to be working, with bags of mail in and out every day, and continual phone inquiries. Mind you, this was perhaps a bit early for internet advertising.
Old Truism (Score:2, Informative)
Anything that needs to be advertised is by definition something you don't need.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything that needs to be advertised is by definition something you don't need.
Although... you never see ads for ads, so we must need them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen ads for ads...
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't r/im12andthisisdeep. Think about what you just said and realize how much of a pretentious douche you seem.
Re: (Score:2)
I read what you said and thank you for the thorough demonstration.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are planning to buy something, you should do a little research yourself
and
"How do you know the reviews are fake?"
"They are on Amazon!"
Yeah, that's dumb (Score:2)
At some point, everything needed advertising. The idea of brushing your fucking teeth was an advertising campaign (yes, sponsored by people with a financial stake in it.) Or using a washing machine or pretty much any other invention.
Hemotep said ages ago (Score:2)
The digital ads are all local ads.
The constant polarization has caused national ads to plummet. They too canâ(TM)t choose a side and have bowed out.
Meanwhile, your local shops, which you closed down because of fear were the only ones spending.
Well, geez captain, what does that mean for the economy.
I donâ(TM)t know jimmy, but it ainâ(TM)t good. Better dust off those shotgun shells.
Re: (Score:2)
The local ads were always local ads. We, small business owners, have always had to pay facebook for their racket. They invite you to start a facebook page, and then you have to pay for it to be visible. And you HAVE to do it because people spend most of their free time scrolling through Facebook or Instagram.
The difference is that now local businesses really had a chance against the big ones.
Ads work like an auction. You make an offer of how much you're willing to pay for that ad to be shown, and the bigges
Death of Google (Score:2)
It's not just in web pages. (Score:2)
Negative ads ?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen several obnoxious ads and simply refuse to do business with the companies pushing them. Particularly the ones that show up in the MIDDLE of a youtube video, AFTER I watched an ad at the beginning of the video. I wonder how many people just got completely turned off by certain marketing strategies and went else where ? What if less ads = less people annoyed at your company , hence more business. Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
I've been waiting for this (Score:2)
The Adpocalypse has been a long time coming. A lot of people have suspected for quite a while that online ads don't really do anything, but no one really wanted to guess and be wrong.
Part of the problem is, ironically, the "careful targeting" that advertisers do. (Well, most likely, at least.) The targeting is based less on people actually purchasing a product, but more on people clicking the ad. And the type of people who are likely to click an ad likely were already interested in purchasing whatever they'
Re: (Score:2)
Simple (Score:2)
Once you've carpet bombed an area, another run won't make much difference.
Bombs, in stock, buy now! (Score:2)
It's great if you're the one selling the bombs, though...
boycott (Score:2)
If a company has a product that's good, that will spread by word of mouth and not need to be force fed to you via an ad campaign. It's worked out pretty well so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
>"When Big Brands Stopped Spending On Digital Ads, Nothing Happened. Why?"
Because consumers are sick of ads.
We skip them, ignore them, block them, tune them out, shun them, and deplore them. As your ads became more and more annoying (scrolling, animation, sound, larger, video) and less and less relevant ("feelings", "virtue signaling", "image", nothing informative about your actual products) and more creepy (tracking, harvesting, targeting, SMS laden, spammy, "associate sharing") they lost all value and alienated your audiences.
Shift to far fewer ads, static images, informative content, and without constant privacy invasion, and perhaps they will have value again. Spend the rest of your money developing better products and listening to your customers. (For example, I point the finger at you, garment companies, who suddenly decided that men no longer want pockets on their shirts; or you, phone manufacturers, who decided we no longer want headphone jacks).
Advertising isn't about convincing end customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's not strictly true. But the way advertising convinces customers is often far less direct than you would expect.
It's about name recognition so potential customers will remember the name and be more inclined to buy that product instead of a competing one. In this case, negative publicity can actually be beneficial, paradoxically, as long as the potential customer remembers the name but not why they remember the name. It also goes to reminding customers that a brand or product still exists, which is why you see established brands advertising periodically. This applies to goods *and* services. Name recognition is why those weird commercials that make no sense whatsoever but end with a shot of the product and a name card exist. Also some of those ad campaigns that tell multipart narratives. Etc.
It's also about creating buzz around a brand or product. This hasn't historically been primarily aimed at end customers. It is often actually aimed at buyers for supermarkets, department stores, and the like. After all, the end customer can't buy your product if store they shop at doesn't sell it, right? So a lot of advertising is aimed at the people who choose what gets stocked by shops to get them to stock the products to customers can buy them. With direct online sales, this is less important these days, but it still plays a role for products that might be stocked by shops. Of course, this also doesn't apply so much for services (professional or otherwise).
And, yes, advertising does need to convince the end customer that they want to buy the product in many cases. Especially for luxury goods or services. Here, simple name recognition is probably not enough, especially when you have competition. In that case, you have to give reasons why a customer should choose your product or service. But you also need to advertise to people who don't already have your product or service, and that's hard. Which is why a good ad campaign serves all three goals: name recognition, buzz generation, and convincing the customer to buy.
I think a lot of companies either forgotten or never knew what the real purpose of advertising is. They got in a mode where they think throwing more money at an ad campaign will make it perform better. And, of course, advertising companies benefit from that so they won't set their customers straight. Mix in a liberal dose of not recognizing how the market has changed with the advent of the interweb, and you get massive overspending on advertising with little or no benefit.
Basically, cutting an advertising campaign that is poorly implemented and/or poorly targetted leading to no change in outcome is hardly surprising.
Re: (Score:3)
When was the last time you "dis
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Consciously, sure. But the 8-year old will become an 18-year-old who grew up constantly hearing that Mazda makes great cars. And you'll have accumulated some knowledge as well.
It's not to say you're mentally controlled, but saying "advertising doesn't affect me" is something advertisers love to hear. It's like if you told a casino "I have a system".
Be aware that ads
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is metrics (Score:2)
In the off-line advertising world, it's very difficult to tie ad spend to anything, because the feedback loop is long and convoluted. Does a Tide commercial make people go and buy Tide? Probably not. However, it could push Tide to top-of-mind if someone sees a Tide ad and then the next day goes to the store looking for detergent.
Online platforms have taken advantage of this mindset by making business chase fake metrics: views, impressions, position in search. They say that those metrics are a proxy for sale
endorsements work better (Score:2)
For example when they mentioned In 'N Out burger on Cobra Kai, that made me crave it. Oh yeah, you should probably get a burger there too. Mention backslashdot and ask for a discount.
Different purposes (Score:5, Insightful)
Ads are bought for a multiple of different purposes, not just increasing immediate business.
Yes, a common reason is to inform people of new information in the hopes of creating more immediate sales. Common examples of new info might consist of a reduced price or the introduction of a new product.
But companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Facebook and Google run advertisements even without any new information. No new product, no price change, they just run an ad.
Large brands also do something called 'brand building'. This is not to inform but instead to establish and maintain a reputation. Hip, cool, young, 'for people like you', dependable, etc. are all qualities brands want to claim as their own.
Those kinds of ads are not intended to increase or even maintain current sales. Instead they are intended to create a long term following. As such, their should be no effect if you cease to run those ads for months, even years.
I know Coca Cola has nothing to do with Santa Claus or Polar Bear families. But when I think of those things, I think of Coke. And I have neither seen such an ad or drunk a coke in over a year.
They still got me. I think of Coke as something related to the North Pole and tradition. Because a good branding ad works better than a 'buy me now' ad.
The pie gets divided no matter what (Score:3)
People are going to buy stuff they need based on price, availability, and perceived quality. Once the market is aware your product exists, it's not the least bit surprising that there is no marginal return on additional ads.
I'm sure ads make more of an impact on new things, like the first time kids saw an ad for Transformers or the Slinky, they all wanted one. OTOH, the millionth Toyota ad is not going to sway a Chevy truck driver. That pie is already divided, and all the ad blather in the world isn't going to change it.
You are a bunch of dunces (Score:2)
The story isn't that advertising doesn't work. Only idiots and Slashdot moderators believe that. You are reading this story because someone explained [twitter.com] how Uber turned off some of its ads under public pressure and found that nothing changed because their money had been siphoned off in click-scams. This isn't about you hating ads and professing some imagined immunity to commercial messages. It's about a rotten system of con-men producing fake metrics for their own enrichment.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling a system of con men who cheated Uber "rotten" is like calling Robin Hood and his merry men "organized crime". I mean, technically correct, but you look at who they were stealing from and say "that seems fine."
I said it before and ill say it again (Score:2)
not as simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone who has gone to marketing 101 knows that the entire industry is well aware of the fact that at least half of your advertisement money would be better spent burning the bills in a chimney, at least they'd give off some heat that way.
The problem is that it's hard to figure out WHICH half.
Terminating an ad campaign is common. That having no effect on sales is also common. But often these campaigns work either on image (i.e. they make your brand known, but don't immediately raise sales) or they work together with other ads (flooding a market with ads is a common strategy to push something, and one or two channels less doesn't make much of a difference).
I would LOVE for there to be definite proof that digital ads are a huge waste of money. Not only would it break the neck of some of the nasty, predatory trackers out there, like Facebook. A drop in the amount of ads would also make the Internet useable again whenever I have to use something that doesn't have all my adblockers installed.
But, like TV ads, it doesn't work like that and isn't that simple. We already saw the move from ads to product placement, the influencers on YouTube are not regulated by any broadcasting advertisement laws and it show in how they embed their sponsors in the programming.
And then there's the thing of legitimate advertisement. A small number of informative ads is really useful. If a new gaming shop opens nearby, I'd like to know that. Right now, there is no way for me to find that out, and the closest anyone has come to it is - unfortunately - evil Facebook which knows all my hobbies and is the most likely to show me their "opening sale" ad.
I wish there were a better way.
Ads (Score:3)
There is another factor at play, aside from those mentioned.
If you spend $100m on ads, and your competitor spent $100m on ads, then you could probably have both spent only $1m on ads and seen the exact same effect.
The closure of tobacco advertising in many countries PROFITED the tobacco companies, because they no longer needed to spend the same as their competitors to stay even. They were all unable to advertise, so they all saved their entire ad budget.
It only works if you're established brands, but once established the millions you spend likely isn't doing anything.
Our brains literally evolved ad blindness. (Score:3)
This was already known in the 80s. Apparently everyone born after the 50s has a quite diffrent information processing structure. They (we) are able to block out any information but a narrow current focus. While older people, for example, would be completely overwhelmed by an east-asian shopping street full of glowing blinking signs, everyone younger would have no trouble.
The downside was more cognitive dissonance. Like your passenger in the car saying "I care for the environment." while throwing his sandwich wrapper out the window. (You can see this cognitive dissonance a lot in politics nowadays. It's very bad.)
So I guess we're now adapted to online ads too. They enter the brain, and just leave on the other side right away. :)
Yeah, fraudvertisers! We evolved a built-in ad blocker! Circumvent THAT!
(All advertisement is hostile manipulatiom for the purpose of a rip-opp anyway, by its very definition. Comparison tables using standardised measuring methods, numbers only, and scientific units, yeah. Emotion-triggering posters showing nothing but a face or body or kitten and the product in a maximally misleading way, piss off!)
Re: (Score:3)
You might me onto something. A while back, I watched my then perhaps 12 year old daughter using her iPhone. She was playing a game, and then she put the phone down with the screen down for 30s perhaps, then picked it up and continued playing. I asked what she was doing, at first she said that she's just playing a game, but when I asked whether the game required get to put the phone down, she thought about it for a few seconds like she was not sure what I was asking, then said "oh, I put the phone down every
I don't believe in Ads (Score:3)
They are like the Inuit Effect.
If an Inuit knows where there is a place with many large and easy to catch fish, he won't tell anybody.
So if you find a nice, quiet restaurant with good affordable food, don't tell anyone or the next time you want to eat there, you'll need reservations, the portions will be smaller, the prices will be higher and the staff overworked.
On the contrary, if you want to continue eating there, you should trash the place with everybody you know, but don't overdo it or next time the restaurant might be closed forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Can backfire. Some very big, very well known companies did spend big bucks to get known and then cut way back, and then were hit with a stream of negative ads and stories but fly-by-night internet outlets. Some sue, some capitulate, some ignore it. I'm not sure how effecting the smear campaigns are either.
Re: (Score:3)
If the product being advertised were a quality product, there would be no need to advertise.
I am sure many a business failed, thinking exactly that. Unless you are an established brand, customers need to find out about you somehow.
Unless your quality product already shows up on the first page of Google/Amazon search for "best XYZ product", how do you suppose customers will learn about it?
P.S. Of course some product categories, such as prescription medication should be banned from being advertised, but that's another story.
Re: (Score:2)
If the product being advertised were a quality product, there would be no need to advertise.
Let's assume that I agree with you on that.
Now, how do I find that quality product?
If it is something I am familiar with, I already know where to look for recommendations. But what if I am looking for something else? A chain saw, a spring mattress, a car battery booster... Amazon reviews? They are crap. Google " reviews"? I get a long list of "best 10 in 2020" results that are little more than ads. "You get what you pay for"? A friend of mine in the golf industry told me that no-name equipment and
Re: (Score:2)
While this is true, and I hardily endorse buying knockoffs, know that "the same assembly line" doesn't mean the same. It could be those are run when the dies are older and less reliable (and technically EOLed). It could be boxes of parts that failed quality control. It could be run when the line is training new employees who might mess things up. Bottom li
Re: (Score:3)
Conversion metrics were being gamed. For instance, one of the companies Uber had doing ads for them installed malware in free battery monitor apps that would convert searches for 'uber' into fake ad clicks, so they'd count as conversions.