|
blowfish posted:A big company strongarming people? Unheard of. Doesn't make it any less hosed up.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Doesn't make it any less hosed up. I don't really get the problem in this case, but maybe I misunderstood something so correct me if I'm wrong. The "ad-free old-school YouTube" hasn't Of course, when it was just music the arguments actually made some sense, because their content was available from several places and the increased availability could cut into their revenue from those sources. Normal videos don't really seem like they would have that issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Reicere posted:I don't really get the problem in this case, but maybe I misunderstood something so correct me if I'm wrong. Are your videos being blocked from Youtube Red or regular Youtube? If the latter, it's hosed up you lose any chance of having your vids seen by an audience, if it's the former than I guess it makes sense for your vids to be hidden from Youtube Red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Are your videos being blocked from Youtube Red or regular Youtube? If the latter, it's hosed up you lose any chance of having your vids seen by an audience, if it's the former than I guess it makes sense for your vids to be hidden from Youtube Red. I don't think red is even a different site... still only one youtube. Just a sub you can pay to remove ads, a portion of which is paid out in place of ad revenue. Having some videos unavailable, or still show ads, to paying subs would be insane. Now again, I haven't looked into the details since it changed from being music only.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Doesn't make it any less hosed up. Why in the world should anyone feel entitled to having their content on YouTube at all? Why shouldn't YouTube have whatever terms of service it wants? I really don't get what the problem is supposed to be, but maybe in missing something. It'd be like if Craigslist started charging to put ads up and people cried foul as though free Craigslist was a human right or something. It's a business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Which brings to mind that I still have no idea how craigslist makes money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which brings to mind that I still have no idea how craigslist makes money. Bring down the entire U.S. classified ad business with 30 employees in a market which favors monopoly and charge for a tiny subset of that business and you can still make a considerable profit while providing mediocre service at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which brings to mind that I still have no idea how craigslist makes money. $25 for posting a job listing in the 6 largest US cities ($75 for SF) and $10 for a NY apartment. They employ <50 people, and spend very little money operating compared to, like, any other company hosting a multi-million-user web serivce. They made over $300m last year, if I remember right. e: > != < Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Trent posted:Why in the world should anyone feel entitled to having their content on YouTube at all? Why shouldn't YouTube have whatever terms of service it wants? I really don't get what the problem is supposed to be, but maybe in missing something. It has to do with the nature of the internet and what happened during the first dot com bust. Right now the internet is sorting out the whole "so how do we keep the lights on?" answer. Competition on the interblagz kept prices of everything being pressed downwards until basically everything just became free. The other snag is that any information a for-profit site can put up somebody, somewhere will put up for free. Thanks to the sheer volume of free stuff put on the internet people in general just expect everything to be free, forever. But the issue is that there are, if nothing else, expenses to running a website. Bandwidth isn't free, servers aren't free, and website security isn't free. Somebody along the chain eventually wants paid but people aren't willing to pay. So now you have people expecting to just fire up the internet and see, hear, and read anything they want free. Why bother paying for content when you can download it? Games are having similar issues. Why pay for a game you can torrent?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It has to do with the nature of the internet and what happened during the first dot com bust. Right now the internet is sorting out the whole "so how do we keep the lights on?" answer. Competition on the interblagz kept prices of everything being pressed downwards until basically everything just became free. The other snag is that any information a for-profit site can put up somebody, somewhere will put up for free. Thanks to the sheer volume of free stuff put on the internet people in general just expect everything to be free, forever. I understand everything you are saying, but it doesn't seem to address the question in my post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It has to do with the nature of the internet and what happened during the first dot com bust. Right now the internet is sorting out the whole "so how do we keep the lights on?" answer. Competition on the interblagz kept prices of everything being pressed downwards until basically everything just became free. The other snag is that any information a for-profit site can put up somebody, somewhere will put up for free. Thanks to the sheer volume of free stuff put on the internet people in general just expect everything to be free, forever. So you're saying nationalize everything? Although internationalize would be a better idea imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:$25 for posting a job listing in the 6 largest US cities ($75 for SF) and $10 for a NY apartment. They employ <50 people, and spend very little money operating compared to, like, any other company hosting a multi-million-user web serivce. Ah that makes sense. As a typical user I simply never ended up doing one of the few things on the site that will ask for money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:So you're saying nationalize everything? Although internationalize would be a better idea imo. Full kommunism now has always been the answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 16:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trent posted:Why in the world should anyone feel entitled to having their content on YouTube at all? Why shouldn't YouTube have whatever terms of service it wants? I really don't get what the problem is supposed to be, but maybe in missing something. It's the sense that "it was free yesterday, why the change?" Also strong-arming people into your business is one of the many reasons why I hate capitalism. Screwing over other people to make you rich is one of the most scummiest things in our world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:It's the sense that "it was free yesterday, and is still free today? No current content is getting paywalled, the only paywalled content is being made by select partners, and the only people getting locked out are the ones who think they deserve a sweet-heart deal. You can argue about how fair the new deal people are being strong-armed into actually is, but the fact is its still better than the old one. Could have been a great time to band together and renegotiate, but the vast majority of people seem to be happy getting any raise at all. EDIT: and to be clear on my stance WRT advertising this seems like the best way a site like YT could possibly move away from being entirely ad-supported and is something that should be welcomed, rather than feared. Reicere fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Trent posted:I understand everything you are saying, but it doesn't seem to address the question in my post. People feel entitled to spam their crap on the YouTubes because it's been free to upload, host, and share videos basically forever but, well, that poo poo ain't free. People expect to be able to put videos up for free and watch videos for free but the traffic YouTube generates is massive. I'm talking incomprehensibly massive. People tend to think "well I can go to like DreamHost and get hosting for $100 a year, what's the big deal?" Well, that covers bandwidth but not the servers, maintaining them, keeping the absurd amount of storage being absurdly big enough to hold everything, etc. Somebody needs to maintain all the computers all the YouTube videos are living on. So of course somebody wants to make money on YouTube. Granted it can also be argued they're just being greedy but still one of the biggest, nastiest issues the internet has been dealing with for its entire existence is what I had mentioned. People are expecting literally free hosting forever. Not only that but people are expecting to get famous and get paid for uploading their stuff to the YouTubes with no risk on their own end. It's a fundamental flaw of "everything free, forever" but that's what people expect. The merest hint of there being a paywall, maybe, some day, hey don't complain we need to keep the drat lights on, is enough to make a significant chunk of people go into full meltdown mode. But the dot com bust came about because of that race to the bottom; investments were being made in serving free content that didn't return on it. But the genie was let out; now nobody wants to pay for anything. How many people are uploading videos to YouTube all the time? How much do you think it cost to stream Gangnam Style almost two and a half billion times? Somebody will, of course, make the joke "lol we gotta go down tot he gigabit factory and buy more gigabits!!" but the internet is not infinite and neither is the hardware that makes it run. So you put up advertisements but people hate those too. How do you fund a website if any way you can make money is met with bile and hatred?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:People are expecting literally free hosting forever. With everyone pushing for cloud storage this isn't a surprise. A better idea would be telling consumers "don't transition to this because it's not free and we will start charging money soon" I think companies want people thinking they can get poo poo for free so they're eager to get involved with their service. I doubt people are inherently entitled brats who want free poo poo. It's more like they are not being informed, because it's better for a company to recieve a swarm of ignorant users who think the service is free than fending off swarms of informed users, people who after learning that hosting is expensive would go away, thinking it wasn't a good deal. How many of those billion people would have watched that k-pop video if they had to pay for it? If it was few people, would the music company even bother with making their content available? Having entitled people using youtube for free was useful for everyone involved and the details of how it wasn't really free were purposedly left out. Not the people's fault. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Could someone explain to me how exactly online ads work? Who clicks on that crap? I have never seen a single ad in my whole life that was worth clicking, nor do I know anyone else who reacts to them in any way. I mean, there is one exception, some very, very old guy that I know, but he can't tell the difference between ads and the proper site most of the time, so he gets a pass and is not really representative. Is it like spam mail, where the margins on those few idiots that react to it are so huge that it pays to bombard hundred of millions of people with the emails? Does anyone has some data showing the effect of online ads on sales numbers? e: Also lol at the "personalized ads" crap. I remember when it started in 90's, and it's still nowhere near the point where it gets any results. At best you get ads from your countries electronics shops, if you google for electronics. It's nowhere near the point where I would call it personalized. And now, 20 years later, Microsoft even started logging all the activity, all your files and personal data on your computer in the name of that bullshit, and it still will not work. Welp, maybe in another 20 years ... 
GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Could someone explain to me how exactly online ads work? Who clicks on that crap? I have never seen a single ad in my whole life that was worth clicking, nor do I know anyone else who reacts to them in any way. I mean, there is one exception, some very, very old guy that I know, but he can't tell the difference between ads and the proper site most of the time, so he gets a pass and is not really representative. A lot of it is made up numbers, but how much can't really be determined until the current bubble pops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Could someone explain to me how exactly online ads work? Who clicks on that crap? Stupid people to both questions. It's the same reason spam is still a viable thing - there are enough people out there who are stupid enough to go to their spam folder and buy things from them. And let's be real here: it's not like magazine or newspaper or tv or radio ads are very effective either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Stupid people to both questions. It's the same reason spam is still a viable thing - there are enough people out there who are stupid enough to go to their spam folder and buy things from them. Advertising isn't just about getting people to click and buy a product immediately. If you see a certain product in a positive context often enough you're more likely to choose that product over one of its competitors when we are making that kind of purchase. I'm pretty sure I have bought things straight from a well targeted ad before, too. And I'd be surprised if anyone hadn't. Spotify for example will alert me when bands that I like are playing in my area and I've clicked and bought tickets before. sweek0 fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Advertising isn't just about getting people to click and buy a product immediately. If you see a certain product in a positive context often enough we're more likely to choose that product over one of its competitors when we are making that kind of purchase. I'm pretty sure I have bought things straight from a well targeted ad before, too. And I'd be surprised if anyone hadn't. Spotify for example will alert me when bands that I like are playing in my area and I've clicked and bought tickets before. But you also didn't buy thousands upon thousands of other things that were also advertised to you. Many of them you might have not bought specifically because the particular ad annoyed you too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
I deliberately click through from time-to-time on websites I like, as long as the destination isn't reprehensible. I see that as payment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
I've done a few ad campaigns using Google Adwords and it's insane the amount of data they spit at you. Like 10,000 people saw your ad but only 1 person clicked on it kind of numbers. I found that a lot of ad clicks came from mobile apps that were from children's games like "Barney's First Colouring Book", "Learn to Count". I can guarantee the people clicking the ads in those apps are nowhere near your target audience. We stopped doing online ads because of the cost associated. It was around 30 Cents per click and to actually get a decent size of traffic you could drop a lot of money on it. For a small business it just wasn't worth it. I believe that Google Adwords and internet advertising is just used to siphon money from the large players in advertising, like Coke/Pepsi, Tech companies, and especially the Automotive Industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I think research shows that if you're a small business, and your business involves "walk in" stuff at all, the most important thing you can do to "advertise" is to make sure your business shows up in Google Maps and the rest of the mapping services, and has accurate location, hours information, and phone/email contacts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I think research shows that if you're a small business, and your business involves "walk in" stuff at all, the most important thing you can do to "advertise" is to make sure your business shows up in Google Maps and the rest of the mapping services, and has accurate location, hours information, and phone/email contacts. Indeed, I am amazed at the number of businesses that still have no web presence beyond maybe an afterthought Facebook page or their name (but no information) on some aggregator site. I'm sure I've passed up better businesses for worse ones simply because the otherwise better choice was invisible on the web. This is really stupid in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
How does podcast advertising work? It seems that at any given time only 2-4 companies advertise across all podcasts at any given time, yet there seems to be some kind of podcast bubble going on right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:How does podcast advertising work? It seems that at any given time only 2-4 companies advertise across all podcasts at any given time, yet there seems to be some kind of podcast bubble going on right now. Podcasts have the handy thing going on where it's real easy to tell how many unique listeners there are: just turn over server logs for downloads and by who. Also if anything the bubble phase was back a couple years, which ended when several podcast "networks" went under.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I've done a few ad campaigns using Google Adwords and it's insane the amount of data they spit at you. When it's priced per click the relevant number is your conversion rate and profit from that. Either the price per click is profitable or it isn't. It doesn't make any more sense for a big business to throw 30 cents at clicks that generate 20 than a small one. On the topic in general - a shocking number of people don't know the difference between ads on google and the organic search entries. Plus google is legitimately good at generating ads that are relevant to your search.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Stupid people to both questions. It's the same reason spam is still a viable thing - there are enough people out there who are stupid enough to go to their spam folder and buy things from them. Adverts are not just about clickthroughs but also awareness. Sometimes a company just wants to become more visible so they pay for ads. They don't give a poo poo if it directly leads to more sales; all they want is to be seen. You see this with new products, sites, games, and what not. They don't give a drat if you click on it all they care is that you notice that *thing* exists. Lack of awareness is also what destroyed Moxie which was otherwise a popular drink. They quit advertising and suddenly Pepsi and Coke drowned them in brand awareness and Moxie mostly vanished. Which is, of course, why you still see a deluge of adverts from already large companies. If you constantly think of *huge company* you may very well forget *small company* exists or not bother to go look for other alternatives. Advertising is bizarre. Not doing it is a death sentence for a lot of things but then doing it for many other things is just plain not worth it. Internet advertising got a nasty, nasty reputation because, well, it earned it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
My brother did an internship with Target while he was in business school, and they have the data collection and sales volume to really get a clear look at what advertising does. This: ToxicSlurpee posted:They don't give a drat if you click on it all they care is that you notice that *thing* exists. My brother's team worked exclusively on in-store shelf placement and Target (and basically every other big box megacorp) has it down to a science. Priority products are placed at certain shelves based on average consumer eye height, and product displays at placed (or repeated) at specific locations according to average shopper walking paths and time-spent-at-location store heatmaps. It's not corporate superstition voodoo either, you can guarantee something like a 20-40% boost in the sales of one particular product by placing it in high priority configurations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Trent posted:Indeed, I am amazed at the number of businesses that still have no web presence beyond maybe an afterthought Facebook page or their name (but no information) on some aggregator site. I'm sure I've passed up better businesses for worse ones simply because the otherwise better choice was invisible on the web. This is really stupid in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:My brother's team worked exclusively on in-store shelf placement and Target (and basically every other big box megacorp) has it down to a science. Priority products are placed at certain shelves based on average consumer eye height, and product displays at placed (or repeated) at specific locations according to average shopper walking paths and time-spent-at-location store heatmaps. It's not corporate superstition voodoo either, you can guarantee something like a 20-40% boost in the sales of one particular product by placing it in high priority configurations. The same concept even works in conjunction with packaging! Ever noticed how sugary cereal mascots always seem to be looking slightly downward, while the models on adult cereal boxes look you right in the eye? Cornell University posted:Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids! In a study of 65 cereals in 10 different grocery stores, Cornell researchers found that cereals marketed to kids are placed half as high on supermarket shelves as adult cereals—the average height for children’s cereal boxes is 23 inches versus 48 inches for adult cereal. A second key finding from the same study is that the average angle of the gaze of cereal spokes-characters on cereal boxes marketed to kids is downward at a 9.6 degree angle whereas spokes-characters on adult cereal look almost straight ahead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Adverts are not just about clickthroughs but also awareness. Sometimes a company just wants to become more visible so they pay for ads. They don't give a poo poo if it directly leads to more sales; all they want is to be seen. You see this with new products, sites, games, and what not. They don't give a drat if you click on it all they care is that you notice that *thing* exists. But you're not getting that plenty of people continue to not notice that thing exists because the advertising chosen simply didn't pan out. As an exercise, considering having someone else who lives near you note down all the brands and companies in the radio, tv, newspaper, etc ads they see for a day, then give you the list. See how many of those brands you actually recognize. There's also that Moxie had always been somewhat regional in its popularity of purchase - it had enough nationwide recognition that "moxie" became an American English word, but it had always sold best in the Northeast in general and New England and PA in particular - where it still sells decently well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Moxie is a real thing? That's news to me. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
If you can get hold of some, drinking it is not an experience to be missed. Imagine root beer crossed with bubble gum and a handful of gravel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I've done a few ad campaigns using Google Adwords and it's insane the amount of data they spit at you. The AdWords display network is a bit of a loving shambles to be honest and I've yet to come across an account that's made successful ROI off of it. The biggest problem is that their targeting methods are too "loose" which is why 3rd party programmatic platforms are making better progress. Your example is a common one. Apps, that keep showing up as placements even after you put in the instruction to exclude them. Do they generate traffic? They sure do. Is it good traffic, like gently caress it is. High bounce rates but longer than average times on site due to the nature of mobile browsers and a painstaking process of whittling down the placements to hopefully find a handful that are producing a decent enough conversion rate to produce a positive ROI. The thing is that in the right hands AdWords is fine for small businesses, you just need to know how to calibrate it properly and make sure you're targeting the right people. What AdWords isn't good for is businesses that are doomed to fail online. By that i mean sites with poor conversion rates due to whatever reason (you can lead a duck to water, etc), companies that think the Google SERP is like a physical highstreet and thus must have multiple outlets/sites selling their product ranges instead of just on their own (each reseller often undercutting them on their own price as well as making their advertising space more competitive) and companies that refuse to budge on price when all of their competitors are significantly undercutting them or if almost identical items can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere (this one is typically held by companies who think their brand is something special when it's really not for people searching with non-brand terms). edit: what kind of things did your company sell if you don't mind me asking? That too can impact the performance you see per ad channel. Kin fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:If you can get hold of some, drinking it is not an experience to be missed. Imagine root beer crossed with bubble gum and a handful of gravel. Just don't ever stop drinking it once you start, because it's delicious but has a strong lingering aftertaste of someone else's burps
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:If you can get hold of some, drinking it is not an experience to be missed. Imagine root beer crossed with bubble gum and a handful of gravel. Just drink Big Red you silly hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
No one gives a poo poo if you click on display ads, in fact, I'd consider that traffic to be possibly the worst quality traffic possible. Display ads are used because of viewthrough conversions; that is, you get cookied when you see a banner and, if you end up buying the product, the display placement is credited with the conversion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:26
|
|
