|
Radbot posted: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. Well, no, display ads are used basically because they're another audience to acquire traffic through. Though through design/historic internet behaviour, they're going to have a naturally lower click through rate until you highly refine the placement targeting. Viewthrough conversions are just a way of figuring out whether a display ad had a part to play in the conversion funnel/attribution modelling. I wont argue that the quality of display traffic tends to be a lot worse than say, search, shopping or remarketing, but that's generally because many small and medium businesses really don't have a true understanding of their customer segments which (when combined with AdWord's somewhat cumbersome way of refining the targeting) means it's really hard to actually just show your ads to the appropriate target audience on the right websites. This is in stark contrast to the other channels such as search (where you keyword match based on site content and searcher empathy), shopping (where your product titles do a keyword match) and remarketing which is based off of actual visitor behaviour.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted: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. I suspect that a lot of the brand awareness talk is feel-good self affirmation for companies or marketing people who don't want to admit to themselves (or have a monetary interest in not admitting to others) that the overwhelming vast majority of advertising spend is wasted. Even for companies which live off their brand such as Coca-Cola or Subway the truth is that only a select few advertisements trigger the desired branding association in amounts high enough to pay for themselves. It is just impossible to tell which ones those are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I suspect that a lot of the brand awareness talk is feel-good self affirmation for companies or marketing people who don't want to admit to themselves (or have a monetary interest in not admitting to others) that the overwhelming vast majority of advertising spend is wasted. Not really. You can gather metrics for brand awareness. The easiest one being search volumes for branded terms on Google. I've seen TV/Radio campaigns or whatever else have corresponding spikes in Google search volume which can then be tied to conversions, revenue, etc. You can't ever get a 100% 1:1 correlation but you can get some pretty clear results with effective brand advertising.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Kin posted:Not really. You can gather metrics for brand awareness. The easiest one being search volumes for branded terms on Google. I've seen TV/Radio campaigns or whatever else have corresponding spikes in Google search volume which can then be tied to conversions, revenue, etc. Effective is an operative word here: plenty of it isn't, and again it's not a trait exclusive to digital advertising, it's all over all other forms as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Effective is an operative word here: plenty of it isn't, and again it's not a trait exclusive to digital advertising, it's all over all other forms as well. Not for the point I'm making. There's a big difference between "effective" and "feel-good self affirming actions in an effort to deny that advertising is a waste of money". I don't even know what you're trying to say. All brand advertising is 'bad' because some people are poo poo at it? Kin fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
The problem with marketing and advertising is that, despite the fat paychecks and the majors existing at colleges, nobody really understands what is going on and what works changes constantly. Customers are also very fickle. Sometimes they'll throw money in large amounts at a business that doesn't advertise and sometimes all the advertising in the world won't help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem with marketing and advertising is that, despite the fat paychecks and the majors existing at colleges, nobody really understands what is going on and what works changes constantly. No, not really. At its root, this is part of the cliche of the human "soul" being undefinable by the likes of science. In reality, we have pretty good models that can tell (in general) how people will react to a given situation, and the failure when it exists is usually a failure to execute. computer parts fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Kin posted:Not for the point I'm making. There's a big difference between "effective" and "feel-good self affirming actions in an effort to deny that advertising is a waste of money". I don't even know what you're trying to say. All brand advertising is 'bad' because some people are poo poo at it? Not all brand advertising is bad, but most brand advertising is completely ineffective (just as most of most any other kind of advertising is). The sheer amount of advertising out there makes it that way
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem with marketing and advertising is that, despite the fat paychecks and the majors existing at colleges, nobody really understands what is going on and what works changes constantly. Customers are also very fickle. Sometimes they'll throw money in large amounts at a business that doesn't advertise and sometimes all the advertising in the world won't help. Nope. As computer parts said, we can pretty accurately measure how people react to advertising. There may be a sense of ambiguity at the start of any ad campaign but if the advertiser knows what they're doing and reads the gathered data properly then you can hit the right people in the right way. Professional advertisers aren't just throwing ads out to the wind here, we have sophisticated analytics platforms that let us know what is and isn't working and how much money every little thing is or isn't generating. For example, in Google Analytics, you can get insights on the performance of an ad/keyword in different geographic locations and in AdWords you can see what people are searching with when they click on one of your ads. I've used that data to identify a user segment that had a higher than average conversion rate when they were including locations in their searches. From there i segmented my ad targeting to different individual regions within a territory, tailored ads to include/reference the location for each of these and got the website content updated to have more emphasis on these specific locations i was driving traffic to. After doing that, we saw an increase both in traffic (due to the refined ads) and conversions on the site (due to tailored content) all because i used the behavioural data to refine my ads. Nintendo Kid posted:Not all brand advertising is bad, but most brand advertising is completely ineffective (just as most of most any other kind of advertising is). The sheer amount of advertising out there makes it that way You have no idea what you're talking about. Kin fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Kin posted:You have no idea what you're talking about. Fishmech simply refuses to admit that the emperor's ensemble is stunning and fashion-forward and will soon be inspiring runways from Paris to Milan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Kin posted:
That would be you, guy who believes most marketing is effective. Do you even have any idea the sheer amount of marketing that's out there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That would be you, guy who believes most marketing is effective. Do you even have any idea the sheer amount of marketing that's out there? From what I can tell based on responses, Kin works in advertising/media--I do as well, and I can tell you that you genuinely don't have any concept of how effective marketing truly is. With a well crafted campaign that launches across multiple platforms (TV, web, etc) I can show you a marked increase in traffic and/or searches conducting correlating to it. People on the Internet (talking Reddit and SA here mostly, anyone who would ever post that Bill Burr thing about people like Kin and I being parasites who he wants to die) vastly underestimate advertising's effectiveness because y'all think you're too enlightened to be affected by it
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:From what I can tell based on responses, Kin works in advertising/media--I do as well, and I can tell you that you genuinely don't have any concept of how effective marketing truly is. Doesn't that strike you as something of a moving yardstick, though? How many ad campaigns are "effective" against how many others are just there to assert the power and presence of the media buyer? How many ad buys are actually well financed enough and have enough thought and time put into them to ensure they'd actually be good, versus how much of it is just the regular run-of-the-mill trash that they do just because they can? How do you measure effectiveness? Is any increase in sales after an ad campaign at all a mark of effectiveness? Or is there more to it? Morroque fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Companies spend billions and billions on advertising campaigns every year because: 1) They actually work. ~or~ 2) There's a secret cabal of advertisers whispering in CEO ears that advertising is an effective tool despite what the accountants say and hoping against hope that no new freshly-minted junior ad exec spoils the whole thing for anyone. The idea that "most brand advertising is useless" is incredibly dumb. I guarantee you that if any gigantic multinational had numbers that suggested most of their advertising was worthless you'd see only six Apple ads per fiscal quarter or whatever. That's not to say there can't be bad and useless ad campaigns, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
It kind of does cancel itself out in a way though, right? I'm pretty sure tobacco companies saved a lot of money due to bans on advertisements affecting all of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:From what I can tell based on responses, Kin works in advertising/media--I do as well, and I can tell you that you genuinely don't have any concept of how effective marketing truly is. Yeah, i do, going on 4 years now and unless Nintendo Kid lives out in the hills wearing and eating nothing but stuff he's foraged from the land, I'm willing to bet he's been influenced by more advertising than he'd like to admit. Nosfereefer posted:It kind of does cancel itself out in a way though, right? I'm pretty sure tobacco companies saved a lot of money due to bans on advertisements affecting all of them. Not really. The purpose of advertising is to generate more revenue than cost. This I called the Return On Investment and is one of the most important KPI's for advertising. Tobacco companies would never have gotten as big as they did if their advertising was all run at a loss so the savings made by a reduction in advertising would have had a much greater impact on the revenue generated by said advertising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
I'm guessing the tobacco advertising ban mostly enforced a status quo, although there is still plenty of marketing and advertising going on when it comes to byproducts and packaging. I imagine trying to launch a tobacco company after the ban would be ridiculously difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Kin posted:. Like, the question is if coke and Pepsi stopped adverting immediately it doesn't mean that everyone would buy Snapple instead of soda, so would their overall numbers drop? I do think that a lack of advertising has helped curb overall smoking numbers and it would for soda too. Advertising exploits our psychology, and repetition and familiarity matters more than we might like to admit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Advertising is totes effective, but people in marketing/advertising should still go ahead and kill themselves for the good of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Kin posted:Yeah, i do, going on 4 years now and unless Nintendo Kid lives out in the hills wearing and eating nothing but stuff he's foraged from the land, I'm willing to bet he's been influenced by more advertising than he'd like to admit. I use advertising to decide what not to buy, mostly because I can't stand how annoying commercials are these days. Who the gently caress thought playing a tiny clip of music over and over again was effective advertising? Thanks American Airlines, I'll make sure to avoid your business after that "ILOVEITILOVEITILOVEITILOVEITILOVEITILOVEITILOVEITILOVEIT" commercial. I also avoid digital advertising since I grew up during a time where digital advertising was scummy and full of spyware and poo poo. So yeah, I'm influenced by advertising, just in the exact opposite way.  Also gently caress you guys, since you work in that business and still let that poo poo go through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Advertising is totes effective, but people in marketing/advertising should still go ahead and kill themselves for the good of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:From what I can tell based on responses, Kin works in advertising/media--I do as well, and I can tell you that you genuinely don't have any concept of how effective marketing truly is. This is what you two aren't getting. You think "well crafted" applies to most marketing. It doesn't. Most marketing is utter poo poo and ineffective. It doesn't even matter if all the projects you've personally worked in worked well, because you're in a tiny tiny fraction of the marketing that goes on daily. Again, I ask you as well to go out and say watch a day of television and note down all the commercials that are on there, including the local ones. How many of those companies have you actually been consciously aware of before? They'll probably be plenty that you weren't, since they had lovely advertising, or even just bought in slots you wouldn't otherwise see. And often, many of them will be companies that you can't even use, whether due to what they're in, or where they're located, or a number of other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is what you two aren't getting. You think "well crafted" applies to most marketing. It doesn't. Most marketing is utter poo poo and ineffective. It doesn't even matter if all the projects you've personally worked in worked well, because you're in a tiny tiny fraction of the marketing that goes on daily. And what you're not getting is you have no factual basis to your claim: "it's all poo poo because i think there's too much to possibly be effective as it's too much for me to process". We've explained why it's the opposite and our "personal projects" are the proof that counters your 'assumptions'. You've no idea how many projects i've worked on, or who i've worked for. I've not divulged that, yet you've gone on to assume that my little chunk of experience is minuscule when in fact I'm but one person in a team that has a combined experience of successful advertising of more than a decade. My company, is also one of many. Actually, unless you're powering through loads of different channels, you're likely to easily recognise the brands for ads that are on TV in one day due to the sheer volume of repetition and there aren't actually that many unique ads that get shown in a small frame of time. Again, this stuff is all measured and calculated with engagement metrics indicating the optimum number of times an ad must be shown within a certain time frame for it to "stick", etc. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Also gently caress you guys, since you work in that business and still let that poo poo go through. I'm not boss of the internet. Why don't you go out and stop everyone in the US from shooting eachother, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Kin posted: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. I've run it for a few different companies. The most recent two were for a Building Products company that sells Stone Veneer, Brick, Stucco, Insulation, and all that jazz, mainly to contractors at a wholesale price. They also do a bit of retail for the home renovation market. The issue with them is that these purchases can easily be in the thousands of dollars, and often people will be less likely to purchase something like that online. The second was an artist who sold clothing which had her art on them, very unique and tailored directly to the city in which she was located. We tried going for a younger crowd, 18-24 , but the campaign data surprisingly showed us that the 45+ crowd actually responded better. We've since changed direction so I suppose it wasn't a huge failure. For both of these campaigns there was the issue of people needing to see and feel the product in real life, online photos only do so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I've run it for a few different companies. The most recent two were for a Building Products company that sells Stone Veneer, Brick, Stucco, Insulation, and all that jazz, mainly to contractors at a wholesale price. They also do a bit of retail for the home renovation market. The issue with them is that these purchases can easily be in the thousands of dollars, and often people will be less likely to purchase something like that online. Yeah, those examples sound fairly familiar. I've worked with industrial B2B clients and their main converting demographic simply don't use the internet in the same way that others do. Typically for your former example, I'd have assumed it's a lead based site instead of eCommerce as people would be more willing to "get in touch" (via call or enquiry form) for a high value product instead of making a £5k+ instant purchase online. For the latter, i agree high fashion simply isn't one that converts unless you're a basic high street store which harkens back to the whole brand thing. For exmple, people are more than willing to make apurcahse online with the likes of Marks and Spencers, Next etc instead of an artisan clothing because the artisan stuff is unique and needs to be seen/felt to convert. I've also found it's a nightmare to target for clothes because there's a crazy amount of low volume long tail searches like yellow and green spotted stripey maxi skirts or whatever which is too specific to hold stock for, but the general stuff like "buy maxi dress online" is far too general to convert unless you've got a big enough product range to cater for the generality of the search.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Kin posted:And what you're not getting is you have no factual basis to your claim: "it's all poo poo because i think there's too much to possibly be effective as it's too much for me to process". We've explained why it's the opposite and our "personal projects" are the proof that counters your 'assumptions'. You've no idea how many projects i've worked on, or who i've worked for. I've not divulged that, yet you've gone on to assume that my little chunk of experience is minuscule when in fact I'm but one person in a team that has a combined experience of successful advertising of more than a decade. My company, is also one of many. Buddy, there are millions of companies marketing stuff everyday, and they simply aren't all successful. Why you cling to the idea that most marketing is successful I don't know. You keep jacking off on how some companies do it smart, but that's irrelevant since most advertising is not done smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Buddy, there are millions of companies marketing stuff everyday, and they simply aren't all successful. Why you cling to the idea that most marketing is successful I don't know. You keep jacking off on how some companies do it smart, but that's irrelevant since most advertising is not done smart. And you've yet to explain how you know this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Kin posted:And you've yet to explain how you know this. Everyone knows this. Marketing companies are constantly losing accounts because of this, and in-house sales and marketing staff constantly come up with new things to try to fix it. No one cares that your company apparently always gets it right, there's dozens of businesses loving it up for every one that's consistently got it right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Marketing can be successful if it's done right. However, brand awareness advertising is probably the only one that's consistently successful. Other ads may or may not work and marketing is always looking for The Next Big Thing. No, I take that back, playing into insecurities is the other one that is consistently successful. Buy our toothpaste or your breath will smell bad and you'll never get laid. If you buy the wrong clothes you'll look unwomanly and no guy will ask you out. If you don't own enough power tools you aren't manly. Go buy more tools you wuss. The thing of it is that people get wise to it. There's also a nonstop arms race. One person does something that works and somebody else does it harder to outdo them. A few specific, general things work but the specifics vary a lot. The internet lets you target advertise for awareness but once again internet adverts are largely invisible at this point. Which is why they got increasingly annoying. With how scummy it got people just went "wow, gently caress this poo poo" and ignored it so internet adverts forced you to look at them. But if you go too far people hate it. I remember back when I still watched TV there was a weird trend of commercials often get louder. The reason was of course that people would leave the room when commercials came on so they'd get loud. Over time they just got louder, louder, and louder to the point that I had to actually mute some of them if I was in the room. Then, of course, TiVo happened and you could record the show and skip the commercials. Advertisers were not pleased. Which is the other arms race; people find ways to ignore advertising so advertisers find other ways to forcibly grab your attention. Which is why advertising only gets more annoying over time which gets on peoples' nerves. I'm absolutely one of those people that just flat out avoids companies that have annoyed me with advertisements. It doesn't help that advertising has a tremendously scummy side to it that a great many people loathe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Shakenbaker posted:The past has the answers for the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhjCrL40JIM We have a moral imperative to block all advertising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Kin posted:I'm not boss of the internet. Why don't you go out and stop everyone in the US from shooting eachother, thanks. Please, unlike gun control, I think this nation can force you to look for another (non-annoying job)  Do you honestly like commercials these days? Because they are straight garbage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Everyone knows this. Why do you keep saying this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Kin posted:And you've yet to explain how you know this. Fishmech is a jack of all trades, and a master of...all trades. He has sent out more google queries than there are stars in the sky, and has long-since risen above petty concepts like "correct" and "incorrect".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Everyone knows this. This is the kind of assertion that you yourself would rip somebody a new rear end in a top hat for if they were using it to disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Kin posted:Well, no, display ads are used basically because they're another audience to acquire traffic through. Though through design/historic internet behaviour, they're going to have a naturally lower click through rate until you highly refine the placement targeting. Placement targeting? Why are you using that instead of a programmatic or DMP-based approach? And Display traffic is always going to have a lower CTR than nearly any other form of tactic, since it's disruptive to your experience (unlike SERP ads), unless you're talking about remarketing or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:This is the kind of assertion that you yourself would rip somebody a new rear end in a top hat for if they were using it to disagree with you. Don't see why you're rushing the defend the idea that all marketing is working great, as he's trying to claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Placement targeting? Why are you using that instead of a programmatic or DMP-based approach? And Display traffic is always going to have a lower CTR than nearly any other form of tactic, since it's disruptive to your experience (unlike SERP ads), unless you're talking about remarketing or something. I've been venturing more into programmatic over the last few months but at it's core it still seems exactly like placement targeting to me albeit, with a hell of a lot more scope for optimisation than in AdWords (depending on the programmatic platform that is). My point being that the most successful programmatic campaigns are the ones where you've identified the best placements/domains for your ad's presence. Once there, the 'disruptiveness' as you put it is mitigated to the point where it doesn't impedethe acquisition of converting traffic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Don't see why you're rushing the defend the idea that all marketing is working great, as he's trying to claim. Yeah, how dare he shill for them by expecting you to back up your assertions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Yeah, how dare he shill for them by expecting you to back up your assertions. He hasn't backed up his assertions that all marketing is effective, and that's the extraordinary claim here. Meanwhile marketing campaigns in all sectors constantly get canned for not working and not being effective, and many more should be canned but aren't because the people paying for them aren't paying enough attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He hasn't backed up his assertions that all marketing is effective, and that's the extraordinary claim here. Meanwhile marketing campaigns in all sectors constantly get canned for not working and not being effective, and many more should be canned but aren't because the people paying for them aren't paying enough attention.  I love being a perfectly rational machine, immune to outside influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:22
|
|