|
Nintendo Kid posted:Cite your evidence that most or all of it works. The way business works shows that right now most of it doesn't succeed. You're the only one talking in absolutes, making bold claims with obviously no knowledge, experience or even evidence of what you're talking about. Just what exactly is your profession or experience that gives you such industry challenging insights? Kin fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 3, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Kin posted:You're the only one talking in absolutes, making bold claims with obviously no knowledge, experience or even evidence of what you're talking about. You keep saying that "most advertising doesn't work" is false, so where's your proof of that? All you've come up with so far is "well I'm great at advertising". Meanwhile we can clearly see that advertising fails constantly on the market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You keep saying that "most advertising doesn't work" is false, so where's your proof of that? All you've come up with so far is "well I'm great at advertising". Meanwhile we can clearly see that advertising fails constantly on the market. What expert knowledge are you using to make such an observation? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:What expert knowledge are you using to make such an observation? Everyone can see it, friend. Unless you're dumb enough to believe everybody buys things in proportion to how it's been advertised, which would tend to indicate that you've never ever been outside. Practically all businesses advertise in some way. Most businesses never get anywhere, tons straight up go under. Clearly most advertising isn't effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:If you see an ad and don't immediately call the number on the screen, that doesn't mean it didn't work. Tell me this, if you won a lawsuit that included a structured settlement, who would you go to? JG Wentworth? 877 CASH NOW?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
A marketing campaign might be successful but barring exceptional circumstances such as the super bowl it is nearly impossible (and certainly cost prohibitive) to determine if an individual advertisement had an effect. The pareto principle comes into play - a small portion of the advertisements are responsible for the vast majority of the response and the rest are ROI negative and "wasted money". Of course there also becomes a point where attempting to weed out the underperforming ads isn't worth the savings vs a wasted ad - perhaps a few of the banners at a stadium aren't very visible but you'd have to spend hours checking sight lines to verify that so the $100 per or so in material to throw them up anyway is cheaper. The trouble with brand advertising is that the theory through which it works prevents winnowing out many those lovely performing ads because even if they don't prompt conversions themselves they are supposedly contributing to reinforcing the brand awareness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
It's not a completely unsolvable problem. Multivariate analysis (aka marketing mix analysis) plus a thorough understanding of your customer's path to purchase can show that your brand spend did indeed result in lift a few months later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Back in Uni, I ended up having to read through a lot of Marketing and Advertising journals for a cross-disciplinary project I was working on. Afterwards, I actually took the time to have an aside with my advisor to complain; not only were none of them up to the level of professionalism I'd expect from even soft-science academic publications, they're also the only ones I've ever seen that had "sub-abstract" sidebars that dumbed the abstract down to Elementary-school-level bullet points. The loving Abstract. I'll have to see if I saved any of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Practically all businesses advertise in some way. Most businesses never get anywhere, tons straight up go under. Clearly most advertising isn't effective. I didn't realize that advertising was the equivalent of a patented medicine that is guaranteed to cure all of your business's ailments and guarantee success. It's almost like the only person making that retarded claim is oh wow, thanks for the new AV, fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I didn't realize that advertising was the equivalent of a patented medicine that is guaranteed to cure all of your business's ailments and guarantee success. No one said that, just that clearly if your business is failing your advertising hasn't really helped, now has it? Or that if your business gets stuck in a plateau despite continuing to advertise, it's most likely not working either. Sure, your advertiser will claim that your buys helped regardless, but they're out to make money off you, with advertising. Of course they'll say that. I don't buy avs. Sorry that you melted down so much that it annoyed someone else though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No one said that, just that clearly if your business is failing your advertising hasn't really helped, now has it? Or that if your business gets stuck in a plateau despite continuing to advertise, it's most likely not working either. Sure, your advertiser will claim that your buys helped regardless, but they're out to make money off you, with advertising. Of course they'll say that. Great, so you agree that you just claimed that advertising is a cure-all for all other bad business decisions( ...or is it the exact opposite?!?!?!) Thanks for coming around!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:25
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No one said that, just that clearly if your business is failing your advertising hasn't really helped, now has it? Or that if your business gets stuck in a plateau despite continuing to advertise, it's most likely not working either. Sure, your advertiser will claim that your buys helped regardless, but they're out to make money off you, with advertising. Of course they'll say that. Fishmech you don't seem to have, on a single occasion, accounted for the possibility that a situation may be worse without the advertising, even if the overall net result with it is still negative. The efficacy of advertising isn't purely measured by growth of market share or increase of profit, it could be measured by mitigation of loss.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Great, so you agree that you just claimed that advertising is a cure-all for all other bad business decisions( ...or is it the exact opposite?!?!?!) Thanks for coming around! Not even close, guy who's obsessive. Sorry that this upsets you? It's simply that really great advertising can help make up for other things, and most advertising isn't even close to really great. Disinterested posted:Fishmech you don't seem to have, on a single occasion, accounted for the possibility that a situation may be worse without the advertising, even if the overall net result with it is still negative. No I have, most of the time it simply doesn't help at all. I'll refer you to Shifty Pony's post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
A new level of fishmech You can call it fishmech 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
I'm not saying that ads don't work statistically, don't lynch me. This post is anecdotal stuff; what always made me think that youtube ads could be a failure was that years ago I made an in-joke video for my friends where I added a fake banner ad sliding in. It had no text, just some ad-looking colors and shapes. Everyone went clicking the X to close it without even looking at the content of the ad, and only realised it was fake once they see the video pausing and the ad having nothing inside of it. If youtube ads were somehow integrated into videos like they are on TV, with youtubers being able to control them with a transition, or something, I think ads would be much more pleasant than sliding banners or a full screen interruption at the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
This thread got fishmech'd so hard that nobody noticed he moved the goalposts from "advertising is not effective" to "most advertising is not effective" and looks to be in the process of moving it to "some advertising is not effective". Eventually he'll get to a point where the answer to his assertions is 'well, duh' at which point he'll claim victory for his original statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:This thread got fishmech'd so hard that nobody noticed he moved the goalposts from "advertising is not effective" to "most advertising is not effective" and looks to be in the process of moving it to "some advertising is not effective". Eventually he'll get to a point where the answer to his assertions is 'well, duh' at which point he'll claim victory for his original statement. I tried, but the Fishmeching was Too Strong Slanderer posted:Haha, what you actually said:
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:This thread got fishmech'd so hard that nobody noticed he moved the goalposts from "advertising is not effective" to "most advertising is not effective" and looks to be in the process of moving it to "some advertising is not effective". Eventually he'll get to a point where the answer to his assertions is 'well, duh' at which point he'll claim victory for his original statement. Nope, sorry that you're bad at reading? Some advertising is actively worse than nothing, while most is merely not effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Posters who don't understand how advertising works: "I don't like ads they are dumb and annoying and there's so many of them and I just ignore them. Most of advertising doesn't work anyway, especially on smart people like me who see through it  ."Posters who work in advertising:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
lite frisk posted:Posters who don't understand how advertising works: "I don't like ads they are dumb and annoying and there's so many of them and I just ignore them. Most of advertising doesn't work anyway, especially on smart people like me who see through it Well in my own defense most adverts are, in fact, dumb and annoying. I'm not entirely immune to advertising but that's largely because if somebody advertises something I might actually want in a mostly non-irritating way and mostly just says "hey man this thing exists, maybe you should buy it" works. Steam does a good job of this, all told. Close a game and an update window comes up that's all like "oh hey by the way here are some things you might like." It doesn't interrupt anything and only comes up after I close a game. And it can be closed immediately. But as a person that likes games I do, in fact, want to know what will be coming out. I do kind of want to get Fallout 4 but let me tell you if my internet experience was constantly interrupted by YOU SHOULD BUY THIS GAME ARE YOU BUYING THIS GAME YET HERE ARE 12 POPUPS, A THOUSAND BANNER ADS THAT HAVE LOUD NOISES, AND INTERRUPTIONS TO EVERYTHING YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE FALLOUT 4 STILL EXISTS YOU WANT IT DON'T YOU YEAH BUY FALLOUT 4 I'M SERIOUS RIGHT NOW GO SELL A KIDNEY IF YOU HAVE TO I'd quit wanting it. Has nothing to do with thinking I'm smug and smart and more to do with that whole "voting with your wallet thing." Companies that have irritating advertisements I actively avoid. Companies that do the advertising equivalent of tapping me on the shoulder and saying "hey man you may not have heard but this thing you might like exists" are OK. I get that advertising needs to exist. I do not like annoying advertisements and the internet is loving full of those. But since you work in advertising perhaps you can tell me who this amazing mom that lives 8 seconds away from me is? So far she's apparently managed to cure cancer, make 70 year olds look 20, reliably increase penis size, eliminate all insurance payments, and cut peoples' tax liability by 90%. Whoever she is I want this woman to be president. Apparently she can fix anything with her magical mom powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well in my own defense most adverts are, in fact, dumb and annoying. I'm not entirely immune to advertising but that's largely because if somebody advertises something I might actually want in a mostly non-irritating way and mostly just says "hey man this thing exists, maybe you should buy it" works. I'll answer from a direct response perspective because that's what I know. Still, I would love it if anyone well versed in branding would chime in because the answer will likely be different (and probably more interesting). It comes across as a flippant response when advertisers say this, but those ads that you hate - they're probably not targeting you. When an audience calls an ad "bad," what they usually mean is that it's aesthetically unpleasant or they think the message is stupid or, as in your case, they find it intrusive. When advertisers call an ad "bad" they might mean a whole bunch of things, but in the end it almost always boils down to this: the ad does not or will not meet desired conversion metrics. All advertising aims to get people do do something. Buy, click like, subscribe, share, etc. When people do those desired actions, they're registered as conversions. Different people are motivated by different things. Therefore, different messages will "convert" different people. You're a goon, of course you hate popups. But someone, at some moment, doesn't. I once had someone who wanted me to increase Facebook likes and traffic. They're not actually selling anything directly. They are trying to build as big an audience as possible and then sell that audience to smaller businesses that sell products related to the niche market. Here's the first thing I notice about this site. After about 2 minutes of reading a blog post a massive popup comes up asking you to like them on Facebook. It's annoying and I hate that poo poo myself. And yet it's generating them likes in the hundreds of thousands. People responsible for popups don't care if it annoys you (unless most of their niche hates popups). You weren't going to click anyway. You might choose to "vote with your wallet," but remember you alone have as much impact as in an actual election. Remember that southern fundies use the internet too and vote with wallets too. So do mothers. And professors. And people who never graduated highschool. And kids with ADHD. And people who just broke up with someone. And that shitlord roommate you once had. Literally everyone. I think it's very easy to imagine that these people might all have motivations - fears, desires, hopes - and decision-making processes quite different from yours, no? They also all have different states of awareness and knowledge about any given product or service. This is why you think certain ads are bad. You're forgetting they're not for you. There is no amazing mom. The amazing mom is a carefully constructed narrative that appeals to someone's emotional state at a given moment. The person clicking might actually know the mom isn't real. poo poo, they probably do, but they click anyway. They have a problem that this mom says she can magically solve, and they want to know. What if? That's because at the end of the day advertising isn't selling you a product, or even a solution. It's selling you "a better version of yourself." This has nothing to do with reason or logic and everything to do with emotion and imagination. Will a professor of microbiology click on some cream that grows your penis? Of course not. That doesn't mean someone won't. I'm willing to bet you consume a decent dose of content marketing, especially when doing lazy-research about something. Or when enjoying a let's play. The thing about advertising is that you are most vulnerable to it when you don't think it's there. Obviously not everything is always trackable. A lot of things (thank God) happen outside of the internet, through word-of-mouth. But even then, there's a good chance that the friend recommending you a specific brand of mousepad didn't create their opinions and feelings about the mousepad independently ex-nihilo. I suppose that's what you'd call branding. Is there a lot of advertisement that crosses into murky ethical territory? Definitely. But what can you do about it other than avoid working that stuff yourself or work for a consumer advocacy group? lite frisk fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Oh and, if you want an example of great advertising that perfectly captures the goon's attention and engages his morbid insecure imagination, look no further than the Resume to Interview service in SAmart. Would you pay hundreds of dollars for a resume? A lot of goons have. And it's not because of the quality resume. It's because of the copy, and how reading it makes them feel. Edit: Looks like the service has shut down, but this was the thread. lite frisk fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
lite frisk posted:A lot of goons have. And it's not because of the quality resume. It's because of the copy, and how reading it makes them feel. Preying on insecurity is some OG Edward Bernays poo poo. moller fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
moller posted:Preying on insecurity is some OG Edward Bernays poo poo. Yup. It's also common practice in like a third of all industries today? Remember this gem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W65thi1WfSA Sure, it lists a bunch of features and benefits, but the underlying message in "If you don't have an iPhone, well... you don't have an iPhone" is a subtle suggestion that you lack social status. Edit: which by the way was a large part of the premise in Apple's advertising. And it worked. If you're a graphic designer today, in certain circles you run a risk of being perceived as a bit of a leper if you're not using Apple products. lite frisk fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
lite frisk posted:Stuff about Apple 100% spot on. It kinda cracks me up because I would reckon that the venn diagram of 'people who whine about Apple users', 'people who whine about people drinking starbucks ("you can just make coffee at home!!! *faaaaaaart*)' and 'people who think they're not affected by advertising' is basically a single circle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
So long as the consumer society exists, the taste-makers in the marketing departments will still live on. I think a lot of us are aware of that -- even if we don't necessarily like it. My perspective on how "advertising no longer 'works'" is not from either category of producer or consumer, but of the middleman: the commercial media. They primarily used advertising as a means of both funding themselves, as well as fitting in to the larger capitalist/consumerist ecosystem. Post-internet, and even for sometime before it, the economics of that relationship have been blown to bits. There really is just no actual way for an upstart online outlet to use advertising as a funding model without having to invest tons of time, or even conscripting free labour, all to get a shoestring budget in return. This is during a time when even the old broadcasters are having to advertise more and more, all to get less and less, while their marketability demands are still driving their production costs even further up. This begs the question of, even if advertising "works," where does it fit in anymore without the media buying in the middle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Exec : "Hey we just saw an ad for XXXXX product, can you look into it and tell us whether or not it's worth checking out?" IT : "Well it's good but here's YYYYY other product we found that does EXACTLY the same thing but cheaper." Exec : "Well I haven't heard of YYYYY so let's just go with XXXXX and pay the extra to get a better product." Talking from personal experience here. This situtation comes up frequently enough that I can honestly say that advertising to company executives is effective since the CEO/CFO always want to get "What they saw in the ad". Waffles Inc. posted:I would reckon that the venn diagram of 'people who whine about Apple users', 'people who whine about people drinking starbucks ("you can just make coffee at home!!! *faaaaaaart*)' and 'people who think they're not affected by advertising' is basically a single circle. I laughed more than I should have at this. khy fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
The best advertising in the digital age bar none is the Mountain Dew and Doritos combo for the Call of Duty and Halo games. I would have called you an insane moron if you told me about that un-ironically a few years ago. Now it's a parody of itself that manages to continue, and likely successfully as I've seen it for every single Call of Duty release after Modern Warfare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:07
|
|
