4 ms·
Because there is no proof that your assumption is true - people tend to believe they aren't affected by advertising when they actually are. There is plenty of s
by javery 11y ago
Because there is no proof that your assumption is true - people tend to believe they aren't affected by advertising when they actually are. There is plenty of science out there to show the effectiveness of advertising, even if you never click on it.
And yes - growth rates have jumped and in just 2015 it has doubled. Some sites are experiencing 50% ad block rates (in more gaming and technical verticals).
It will become a problem for advertising reliant companies very soon.
- duggan 11y agoJust on the first point, I'd heard a couple of years back that CPI/CPM was on the decline due to lack of measurable impact. Does that ring true? It does sound believable that serious saturation campaigns would work, though I'd wonder at the cost effectiveness.
- javery 11y agoImpact can be measured and quality impressions are still worth a decent CPM. Search advertising is also still very effective, as is online video.
- byoung2 11y agoBecause there is no proof that your assumption is true - people tend to believe they aren't affected by advertising when they actually are. Very true. You can test this by asking people about those "one weird trick" ads. People never click on them but they have been exposed to them and they do recall the message.
- duggan 11y agoI certainly recall them, but is there value in that? It's not like I, or many others, I imagine, associate it with a positive purchasing intent. I remember memes, but does that make the meme creator, or subject, powerful? Influential? Rarely.
- byoung2 11y agoThe same could be said of catchy TV commercials. The fact that people see them and recall them makes them worth buying.