3 ms·
I don't see why there cannot be AB testing with fewer ads. The point I was working towards was that there is so much clutter we ignore most of them. That means
by AlexBlom 16y ago
I don't see why there cannot be AB testing with fewer ads. The point I was working towards was that there is so much clutter we ignore most of them.
That means Myspace may earn more money but the ads are not as effective. As soon as a more efficient channel is found Myspace is dumped. We see this issue happen over and over.
- byrneseyeview 16y agoA/B testing as in: Case A is showing one ad, case B is showing two. B wins. Then Case A is showing two, and Case B is showing 3. Sixteen tests later, they hit their peak revenue. Actually, they probably leave some money on the table: they'll get a higher net present value if they reduce the number of people who quit in disgust, and for some people, the disgust from ads is cumulative. Thus, 20 ads might get them more revenue per page, but fewer page views in the future.
- AlexBlom 16y agoUnderstood. I'm not talking about effectiveness for the publisher but for the marketer. As a consumer the more ads I see in a single space the more likely I am to remember none of them. My point is that there is a balance and ad rates are falling in over-populated mediums because we know that the better chance people have of seeing the ads the higher chance we have of catching their interest. A startup I am watching which is trying this is influads.com
- mattmaroon 16y agoWell of course the marketer would benefit if their ad was the only one on the page. They would benefit enough to pay Myspace not to run the other 16 though. Ad rates are falling (in some areas, not in all) because supply is growing faster than demand. Also more ads are appearing on less intent-focused sites, like Facebook, and branding ads always pay peanuts compared to direct sales.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]