6 ms·

To be honest, this is standard operating practice for almost every advertising venue. If you work at Amazon and want to show Amazon ads at the top of the page,

by whack 10y ago

To be honest, this is standard operating practice for almost every advertising venue. If you work at Amazon and want to show Amazon ads at the top of the page, whenever a user searches for eBay, Google will happily let Amazon do that. If eBay wants to prevent it, they need to pay money go secure the advertising spot on "eBay" search results. Ditto for Windows/Mac, BMW/Mercedes, etc etc. At its foundation, advertising spots are content-agnostic. Anyone is able to buy advertising slots on any page, and as long as everyone follows the rules, whoever has the best bid*click-through-rate will win. And to be honest, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to run a business that's funded almost entirely by advertising revenues.

ma2rten 10y ago
However, on Google bids are adjusted based on relevance to the search query. This means eBay has to pay less than Amazon for the same ad slot.
- gravypod 10y ago
  Is an argument's counter argument not relevant subject matter?
  - ma2rten 10y ago
    Maybe, but if you search for Amazon you probably don't want to see the eBay site.
- Brushfire 10y ago
  Not exactly. Google orders and displays advertisements based on expected value (to Google). Then the winner of the slot pays the lowest market-winning price. Overly simplistic example: eBay bids $1 max and Amazon bids $2 max. People searching for eBay have a 10% probability of clicking on an eBay ad and a 2% probability of clicking on an Amazon ad. Expected value to google: Ebay - $1 * 10% = $0.10 EV max Amazon - $2 * 2% = $0.04 EV max Ebay is displayed even with a lower bid because the expected value of the display is higher. The bid is never adjusted -- eBay is specific about its bid or its maximum bid and the market of expected value decides who is shown. Amazon could just as easily bid $5.01 and show up. And when the ad is clicked, if Amazon is the only bidder at $2, then Ebay would pay $.50 for that click because that is the lowest bid that wins the position using the EV. To apply this to the Snapchat Conversation -- One might expect if Snapchat operated this way, then its probably fair to assume that EveryTown would have had a much higher relevancy score than NRA, so should have been able to win the campaign for much lower $$. But in paid placement like this, everyone is paying for placement not for performance. It is not an EV market. Hence the dilemma.
  - ma2rten 10y ago
    I work at Google. I pretty sure what I said before is true, bids are adjusted based on quality and relevance to the search query, not just predicted click trough rate. Also this does not apply to snapchat, because afaik they do brand advertising based on impressions (CPM) and not clicks (CPC).
WhitneyLand 10y ago
I'm glad you are making an effort to be honest, thank you. However that is really too simplistic. This is not competing retailers, it's people fighting over matters of life and death and they will use any tactic against each other no matter how distasteful because they believe the end justifies the means. Clearly any media company has to carefully weigh controversial issues from different perspectives. Making money, preserving the integrity and their brand, potential bad press or defecting customers, etc. Often there is no simple rule. A judgement call has to be made factoring in what's best for company overall and if we're lucky maybe integrity is mentioned by someone along the way.
- pdeuchler 10y ago
  The NRA and Everytown are essentially corporations that have social objectives, please don't try to dramatize and moralize the situation
  - ibejoeb 10y ago
    Indeed. Ad space is certainly not a life-or-death matter.
- gravypod 10y ago
  > A judgement call has to be made factoring in what's best for company overall and if we're lucky maybe integrity is mentioned by someone along the way. I'm pro-gun, and have given money to the NRA, and I'd be upset if snapchat wouldn't sell ad-space to the Brady Campaign during an NRA-sponsored event like if the 1000-person shoot had been captured using Snapchat. I think it's a basic moral standing that whenever someone is saying something I want it allowed for the oposition to say the exact opposite. I also think that the only people who'd be afraid of a pro-NRA ad in or during an anti-gun ad would be those who cannot defend their moral possition. Personally, I'm happy when I get the opprotunity to see the anti-gun arguments on HN and that we can discuss ideas about these subjects. It broadens my understanding of what others think and vise versa. There isn't a problem with saying "I sell X, and all I care about is the money I get from doing that" and then turning around and selling Xs to the highest bidder.
ktRolster 10y ago
At least some ad networks let you say, "We don't want gun ads" and make at a token effort to prevent them from showing up on your page.
jlarocco 10y ago
That's not even remotely true. There are lots of situations and content types that are filtered or blocked by most advertising companies. I couldn't advertise a porn site when people search for "hacker news" on google, for example.
vacri 10y ago
Except that Snapchat had already engaged the client and was working with them in an editorial sense. It's not a 'first-come first-served' free market buffet at that point. Do you think it would be acceptable for the webmaster of Mercedes to put BMW ads on their site, because BMW was willing to pay them to do so?

by whack 10y ago

ma2rten 10y ago

However, on Google bids are adjusted based on relevance to the search query. This means eBay has to pay less than Amazon for the same ad slot.

gravypod 10y ago
Is an argument's counter argument not relevant subject matter?
- ma2rten 10y ago
  Maybe, but if you search for Amazon you probably don't want to see the eBay site.
Brushfire 10y ago
Not exactly. Google orders and displays advertisements based on expected value (to Google). Then the winner of the slot pays the lowest market-winning price. Overly simplistic example: eBay bids $1 max and Amazon bids $2 max. People searching for eBay have a 10% probability of clicking on an eBay ad and a 2% probability of clicking on an Amazon ad. Expected value to google: Ebay - $1 * 10% = $0.10 EV max Amazon - $2 * 2% = $0.04 EV max Ebay is displayed even with a lower bid because the expected value of the display is higher. The bid is never adjusted -- eBay is specific about its bid or its maximum bid and the market of expected value decides who is shown. Amazon could just as easily bid $5.01 and show up. And when the ad is clicked, if Amazon is the only bidder at $2, then Ebay would pay $.50 for that click because that is the lowest bid that wins the position using the EV. To apply this to the Snapchat Conversation -- One might expect if Snapchat operated this way, then its probably fair to assume that EveryTown would have had a much higher relevancy score than NRA, so should have been able to win the campaign for much lower $$. But in paid placement like this, everyone is paying for placement not for performance. It is not an EV market. Hence the dilemma.
- ma2rten 10y ago
  I work at Google. I pretty sure what I said before is true, bids are adjusted based on quality and relevance to the search query, not just predicted click trough rate. Also this does not apply to snapchat, because afaik they do brand advertising based on impressions (CPM) and not clicks (CPC).

WhitneyLand 10y ago

I'm glad you are making an effort to be honest, thank you. However that is really too simplistic. This is not competing retailers, it's people fighting over matters of life and death and they will use any tactic against each other no matter how distasteful because they believe the end justifies the means. Clearly any media company has to carefully weigh controversial issues from different perspectives. Making money, preserving the integrity and their brand, potential bad press or defecting customers, etc. Often there is no simple rule. A judgement call has to be made factoring in what's best for company overall and if we're lucky maybe integrity is mentioned by someone along the way.

pdeuchler 10y ago
The NRA and Everytown are essentially corporations that have social objectives, please don't try to dramatize and moralize the situation
- ibejoeb 10y ago
  Indeed. Ad space is certainly not a life-or-death matter.
gravypod 10y ago
> A judgement call has to be made factoring in what's best for company overall and if we're lucky maybe integrity is mentioned by someone along the way. I'm pro-gun, and have given money to the NRA, and I'd be upset if snapchat wouldn't sell ad-space to the Brady Campaign during an NRA-sponsored event like if the 1000-person shoot had been captured using Snapchat. I think it's a basic moral standing that whenever someone is saying something I want it allowed for the oposition to say the exact opposite. I also think that the only people who'd be afraid of a pro-NRA ad in or during an anti-gun ad would be those who cannot defend their moral possition. Personally, I'm happy when I get the opprotunity to see the anti-gun arguments on HN and that we can discuss ideas about these subjects. It broadens my understanding of what others think and vise versa. There isn't a problem with saying "I sell X, and all I care about is the money I get from doing that" and then turning around and selling Xs to the highest bidder.

ktRolster 10y ago

At least some ad networks let you say, "We don't want gun ads" and make at a token effort to prevent them from showing up on your page.

jlarocco 10y ago

That's not even remotely true. There are lots of situations and content types that are filtered or blocked by most advertising companies. I couldn't advertise a porn site when people search for "hacker news" on google, for example.

vacri 10y ago

Except that Snapchat had already engaged the client and was working with them in an editorial sense. It's not a 'first-come first-served' free market buffet at that point. Do you think it would be acceptable for the webmaster of Mercedes to put BMW ads on their site, because BMW was willing to pay them to do so?