5 ms·

> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever)

> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever) Yes. This is how branding works. It's why companies pay for a famous celebrity to represent their brand, instead of a random person, because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. The major brands have very specific rules on what their ads can appear next to.. they actually write down things like "our ad can't appear next to blood/violence" etc.. Doesn't matter if it's user-generated or not. As long as that image exists next to the brand, the brand is fucked. I mean, what would you think of Chanel if they ever placed their beautiful ad next to a picture of a dead body?

hackinthebochs 8y ago
>because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of status symbol. But the question remains, does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Even when people know the placement is algorithmic/automatic? I don't think speculation will answer this question.
- mozumder 8y ago
  When a celebrity buys something, it is perceived as higher quality, since a low quality product would damage that celebrity's brand. Celebrities also have filters for bad branding, too. This isn't new a new field of research. This is literally and exactly how branding works. If you feel a century of advertising science is unproven, feel free to show your own research that goes against the experiences of millions of people in the field.
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    Would be interesting to see those studies. But at the same time, consumers are much more sophisticated these days and so those studies would need to be repeated with a modern audience. For example, no one believes LeBron James wears Nike because they're the best, they know he's being paid $1 billion to wear them.
    - drewbuschhorn 8y ago
      That's just factually incorrect. Celebrity endorsements are actually more powerful now than in the past, I'm assuming because youtube style celebrity makes it seem more like the persona the celebrity presents is an actual person, or just more exposure though those explanations are just my handwave. https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-in-advertising-report-september-2015.pdf https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/... Someone's random article from a non-ranked journal, but looks like it's got some decent reference papers http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf
      - hackinthebochs 8y ago
        I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective. The question is why are they effective. I disagreed that celebrity endorsements influence perceived quality. This is different than perceived value which includes many factors, one of which is perceived quality. A google search provides very little studies that address endorser on perceived quality of the product. The couple I found provided mixed results, with questionable applicability to western audiences (E.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907). Those who are asserting that its obviously true that endorser influences perceived quality apparently do not have the literature behind them.
        drewbuschhorn 8y ago
        I think you're (unintentionally) equivocating on value vs quality. The grandparent comment used "quality" in the colloquial sense for value as best I read it. I doubt that anyone running a company thinks that having thier name next to gory images makes people think the skill of the shoe stitching (quality in your meaning?) is worse, but that it reduces the alignment of the pnumbra between the company and the individual reducing the value of company's brand / ability to sell products to the consumer.
        8y ago
- pdkl95 8y ago
  (edited and fixed after accidental early posting. edit2: added URLs) > does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Yes, it does because the negative sentiment will be added to the possible results returned by "System 1"[1][2] thinking that tends to be very fast at approximate searches of long term memory and applying energy saving simplifications/heuristics. System 1 strongly favors fast lookup times over accuracy; this is very useful when you need to decide quickly if that thing you just saw around the corner was a bear or just a strangely shaped shrubbery. Wasting a bit of energy running away from shrubbery is a better survival strategy than waiting for an accurate analysis from System 2 while the bear eats you. The question isn't if the brand will be negatively affected - it will. What we don't know is how this is the size of the effect, which probably varies wildly due to many different factors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_sy... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM
- EpicEng 8y ago
  This is fairly well settled science. If you have conflicting data then by all means, share, but you can't just write off decades of _real_ work in the field based upon your own musings and expect to be taken seriously.
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    I'm not sure what decades of research you're referring to, but after my own search the literature seems suspiciously sparse on the effects of endorser to perceived quality of the product. I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective generally, just not for this reason. I would be interested in seeing some of these studies you're referring to.
    - mozumder 8y ago
      So, when advertising agencies run A/B tests, they don't publish the result in scientific journals. They just use the data internally along with art direction and relationship/political factors to make advertising decisions. This isn't an open source field with a handy guide. This is a 'knowledge through experience' field. You learn from those people, not through academic research or Google search. In fact, a good advertiser can instantly find holes in published research based on the many variables that a paper doesn't take into account, but an advertiser is already familiar with. "Brand value correlates with celebrity status... but inversely with the celebrity nationality.. with a correlation with the accent.. but also with season of the year.. except when using this font... and based on president's party" etc.. All these variables may have a nonlinear relationship. To get a good introduction to what you're dealing with, just watch "Mad Men".

hackinthebochs 8y ago

>because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of status symbol. But the question remains, does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Even when people know the placement is algorithmic/automatic? I don't think speculation will answer this question.

mozumder 8y ago
When a celebrity buys something, it is perceived as higher quality, since a low quality product would damage that celebrity's brand. Celebrities also have filters for bad branding, too. This isn't new a new field of research. This is literally and exactly how branding works. If you feel a century of advertising science is unproven, feel free to show your own research that goes against the experiences of millions of people in the field.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  Would be interesting to see those studies. But at the same time, consumers are much more sophisticated these days and so those studies would need to be repeated with a modern audience. For example, no one believes LeBron James wears Nike because they're the best, they know he's being paid $1 billion to wear them.
  - drewbuschhorn 8y ago
    That's just factually incorrect. Celebrity endorsements are actually more powerful now than in the past, I'm assuming because youtube style celebrity makes it seem more like the persona the celebrity presents is an actual person, or just more exposure though those explanations are just my handwave. https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-in-advertising-report-september-2015.pdf https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/... Someone's random article from a non-ranked journal, but looks like it's got some decent reference papers http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf
    - hackinthebochs 8y ago
      I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective. The question is why are they effective. I disagreed that celebrity endorsements influence perceived quality. This is different than perceived value which includes many factors, one of which is perceived quality. A google search provides very little studies that address endorser on perceived quality of the product. The couple I found provided mixed results, with questionable applicability to western audiences (E.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907). Those who are asserting that its obviously true that endorser influences perceived quality apparently do not have the literature behind them.
      - drewbuschhorn 8y ago
        I think you're (unintentionally) equivocating on value vs quality. The grandparent comment used "quality" in the colloquial sense for value as best I read it. I doubt that anyone running a company thinks that having thier name next to gory images makes people think the skill of the shoe stitching (quality in your meaning?) is worse, but that it reduces the alignment of the pnumbra between the company and the individual reducing the value of company's brand / ability to sell products to the consumer.
        8y ago
pdkl95 8y ago
(edited and fixed after accidental early posting. edit2: added URLs) > does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Yes, it does because the negative sentiment will be added to the possible results returned by "System 1"[1][2] thinking that tends to be very fast at approximate searches of long term memory and applying energy saving simplifications/heuristics. System 1 strongly favors fast lookup times over accuracy; this is very useful when you need to decide quickly if that thing you just saw around the corner was a bear or just a strangely shaped shrubbery. Wasting a bit of energy running away from shrubbery is a better survival strategy than waiting for an accurate analysis from System 2 while the bear eats you. The question isn't if the brand will be negatively affected - it will. What we don't know is how this is the size of the effect, which probably varies wildly due to many different factors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_sy... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM
EpicEng 8y ago
This is fairly well settled science. If you have conflicting data then by all means, share, but you can't just write off decades of _real_ work in the field based upon your own musings and expect to be taken seriously.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  I'm not sure what decades of research you're referring to, but after my own search the literature seems suspiciously sparse on the effects of endorser to perceived quality of the product. I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective generally, just not for this reason. I would be interested in seeing some of these studies you're referring to.
  - mozumder 8y ago
    So, when advertising agencies run A/B tests, they don't publish the result in scientific journals. They just use the data internally along with art direction and relationship/political factors to make advertising decisions. This isn't an open source field with a handy guide. This is a 'knowledge through experience' field. You learn from those people, not through academic research or Google search. In fact, a good advertiser can instantly find holes in published research based on the many variables that a paper doesn't take into account, but an advertiser is already familiar with. "Brand value correlates with celebrity status... but inversely with the celebrity nationality.. with a correlation with the accent.. but also with season of the year.. except when using this font... and based on president's party" etc.. All these variables may have a nonlinear relationship. To get a good introduction to what you're dealing with, just watch "Mad Men".