4 ms·

> But this is exactly why sponsored results are good for the searcher. Products that people are willing to spend money advertising will usually be better for yo

by 394549 8y ago

> But this is exactly why sponsored results are good for the searcher. Products that people are willing to spend money advertising will usually be better for you, especially in a context where repeated custom is likely. No, that's false. Ads are only a way of exchanging money for the eyeballs of potential customers, and both scrupulous and unscrupulous merchants use them. They make no reliable statement about what's really "better for you." And especially when the ads are targeted (an therefore relatively cheap), you can't trust anything. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/the-strange-brands-in-your-instagram-feed/550136/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/the-s... > It all started with an Instagram ad for a coat, the West Louis (TM) Business-Man Windproof Long Coat to be specific. It looked like a decent camel coat, not fancy but fine. And I’d been looking for one just that color, so when the ad touting the coat popped up and the price was in the double-digits, I figured: hey, a deal! > .... > Several weeks later, the coat showed up in a black plastic bag emblazoned with the markings of China Post, that nation’s postal service. I tore it open and pulled out the coat. The material has the softness of a Las Vegas carpet and the rich sheen of a velour jumpsuit. The fabric is so synthetic, it could probably be refined into bunker fuel for a ship. It was, technically, the item I ordered, only shabbier than I expected in every aspect.

Anderkent 8y ago
Of course all companies use ads, including unscrupulous ones. But ads work better for companies with a real product, and therefore you expect the % of good products among advertised products to be higher than among non-advertised ones.
- 394549 8y ago
  > But ads work better for companies with a real product, and therefore you expect the % of good products among advertised products to be higher than among non-advertised ones. [citation needed]
  - Anderkent 8y ago
    Are you contesting that ads work better for good products, or that such would imply more good products across advertised products? The mechanism for the first is quite intuitive. An add can make someone buy something once. If that thing is good, there is a chance they will buy again, and so give you more money. If it is not good, they will at most buy it once. So the EV of an add on a good product is by definition higher than one on a bad product; and so a company with a good product should be willing to spend more on an ad.
    - 394549 8y ago
      > Are you contesting that ads work better for good products, or that such would imply more good products across advertised products? The latter. Basically, it boils down to the intuition that a company with an inferior product is likely to spend more on advertising to make up for its products deficiencies. The best products often don't need paid advertising at all because they can be successful with only word of mouth advertising from happy customers. I've recently had some personal experience with this from an expensive home improvement product. One company advertises heavily, has a high-touch sales force, and engages in extensive SEO online. However, once I dug in deeper I came to believe the whole category of products probably doesn't work effectively over the long haul (their advertising and guarantees use some tricky wording), and is certainly not worth the expense. Their advertising was a poor proxy for quality.

by 394549 8y ago

Anderkent 8y ago

Of course all companies use ads, including unscrupulous ones. But ads work better for companies with a real product, and therefore you expect the % of good products among advertised products to be higher than among non-advertised ones.

394549 8y ago
> But ads work better for companies with a real product, and therefore you expect the % of good products among advertised products to be higher than among non-advertised ones. [citation needed]
- Anderkent 8y ago
  Are you contesting that ads work better for good products, or that such would imply more good products across advertised products? The mechanism for the first is quite intuitive. An add can make someone buy something once. If that thing is good, there is a chance they will buy again, and so give you more money. If it is not good, they will at most buy it once. So the EV of an add on a good product is by definition higher than one on a bad product; and so a company with a good product should be willing to spend more on an ad.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Are you contesting that ads work better for good products, or that such would imply more good products across advertised products? The latter. Basically, it boils down to the intuition that a company with an inferior product is likely to spend more on advertising to make up for its products deficiencies. The best products often don't need paid advertising at all because they can be successful with only word of mouth advertising from happy customers. I've recently had some personal experience with this from an expensive home improvement product. One company advertises heavily, has a high-touch sales force, and engages in extensive SEO online. However, once I dug in deeper I came to believe the whole category of products probably doesn't work effectively over the long haul (their advertising and guarantees use some tricky wording), and is certainly not worth the expense. Their advertising was a poor proxy for quality.