3 ms·

From professional and personal experince, remarketing ads, what you are describing, are much more effective ($ spent / products sold) for the advertiser than tr

by lotu 8y ago

From professional and personal experince, remarketing ads, what you are describing, are much more effective ($ spent / products sold) for the advertiser than traditional ads. So why do ads follow you even after you bought the product? Well the ads are still less than 1% effective (products sold / by ads shown), so for the average company (not Amazon) it is just not worth the engineering effort for a < 1% savings on your remarketing budget. Secondly, this is more speculation, but for many products the chance of buying a product given you have already bought one (e.x. a spare or a gift) is still higher than chance for a random person. As such the ads are still effective. So what is the deal with the NYTimes? They a huge popular publisher (especially amount rich people) already command high ad prices through traditional adverstising. The value of a remarking ad (to the advertiser) is largely independent of the site that it is shown on. So The New York Times would naturally have fewer of these ads because the adverstiser gets more ads/$ on other sites. A diffrent site like a local paper might have a diffrent story. However remarketing ads have never been a large percentage of ads shown so from a revenue stand point publishers care a lot less about them.

friday99 8y ago
That's not a good definition of effective. The advertiser actually cares about ($ spent / additional products sold that would not have been otherwise), which is much harder to actually measure as it involves a real causal question as to whether the ads influenced a purchase. Much of remarketing spend is likely wasted on customers who were going to buy the product anyways, especially so for people making a repeat purchase. Its a not very well kept secret of internet advertising that it's so much more "measurable" than other types of advertising, but it's not actually measuring anything useful most of the time. There is the traditional quote that "I am wasting half my advertising budget, but I can't tell which half" With internet remarketing ads the answer might very well be both ;)

by lotu 8y ago

friday99 8y ago

That's not a good definition of effective. The advertiser actually cares about ($ spent / additional products sold that would not have been otherwise), which is much harder to actually measure as it involves a real causal question as to whether the ads influenced a purchase. Much of remarketing spend is likely wasted on customers who were going to buy the product anyways, especially so for people making a repeat purchase. Its a not very well kept secret of internet advertising that it's so much more "measurable" than other types of advertising, but it's not actually measuring anything useful most of the time. There is the traditional quote that "I am wasting half my advertising budget, but I can't tell which half" With internet remarketing ads the answer might very well be both ;)