4 ms·

Here's what I don't get: What is being exchanged of value here? In all but one case in this analysis, the only thing that is worth something is the click. A

Here's what I don't get: What is being exchanged of value here? In all but one case in this analysis, the only thing that is worth something is the click. A click not leading to a credit card transaction. Take the case of the 5G ad. If you convince a user to click on that and then on one of the ads on the google results, someone gets $10. Nothing of value unless the user also has interest in the super specialized networking equipment being sold, something that seems extraordinarily unlikely. This is a form of fraud isn't it? You're just putting a few million page views in the mix and calling it legitimate behavior when someone accidentally clicks once in a while.

amitport 7y ago
I wouldn't assume ad owners are stupid (maybe sometimes) Generally, they know what those few million page views value is. A direct method could be to pause the campaign for a while and see how it effects a metric that matters to them. (if they don't have such metric, then yeah... they're a little stupid)
dwighttk 7y ago
Someone eventually either buys something, or the company that's paying for the last, most expensive, click goes out of business. But there's a lot of those companies, so there's always (so far) someone paying for those clicks.
- dwighttk 7y ago
  (goes out of business or just stops buying those ads...)
- alex_young 7y ago
  In this view, the sucker is the VC? I'm not saying that's wrong, but wow.
  - dwighttk 7y ago
    probably also some small businesspeople of the herbalife/lululemon type...
  - finnh 7y ago
    Often, yes? Idlewords had a good post about this a few years ago: https://idlewords.com/2015/11/the_advertising_bubble.htm https://idlewords.com/2015/11/the_advertising_bubble.htm
    - troyvit 7y ago
      "... a piece of sponsored prose remarkable not for its content, but for being at least four layers of advertising removed from any kind of productive economic activity." Such a great article.
Illniyar 7y ago
It is factored in really. The people who advertise on that yahoo keyword are aware that somewhere close to 80% of clicks or views are worthless to begin with (clickbaits, dark patterns, actual fraud). In a lot of cases it is still worth it. In many other cases people perceive it to be worth it, but don't really do the research involved to prove that it is.

amitport 7y ago

I wouldn't assume ad owners are stupid (maybe sometimes) Generally, they know what those few million page views value is. A direct method could be to pause the campaign for a while and see how it effects a metric that matters to them. (if they don't have such metric, then yeah... they're a little stupid)

dwighttk 7y ago

Someone eventually either buys something, or the company that's paying for the last, most expensive, click goes out of business. But there's a lot of those companies, so there's always (so far) someone paying for those clicks.

dwighttk 7y ago
(goes out of business or just stops buying those ads...)
alex_young 7y ago
In this view, the sucker is the VC? I'm not saying that's wrong, but wow.
- dwighttk 7y ago
  probably also some small businesspeople of the herbalife/lululemon type...
- finnh 7y ago
  Often, yes? Idlewords had a good post about this a few years ago: https://idlewords.com/2015/11/the_advertising_bubble.htm https://idlewords.com/2015/11/the_advertising_bubble.htm
  - troyvit 7y ago
    "... a piece of sponsored prose remarkable not for its content, but for being at least four layers of advertising removed from any kind of productive economic activity." Such a great article.

Illniyar 7y ago

It is factored in really. The people who advertise on that yahoo keyword are aware that somewhere close to 80% of clicks or views are worthless to begin with (clickbaits, dark patterns, actual fraud). In a lot of cases it is still worth it. In many other cases people perceive it to be worth it, but don't really do the research involved to prove that it is.