6 ms·

>Google fails to show me relevant ads 99% of the time either this or the people targeting you have their audience completely wrong

by dylkil 7y ago

jariel 7y ago
So I spend a lot on ads, I'm a little bit familiar: Most 'search' ads are 'relevant' to the search, but they're not necessarily relevant to me. In particular, banner ads, which are very crudely targeted, tend to be of 'low relevance' in marketing lingo, but in real terms, extremely low relevance. For example, I don't live in the US, and I see an astonishing number of ads for US-centric content, and for products that are not even available where I live. Consider the ad in the article itself: it's for a special night at the 'ROM' (Royal Ontario Museum) in Toronto. But I don't live anywhere near Toronto! Scrolling down I see an add for the IDS 'Interior Design Show' in Toronto. Not only do I have absolutely no interest in the subject, but I don't live in Toronto. I don't know if those are Google ad displays or not, but the it's basically the same, ad nauseam: the ad market is an astonishingly inefficient marketplace. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for 'relevance' might be on Facebook - because they have such a massive base, and a real means to captured nuance behaviour. I run ads on that platform which score way above average in terms of relevance and performance, but I know for certain I'm not getting the kind of material relevance that I want. Honestly it's a strange paradox to me: Google has everything at their fingertips and can't figure out who wants to buy a lawn mower and who has definitely no interest.
- rrmm 7y ago
  Well they have to push the ads they have. Clearly they can't run an ad for not buying a lawn mower.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Because google doesn't sell lawnmowers. It sells advertising space. That space doesnt have to be actually effective so long as it sounds convincing enough to you.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "That space doesn't have to be actually effective so long as it sounds convincing enough to you." ? Advertisers will spend a fortune on ads that work for them, and will cut their spending on ads that don't work. There generally is no "sounds convincing" - it's in the numbers. If Google doesn't help lawn mower makers sell lawn mowers, then they can't get money from lawn mower makers.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      Yes but they seldom know /which/ ads are successfully the source and barring coupon codes and immediate click theough direct purchases most customers will be repelled by constant irrelevant to them probing about where they saw the ads first. Advertisers technically only need to sell to those with a sustainable revenue stream and/or a sustainable stream of new customers who cannot indefinitely sustain advertised. The odds are low but it is entirely possible for a very successful advertiser to be successful on pure "superstition" wrongly attributing the sales to them. Ironically the reverse is also possible where a successful advertiser is wrongly believed to not be doing anything and their prior boosts mere coincidences. The Pokemon "Press B to boost catch chance" urban legend was widely believed for instance until discredited by data mining and testing as people saw a pattern not truly there.
      - jariel 7y ago
        Yes, absolutely, there's a lot of grey around marketing campaigns, but a lot of them are direct as well. To the extent Google can provide direct value, they want to do that. Google is not 'selling ad space' - they are trying to help you sell your product. Hence the fact they punish low-quality ads. The very nature of Google ads, and the reason they make so much money relates to the 'relevance' of search terms. It's not great, but it's better than nothing. If Google could do more for direct conversions, they would because the value of their product would rise quite a lot.
K0SM0S 7y ago
It's also been shown empirically that 'nerds', 'geeks' tend to be ad-resistant (not just tech-nerds, the general psych profile regardless of domain). It's not that ads are that irrelevant to nerds compared to most people (no stat outliers), it's apparently related to something in the brain that just responds less to ads. Whether that be conscious filtering, unconscious pattern recognition training which lets one discard irrelevant stimulus, .. take your pick. Parent might thus just be a nerd. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  I am a geek too but Instagram and Facebook ads have been on point much more. The creepy thing to me is sometimes they are a little too good. I suspect anyone with FB Messenger installed is also letting Facebook crawl texts. They were showing me ads about crap I only texted my mom about. Its just a little too sketchy.
  - 14 7y ago
    Facebook annoys me I have to say. And yes they are getting good at ads as I was recently trying to buy a used vehicle and kept searching the marketplace. Of course this starts Facebook's gears and I get more and more suggestions about cars people are selling more frequently. One picture really caught my attention, I forget why, so I clicked it only to realize a moment later it was a sponsored ad by Facebook.Oops What annoys me about Facebook is now I have purchased a new car (and a phone a month back while we are talking about this) and I am constantly being bombarded with car financing ads and suggestions to phones I should buy. If only they could tell when to move on from an ad because I do not need multiple car/phones at this time.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    Oh that's not new and expected that they would read your data, like gmail scans your mails, cloud drives scan your non-encrypted files, etc. While I'm at it, let's spread the good word. I use Signal personally, it's really convenient enough that I can convince most people to use it and then they usually prefer it to other chat apps (you can customize colors, send docs securely, it's simple and easy, that's it!) I actually don't even mention the privacy usually (most people don't care, it's noise to them); the simple fact that it does SMS too and is much nicer than stock apps for this makes it convenient: it's not a new app, it's a better SMS replacement that also does chat a-la messenger/whatsapp/etc. But yes, it's also recommended by Snowden and most security experts if you care about your security and privacy. (just be careful with SMS, these remain unsecure as ever)

>Google fails to show me relevant ads 99% of the time either this or the people targeting you have their audience completely wrong

by dylkil 7y ago

>Google fails to show me relevant ads 99% of the time either this or the people targeting you have their audience completely wrong

jariel 7y ago

So I spend a lot on ads, I'm a little bit familiar: Most 'search' ads are 'relevant' to the search, but they're not necessarily relevant to me. In particular, banner ads, which are very crudely targeted, tend to be of 'low relevance' in marketing lingo, but in real terms, extremely low relevance. For example, I don't live in the US, and I see an astonishing number of ads for US-centric content, and for products that are not even available where I live. Consider the ad in the article itself: it's for a special night at the 'ROM' (Royal Ontario Museum) in Toronto. But I don't live anywhere near Toronto! Scrolling down I see an add for the IDS 'Interior Design Show' in Toronto. Not only do I have absolutely no interest in the subject, but I don't live in Toronto. I don't know if those are Google ad displays or not, but the it's basically the same, ad nauseam: the ad market is an astonishingly inefficient marketplace. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for 'relevance' might be on Facebook - because they have such a massive base, and a real means to captured nuance behaviour. I run ads on that platform which score way above average in terms of relevance and performance, but I know for certain I'm not getting the kind of material relevance that I want. Honestly it's a strange paradox to me: Google has everything at their fingertips and can't figure out who wants to buy a lawn mower and who has definitely no interest.

rrmm 7y ago
Well they have to push the ads they have. Clearly they can't run an ad for not buying a lawn mower.
sandworm101 7y ago
Because google doesn't sell lawnmowers. It sells advertising space. That space doesnt have to be actually effective so long as it sounds convincing enough to you.
- jariel 7y ago
  "That space doesn't have to be actually effective so long as it sounds convincing enough to you." ? Advertisers will spend a fortune on ads that work for them, and will cut their spending on ads that don't work. There generally is no "sounds convincing" - it's in the numbers. If Google doesn't help lawn mower makers sell lawn mowers, then they can't get money from lawn mower makers.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Yes but they seldom know /which/ ads are successfully the source and barring coupon codes and immediate click theough direct purchases most customers will be repelled by constant irrelevant to them probing about where they saw the ads first. Advertisers technically only need to sell to those with a sustainable revenue stream and/or a sustainable stream of new customers who cannot indefinitely sustain advertised. The odds are low but it is entirely possible for a very successful advertiser to be successful on pure "superstition" wrongly attributing the sales to them. Ironically the reverse is also possible where a successful advertiser is wrongly believed to not be doing anything and their prior boosts mere coincidences. The Pokemon "Press B to boost catch chance" urban legend was widely believed for instance until discredited by data mining and testing as people saw a pattern not truly there.
    - jariel 7y ago
      Yes, absolutely, there's a lot of grey around marketing campaigns, but a lot of them are direct as well. To the extent Google can provide direct value, they want to do that. Google is not 'selling ad space' - they are trying to help you sell your product. Hence the fact they punish low-quality ads. The very nature of Google ads, and the reason they make so much money relates to the 'relevance' of search terms. It's not great, but it's better than nothing. If Google could do more for direct conversions, they would because the value of their product would rise quite a lot.

K0SM0S 7y ago

It's also been shown empirically that 'nerds', 'geeks' tend to be ad-resistant (not just tech-nerds, the general psych profile regardless of domain). It's not that ads are that irrelevant to nerds compared to most people (no stat outliers), it's apparently related to something in the brain that just responds less to ads. Whether that be conscious filtering, unconscious pattern recognition training which lets one discard irrelevant stimulus, .. take your pick. Parent might thus just be a nerd. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

giancarlostoro 7y ago
I am a geek too but Instagram and Facebook ads have been on point much more. The creepy thing to me is sometimes they are a little too good. I suspect anyone with FB Messenger installed is also letting Facebook crawl texts. They were showing me ads about crap I only texted my mom about. Its just a little too sketchy.
- 14 7y ago
  Facebook annoys me I have to say. And yes they are getting good at ads as I was recently trying to buy a used vehicle and kept searching the marketplace. Of course this starts Facebook's gears and I get more and more suggestions about cars people are selling more frequently. One picture really caught my attention, I forget why, so I clicked it only to realize a moment later it was a sponsored ad by Facebook.Oops What annoys me about Facebook is now I have purchased a new car (and a phone a month back while we are talking about this) and I am constantly being bombarded with car financing ads and suggestions to phones I should buy. If only they could tell when to move on from an ad because I do not need multiple car/phones at this time.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Oh that's not new and expected that they would read your data, like gmail scans your mails, cloud drives scan your non-encrypted files, etc. While I'm at it, let's spread the good word. I use Signal personally, it's really convenient enough that I can convince most people to use it and then they usually prefer it to other chat apps (you can customize colors, send docs securely, it's simple and easy, that's it!) I actually don't even mention the privacy usually (most people don't care, it's noise to them); the simple fact that it does SMS too and is much nicer than stock apps for this makes it convenient: it's not a new app, it's a better SMS replacement that also does chat a-la messenger/whatsapp/etc. But yes, it's also recommended by Snowden and most security experts if you care about your security and privacy. (just be careful with SMS, these remain unsecure as ever)