5 ms·

The op doesn't seem to know the first thing about advertising and is in denial of how it works. Op asks head of facebook advertising if advertising influences

The op doesn't seem to know the first thing about advertising and is in denial of how it works. Op asks head of facebook advertising if advertising influences people, their response "No companies spend millions on advertising with us because it doesn't work!". > The gullibility of the latter two may have stemmed from wishful thinking: If Brexit and Trump could be traced to the malign influence of a single company The media picked Cambridge Analytica as their keyword for the story but both Brext and Trump campaigns used more than one ad agency. > most ad insiders express skepticism about Cambridge Analytica’s claims of having influenced the election Citation needed. As an ad insider I know first hand that the tactics used by Cambridge Analytica and other agencies work, thats why people pay me to do it. > and stress the real-world difficulty of changing anyone’s mind about anything with mere Facebook ads Well no of course not, advertising cant change anyone's mine, thats not how advertising works. You target people who already have the mindset and encourage them to act on it. Thats what ad men like me do and we keep making good money doing it because it works. The whole tinfoil hat thing is a bit dramatic for my liking the reality is that if advertising didn't work people wouldn't pay for it. Every election has millions spent on advertising to influence the result, thats the truth not some tin foil hat conspiracy.

76543210 7y ago
So the goal is to find the fallacies and Target them. Very interesting. Thank you.
ameister14 7y ago
>As an ad insider I know first hand that the tactics used by Cambridge Analytica and other agencies work, thats why people pay me to do it. As another ad insider I know first hand that people are willing to pay me to do a ton of things that don't actually work. (They often continue trying to do so after I tell them it doesn't work and it's a bad idea) People and companies pay millions for things that don't work all the time, especially in advertising. The saying that 'if it didn't work, people wouldn't pay for it' is false, provably false. After privately doing research and testing for my own clients for years and reading the research of others, I'm not convinced these tactics work at all.
- dangerface 7y ago
  > I know first hand that people are willing to pay me to do a ton of things that don't actually work. (They often continue trying to do so after I tell them it doesn't work and it's a bad idea) Hehehe very true. I tell people what works then they ask me to do random shit. I can't deny you are right at the end of the day I do what they will pay for whether it works or not.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Hello, chain of ancestor posters, each saying the same shocking thing. I have been making things that work, and getting paid for them, for more than 20 years now, and I would like some advice on how to transition my career into making things that do not work, for which the customer has specifically been informed that they will not work, and still get paid for them--preferably paid more than I am currently getting for working things. Is this just customer management? How do I find stupider, richer customers and convince them to trade the non-working thing they are currently overpaying on, for a non-working thing that I haven't even made yet, and then charge more for it? It seems very alien to my brain that anyone can function in this manner, but it is very important to me that I get some of this money that is apparently controlled by idiots, so that I can do sensible things with it, such as pay for food and housing. I am aware that this is somewhat hypocritical to take a fool's money and spend it wisely, but I promise that if I ever get enough, I will do something incredibly stupid with the excess. Please help.
    - rfergie 7y ago
      You need a whole industry of people telling your customers that these things do work. I think it is quite difficult to accomplish entirely by yourself
    - dangerface 7y ago
      It's a customer management thing. We can't change peoples minds we can only get people to act. If the client comes in with an open mind we can help, if they come in with a problem and a solution that isn't working we are kinda fucked, generally they won't accept a solution to the problem, they want their solution to work. Here is the most common example: Small business come up with their marketing strategy A and it works they are pretty happy so they invest more into the strategy and get more results, great! They keep doing this and make a small or large fortune doing it, eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in and they have a problem, they want more results by doing more of A but that isn't working anymore so they come to us and have this conversation. Client: We have had great results doing A and we want more. Me: A is working well for you but if you want more results you need to do A and B. Client: A has worked really well for us so really we want to do more A and get more results. Me: But doing more of A isn't getting more results, if you want more results you need to do A and B. Client: Why are you not listening to me? A works really well for us, it gets us good results in the past and we want to do more of it. How much do you charge to do more A? At the end of the day the client knows for a fact A works and that they are happy with the results and want more. I don't think it's possible to change some ones mind but I can defiantly target people in the right mindset and then encourage them to act on it. If the client comes to a marketing agency and wants more A they will do more A, if the client wants more results they will do A and B. Me: We can do more A for more money! Client: Fantastic! a few months later the client will complain they are not getting more results and we will have this same conversation.
toss1 7y ago
Exactly. Moreover, the second sentence gets it entirely backwards >The previously little-known company, reporters claimed, had used behavioral influencing techniques to turn out social media users to vote in both elections. The major Cambridge Analytica push was not to increase turnout of supporters, it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. E.g., finding black voters and highlighting Hillary's 25-year-ago comment on "superpredators", or pushing Jill Stein & Bernie Sanders as better options, promoting fallacies about the math of 1st-Past-The-Post voting -- all focused on the fence-sitters in key states, just make it feel to them like the real option is the one that helps Trump in 1PPP voting. Note that the success is shown in the margin by which HRC lost in the three states is about 20% of the people voting for Jill Stein, with zero chance to win in 1PPP voting. Between this massive misdirection in the opening paragraph, and the long but mildly interesting distraction on the 1700s "air loom" hoax, it safe to recognize this article as an attempt to emotionally undermine the CA story and ignore it.
- dangerface 7y ago
  > The major Cambridge Analytica push was not to increase turnout of supporters, it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. I didn't want to say it in a post titled tinfoil hats but this, the dark market of political advertising is very real and very dangerous.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. Surely you're aware that political mudslinging ads have been a thing since like, forever, right? > finding black voters and highlighting Hillary's 25-year-ago comment on "superpredators" Maybe don't say such crazy things, don't have to worry about someone calling you out on it. I don't recall her campaign ever addressing this issue, I don't recall any sit down where the media pressed her on the issue.
  - toss1 7y ago
    Yes, I'm very well aware that this has been a thing since, like, forever. A fine example was in the 2000 South Carolina primary when Karl Rove working for Bush, distributed door-to-door flyers just ahead of the primary that implied that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby from an affair. McCain had actually adopted a child from Bangladesh. McCain lost the primary. Similarly with the HRC issue. It is one thing to have it in the news - or not, quite another to specifically harvest by 280 point tested psychological profiles the people who will be most receptive to changing their behavior by that argument, then silently targeting them in personalized advert campaigns that cannot even be discovered (FB doesn't make public the ads & targeting). This is about scalability - just like speeding tickets have been a think since, like, forever, but the cops have to be there, or at least post a camera. This is more like if they started handing out tickets via tracking GPS, for every second you exceed the limit. Same law/situation, scalable technology, entirely different implications.
specialist 7y ago
Further, persuasion isn't the only campaign strategy. Much (more?) effort is put into disinformation, discouragement, confusion. Brad Parscale, Steve Bannon, and many others have said (bragged) as much. -- The weaponization of social media has brought two novel strategies. 1- Instigating conflicts. Like organizing both a protest and its counter protest. 2- Virality. Where people themselves help perpetuate the messages. (Perhaps only novel because of the new found scale.)
kordlessagain 7y ago
Other than the fact you are calling the wrong person an "op" I think this statement says a lot about you: > the reality is that if advertising didn't work people wouldn't pay for it People don't pay for advertising. Instead, corporate assholes who do advertising spend money on search for models which make enough to cover the costs of finding ways to get people to repeat the pattern of "re-seeing" or "re-hearing" a brand or message in mind. This is the non-corporate being that does this: the corporation or government. The public's predisposed nature to keep your marketing crap out of their minds isn't a good excuse to do it, either. Even if it makes money and they allow it without knowing the cost.
- dangerface 7y ago
  > People don't pay for advertising. Individuals don't pay for advertising, when individuals are group like in a corporation, business, charity, government they become people, I have done advertising for all the above and sole traders.

76543210 7y ago

So the goal is to find the fallacies and Target them. Very interesting. Thank you.

ameister14 7y ago

>As an ad insider I know first hand that the tactics used by Cambridge Analytica and other agencies work, thats why people pay me to do it. As another ad insider I know first hand that people are willing to pay me to do a ton of things that don't actually work. (They often continue trying to do so after I tell them it doesn't work and it's a bad idea) People and companies pay millions for things that don't work all the time, especially in advertising. The saying that 'if it didn't work, people wouldn't pay for it' is false, provably false. After privately doing research and testing for my own clients for years and reading the research of others, I'm not convinced these tactics work at all.

dangerface 7y ago
> I know first hand that people are willing to pay me to do a ton of things that don't actually work. (They often continue trying to do so after I tell them it doesn't work and it's a bad idea) Hehehe very true. I tell people what works then they ask me to do random shit. I can't deny you are right at the end of the day I do what they will pay for whether it works or not.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Hello, chain of ancestor posters, each saying the same shocking thing. I have been making things that work, and getting paid for them, for more than 20 years now, and I would like some advice on how to transition my career into making things that do not work, for which the customer has specifically been informed that they will not work, and still get paid for them--preferably paid more than I am currently getting for working things. Is this just customer management? How do I find stupider, richer customers and convince them to trade the non-working thing they are currently overpaying on, for a non-working thing that I haven't even made yet, and then charge more for it? It seems very alien to my brain that anyone can function in this manner, but it is very important to me that I get some of this money that is apparently controlled by idiots, so that I can do sensible things with it, such as pay for food and housing. I am aware that this is somewhat hypocritical to take a fool's money and spend it wisely, but I promise that if I ever get enough, I will do something incredibly stupid with the excess. Please help.
  - rfergie 7y ago
    You need a whole industry of people telling your customers that these things do work. I think it is quite difficult to accomplish entirely by yourself
  - dangerface 7y ago
    It's a customer management thing. We can't change peoples minds we can only get people to act. If the client comes in with an open mind we can help, if they come in with a problem and a solution that isn't working we are kinda fucked, generally they won't accept a solution to the problem, they want their solution to work. Here is the most common example: Small business come up with their marketing strategy A and it works they are pretty happy so they invest more into the strategy and get more results, great! They keep doing this and make a small or large fortune doing it, eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in and they have a problem, they want more results by doing more of A but that isn't working anymore so they come to us and have this conversation. Client: We have had great results doing A and we want more. Me: A is working well for you but if you want more results you need to do A and B. Client: A has worked really well for us so really we want to do more A and get more results. Me: But doing more of A isn't getting more results, if you want more results you need to do A and B. Client: Why are you not listening to me? A works really well for us, it gets us good results in the past and we want to do more of it. How much do you charge to do more A? At the end of the day the client knows for a fact A works and that they are happy with the results and want more. I don't think it's possible to change some ones mind but I can defiantly target people in the right mindset and then encourage them to act on it. If the client comes to a marketing agency and wants more A they will do more A, if the client wants more results they will do A and B. Me: We can do more A for more money! Client: Fantastic! a few months later the client will complain they are not getting more results and we will have this same conversation.

toss1 7y ago

Exactly. Moreover, the second sentence gets it entirely backwards >The previously little-known company, reporters claimed, had used behavioral influencing techniques to turn out social media users to vote in both elections. The major Cambridge Analytica push was not to increase turnout of supporters, it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. E.g., finding black voters and highlighting Hillary's 25-year-ago comment on "superpredators", or pushing Jill Stein & Bernie Sanders as better options, promoting fallacies about the math of 1st-Past-The-Post voting -- all focused on the fence-sitters in key states, just make it feel to them like the real option is the one that helps Trump in 1PPP voting. Note that the success is shown in the margin by which HRC lost in the three states is about 20% of the people voting for Jill Stein, with zero chance to win in 1PPP voting. Between this massive misdirection in the opening paragraph, and the long but mildly interesting distraction on the 1700s "air loom" hoax, it safe to recognize this article as an attempt to emotionally undermine the CA story and ignore it.

dangerface 7y ago
> The major Cambridge Analytica push was not to increase turnout of supporters, it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. I didn't want to say it in a post titled tinfoil hats but this, the dark market of political advertising is very real and very dangerous.
linuxftw 7y ago
> it was to suppress and divert turnout of the opponent's supporters. Surely you're aware that political mudslinging ads have been a thing since like, forever, right? > finding black voters and highlighting Hillary's 25-year-ago comment on "superpredators" Maybe don't say such crazy things, don't have to worry about someone calling you out on it. I don't recall her campaign ever addressing this issue, I don't recall any sit down where the media pressed her on the issue.
- toss1 7y ago
  Yes, I'm very well aware that this has been a thing since, like, forever. A fine example was in the 2000 South Carolina primary when Karl Rove working for Bush, distributed door-to-door flyers just ahead of the primary that implied that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby from an affair. McCain had actually adopted a child from Bangladesh. McCain lost the primary. Similarly with the HRC issue. It is one thing to have it in the news - or not, quite another to specifically harvest by 280 point tested psychological profiles the people who will be most receptive to changing their behavior by that argument, then silently targeting them in personalized advert campaigns that cannot even be discovered (FB doesn't make public the ads & targeting). This is about scalability - just like speeding tickets have been a think since, like, forever, but the cops have to be there, or at least post a camera. This is more like if they started handing out tickets via tracking GPS, for every second you exceed the limit. Same law/situation, scalable technology, entirely different implications.

specialist 7y ago

Further, persuasion isn't the only campaign strategy. Much (more?) effort is put into disinformation, discouragement, confusion. Brad Parscale, Steve Bannon, and many others have said (bragged) as much. -- The weaponization of social media has brought two novel strategies. 1- Instigating conflicts. Like organizing both a protest and its counter protest. 2- Virality. Where people themselves help perpetuate the messages. (Perhaps only novel because of the new found scale.)

kordlessagain 7y ago

Other than the fact you are calling the wrong person an "op" I think this statement says a lot about you: > the reality is that if advertising didn't work people wouldn't pay for it People don't pay for advertising. Instead, corporate assholes who do advertising spend money on search for models which make enough to cover the costs of finding ways to get people to repeat the pattern of "re-seeing" or "re-hearing" a brand or message in mind. This is the non-corporate being that does this: the corporation or government. The public's predisposed nature to keep your marketing crap out of their minds isn't a good excuse to do it, either. Even if it makes money and they allow it without knowing the cost.

dangerface 7y ago
> People don't pay for advertising. Individuals don't pay for advertising, when individuals are group like in a corporation, business, charity, government they become people, I have done advertising for all the above and sole traders.