4 ms·

Part of the problem os contextual ads is wastage. One of the advantages of tracking users is to optimize your spend, taking into account your reach and the fre

Part of the problem os contextual ads is wastage. One of the advantages of tracking users is to optimize your spend, taking into account your reach and the frequency a user see's your ad. The result could be during one month you're seeing a Guitar Brand Ad in your favorite music blog, and you're a saxophone player. Yet the ad was shown to you 30+ times, when in reality it could have been capped to 10-12 times. Some brands can afford this wastage, and factor in for it - hell some brands thrived with wastage (like those who grew in TV golden age, for example P&G) - but for a lot of them, this is too much.

simias 6y ago
Is it really wasted though? Back when I still bothered to watch TV with ads, I felt like seeing the same ad for the same product dozens of times per day had a brainwashing effect. It gets into your head. At the very least it creates brand awareness and you're unlikely to forget about the company or the product. It also forms a strong association between the subject (in the parent's case, professional photography) and the brand/product. Even if it doesn't result in a direct sale it might still be highly beneficial for the brand. I mean if it wasn't, would we see so much product placement in movies and TV? Those are not proper ads, there's no call to action, the viewer has to go looking for the product if they like it. But it does wonder for brand recognition and prestige.
- libertine 6y ago
  >Is it really wasted though? Back when I still bothered to watch TV with ads The world was a very different place back then. Where the majority of "housewives" (as in the person who makes the decisions - and bought - all house purchases) were actually the wives, and ad jingles was part of the soundtrack of our existence. Attention was less split and focused mainly on TV, and fewer players had access to it. And you're right, it did have a brainwashing effect, and I bet to this day you still know the lyrics or you can hum songs from jingles, or you know brand claims by heart. People underestimated that. But still like you, hundreds of million of people never consumed, became customers, recommended or influenced any decision for a lot of those brands - but for those brands it was still worth it. It was part of their business model - mass media + a big share of shelf in large retailers. Coca Cola Company, P&G, Mars, and many other mammoths grew with this. >I mean if it wasn't, would we see so much product placement in movies and TV? The problem is that TV is different from the Internet, still to this day. Just because they share the same type of media (video), it's different how you watch and how you manage your attention. A banner in a website is very different from a spot in break on a TV show. Even a preroll on youtube is different from a tv spot - because if you're not watching the tv spot and you're fiddling with your phone, the sound is there, and it grabs your attention for a fraction of time. I'm not saying that high frequency doesn't work - it does work very well! Does wonders! But wastage makes it expensive, and it works differently depending on the media..

simias 6y ago

Is it really wasted though? Back when I still bothered to watch TV with ads, I felt like seeing the same ad for the same product dozens of times per day had a brainwashing effect. It gets into your head. At the very least it creates brand awareness and you're unlikely to forget about the company or the product. It also forms a strong association between the subject (in the parent's case, professional photography) and the brand/product. Even if it doesn't result in a direct sale it might still be highly beneficial for the brand. I mean if it wasn't, would we see so much product placement in movies and TV? Those are not proper ads, there's no call to action, the viewer has to go looking for the product if they like it. But it does wonder for brand recognition and prestige.

libertine 6y ago
>Is it really wasted though? Back when I still bothered to watch TV with ads The world was a very different place back then. Where the majority of "housewives" (as in the person who makes the decisions - and bought - all house purchases) were actually the wives, and ad jingles was part of the soundtrack of our existence. Attention was less split and focused mainly on TV, and fewer players had access to it. And you're right, it did have a brainwashing effect, and I bet to this day you still know the lyrics or you can hum songs from jingles, or you know brand claims by heart. People underestimated that. But still like you, hundreds of million of people never consumed, became customers, recommended or influenced any decision for a lot of those brands - but for those brands it was still worth it. It was part of their business model - mass media + a big share of shelf in large retailers. Coca Cola Company, P&G, Mars, and many other mammoths grew with this. >I mean if it wasn't, would we see so much product placement in movies and TV? The problem is that TV is different from the Internet, still to this day. Just because they share the same type of media (video), it's different how you watch and how you manage your attention. A banner in a website is very different from a spot in break on a TV show. Even a preroll on youtube is different from a tv spot - because if you're not watching the tv spot and you're fiddling with your phone, the sound is there, and it grabs your attention for a fraction of time. I'm not saying that high frequency doesn't work - it does work very well! Does wonders! But wastage makes it expensive, and it works differently depending on the media..