3 ms·

Serious question, to you and the many other people who make points like this on these stories: what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engage

Serious question, to you and the many other people who make points like this on these stories: what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements?

martin_a 6y ago
> what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Because the number of monthly active users/the number of pageviews gets higher. That's a talking point when doing ad sales. It's about potential reach of advertisements, which also defines the price of your campaigns. > Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? They probably won't. You'll see lots of reach but no conversions. That's the point where ad-agencies or the social networks itself jump in and "help you" "optimize" your ads for conversions. Maybe some of it will even stick in the end, who knows. Anyway, some people along the chain made money. > What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements? Do advertisers really know? I think in most cases your targeting is kept fuzzy enough so you're not able to pinpoint it down to a post level or whatnot, at least you will reach your "target audience". (That also sounds great when your marketing presents the numbers: "Big hit in the target audience, but no conversions yet! We'll have to fine tune our ads even more...") Whether they are sharing cat pictures or are discussing genocide... You'll never really know in the end. Of course there was some uproar when companies found their advertisments as pre-roll ads on the YouTube videos of ISIS, but that's a storm in a water glass. Nothing to really worry about after all.

martin_a 6y ago

> what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Because the number of monthly active users/the number of pageviews gets higher. That's a talking point when doing ad sales. It's about potential reach of advertisements, which also defines the price of your campaigns. > Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? They probably won't. You'll see lots of reach but no conversions. That's the point where ad-agencies or the social networks itself jump in and "help you" "optimize" your ads for conversions. Maybe some of it will even stick in the end, who knows. Anyway, some people along the chain made money. > What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements? Do advertisers really know? I think in most cases your targeting is kept fuzzy enough so you're not able to pinpoint it down to a post level or whatnot, at least you will reach your "target audience". (That also sounds great when your marketing presents the numbers: "Big hit in the target audience, but no conversions yet! We'll have to fine tune our ads even more...") Whether they are sharing cat pictures or are discussing genocide... You'll never really know in the end. Of course there was some uproar when companies found their advertisments as pre-roll ads on the YouTube videos of ISIS, but that's a storm in a water glass. Nothing to really worry about after all.