3 ms·

> FB ads are effective and high value Not really. Digital advertising, frankly, sucks from the advertiser's point of view. It's just that people are online no

> FB ads are effective and high value Not really. Digital advertising, frankly, sucks from the advertiser's point of view. It's just that people are online now and advertisers have no choice: the inventory providers are monopolistic and unregulated.

lumost 6y ago
A more fair comparison might be that all advertising sucks from an advertisers perspective... but we just didn't have a good way to measure it. In the world of Nielson and print the only consistently measurable ads were brand ads - and brand awareness had a loose correlation across businesses with revenue. There was no way of rigorously testing whether individual customers propensity to purchase a good from a given business was actually tied to any of the brand awareness ads that were being purchased, or customer's brands they had heard of for trust reasons after deciding on a purchase, or if customer's simply didn't care about the branding. Bear in mind, any negative datapoint that indicates customer's didn't care could always be taken as a sign that the "brand" had to be improved. Not that the ads were worthless. Now on digital any brand exercise, direct pay per conversion, or other form of ad gets attributed to downstream revenue, and we're quickly discovering which half of the marketing budget isn't working.
- otabdeveloper4 6y ago
  > There was no way of rigorously testing whether individual customers propensity to purchase a good from a given business was actually tied to any of the brand awareness ads that were being purchased This isn't right. Of course there was - statistics, sampling and A/B testing was invented way before computers or the Internet existed. Advertising is just applied sociology, and sociology is just statistics when done right.
Permit 6y ago
> Digital advertising, frankly, sucks from the advertiser's point of view. What advertising does not suck from the advertiser's point of view? How are metrics gathered that demonstrate these forms of advertising work?

lumost 6y ago

A more fair comparison might be that all advertising sucks from an advertisers perspective... but we just didn't have a good way to measure it. In the world of Nielson and print the only consistently measurable ads were brand ads - and brand awareness had a loose correlation across businesses with revenue. There was no way of rigorously testing whether individual customers propensity to purchase a good from a given business was actually tied to any of the brand awareness ads that were being purchased, or customer's brands they had heard of for trust reasons after deciding on a purchase, or if customer's simply didn't care about the branding. Bear in mind, any negative datapoint that indicates customer's didn't care could always be taken as a sign that the "brand" had to be improved. Not that the ads were worthless. Now on digital any brand exercise, direct pay per conversion, or other form of ad gets attributed to downstream revenue, and we're quickly discovering which half of the marketing budget isn't working.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago
> There was no way of rigorously testing whether individual customers propensity to purchase a good from a given business was actually tied to any of the brand awareness ads that were being purchased This isn't right. Of course there was - statistics, sampling and A/B testing was invented way before computers or the Internet existed. Advertising is just applied sociology, and sociology is just statistics when done right.

Permit 6y ago

> Digital advertising, frankly, sucks from the advertiser's point of view. What advertising does not suck from the advertiser's point of view? How are metrics gathered that demonstrate these forms of advertising work?