8 ms·

I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but g

by cdavid 15y ago

I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but generally, what works best when doing statistical prediction is not what is the most intuitive. Also, even though your example is obviously not meant to be taken as is, it shows that targeted demographics quickly don't have a lot of data behind them. Successful stories in AI usually involves lots of averaged data with only little "focused" data to adapt your model quickly (e.g. as done in speech recognition where models are estimated on 1000s of hours from many speakers, and the model is then adapted for the one speaker to be recognized). I think the value of the so called social graph for advertising is overestimated. IMO, what's interesting about facebook is more the amount and diversity of data than its personalized nature. But then, I have little knowledge about algo for advertisement targetting, maybe the situation is different than the domains I am familiar with.

rachelbythebay 15y ago
Who says it's about effectiveness of the ad? It might just be effectiveness of getting money from the advertisers. More data means you can do more hand-waving to say that this ad will be the one that really really reaches people this time.
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  Because in the end if ads are not effective, you won't be getting money from the advertisers anymore. Marketers can't know in advance which marketing channels will work - so they kinda carpet bomb with their campaigns. However once they start getting data, they sure as hell kill of the channels that don't work. Unethical behavior does not scale in business, no matter how much your calculations rationalize it. In the end people just go away from sleazy businesses. GM and Ford might tell you a story about it and millions of others short term profit oriented businesses also. Theres only so much bullshit you can pile up before your reputation catches on to you.
  - mtts 15y ago
    As much as I'd like to think you're right, you're probably wrong. The advertising industry is making very real money, which gives people an incentive to keep it going even though it delivers close to nothing. Why do people buy Coca Cola? Is it because of the tremendously expensive advertisements they put out or is it because the stuff is ubiquitous, tastes fairly good and is usually not surrounded by a lot of competing products at the places where it's sold? Don't believe me? What about if you're in a restaurant that sells only Pepsi. Do you leave the restaurant in search of another that sells Coca-Cola? Most people probably don't, thereby proving that all the so-called "positive emotions" advertisements instill in consumers do absolutely nothing when the time comes to make purchase. Theoretically, yes, in a situation where you can choose either Pepsi or Coca-Cola for (roughly) the same price, Coca-Cola's advertising campain may have an effect, but such situations are exceedingly rare. In most purchasing decisions there are variables that have much more significance than the advertising history of the products. So ads are, probably, not effective. And despite this fact, there has been an industry selling them for over a century and that industry has been getting richer and richer, thereby proving that you can perfectly well build a business on scamming people and keeping it up indefinitely. You do, however, have to keep playing around with some superficial parameters of your business model to keep it convincing. Which is exactly what Google is doing here. (btw, I use - and love - Google's services, but never in my life have I clicked one of their ads or even looked at one for more than a split second)
    - JanezStupar 15y ago
      I was talking of marketing in general. Advertising is only a single branch of marketing. And its obvious that Coca-Cola's marketing has been waaay better than Pepsi's. And also I believe that Pepsi is quite comfortable in its #2 position. As is Burger King in its own. Don't forget, that second biggest player in a huge market is usually still a friggin big behemoth. And that for Pepsi and BK being #2 is a core business strategy. Less upside, but also less downside. These companies basically use their bigger competitors as a hedge against market change.
      - mtts 15y ago
- fttechfounder 15y ago
  Excellent point here. There's a lot of advertising dollars to be spent, in fact too much. Superbowl advertisements certainly didn't help companies like Pets.com during the bubble, but man, did the NFL cash in on that one! A lot of sales guys sell by telling stories, not necessarily by persuading metrics, and all the contextual data makes for GREAT stories.
skarayan 15y ago
"I think the value of the so called social graph for advertising is overestimated." I disagree, for certain businesses it is more beneficial then Adwords. I have had really good experiences with Facebook Ads.
- tdoggette 15y ago
  I would guess that you were initially downvoted for a lack of specificity.
  - skarayan 15y ago
    I originally wrote from my iPad and I have a hard time using the touch keyboard. Here's my 2 cents: 1) Cheaper than Adwords, much much cheaper. The ads tend to be expensive when you first get an estimate from Facebook, but in practice, this number goes down 5-fold. Also, in comparison to Adwords, it is at least 5-fold cheaper. 2) Easier to target people. This depends on what you are doing, but I believe it works better if you are trying to build a community with a specific interest. However, Adwords is probably better for targeting advertising for an e-commerce store. 3) If you advertise your fan page, you have a hook to constantly advertise to your fans. I like building my fan page, generating conversation, and sparking interest. It is important to give users good content, but it also doesn't hurt to self promote about 10-20% of the time. It all depends on what you are doing.
redxaxder 15y ago
> "I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but generally, what works best when doing statistical prediction is not what is the most intuitive." If you've collected marketing data that tells you your conversion rate among pet owners is 2% when your conversion rate among the general public is 1%, then you know that every ad you show to pet owners is going to have twice the impact on your bottom line. Ad targeting enables you to collect this kind of data and to exploit it once you have it. If you find the right audience, your advertising dollars can go more than twice as far.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  Unless it cost your more than twice as much for that advertizing or your showing the same add to the same person several times (ex: hulu). But, the real problem with facebook users is you are far less intrested in adds while on a social website and a lot of clicks are simple mistakes.
  - uxp 15y ago
    Buying a sponsored AdWords ad on Google results in people viewing it while they are actively looking to solve a problem or buy a product. Buying an ad on Facebook that happens to be related to something they once had interest in, and may still do, will result in it being shown while they are not always looking to solve a problem or buy a product, but to entertain themselves, and most importantly may not care about that subject at that moment. Online advertising is not a cut and dry field. You can get great results from either place, but you won't get the same results from both, at least in my experience.
    - juliano_q 15y ago
      The thing is that Google dont kneed to place ads on Google+, but they will know your personal information and place better targeted AdWords for each person.
      - 15y ago
scrollbar 15y ago
I am convinced that it is useful. I do it every day :) Without going into specifics, think of this data as just another signal to use in ad targeting. Maybe users in certain regions are more likely to purchase a product? Maybe men versus women, people who have kids, people in certain income ranges. We ad people use all this info to eek out performance from campaigns. Google is going for the holy advertising grail with +

by cdavid 15y ago

rachelbythebay 15y ago

Who says it's about effectiveness of the ad? It might just be effectiveness of getting money from the advertisers. More data means you can do more hand-waving to say that this ad will be the one that really really reaches people this time.

JanezStupar 15y ago
Because in the end if ads are not effective, you won't be getting money from the advertisers anymore. Marketers can't know in advance which marketing channels will work - so they kinda carpet bomb with their campaigns. However once they start getting data, they sure as hell kill of the channels that don't work. Unethical behavior does not scale in business, no matter how much your calculations rationalize it. In the end people just go away from sleazy businesses. GM and Ford might tell you a story about it and millions of others short term profit oriented businesses also. Theres only so much bullshit you can pile up before your reputation catches on to you.
- mtts 15y ago
  As much as I'd like to think you're right, you're probably wrong. The advertising industry is making very real money, which gives people an incentive to keep it going even though it delivers close to nothing. Why do people buy Coca Cola? Is it because of the tremendously expensive advertisements they put out or is it because the stuff is ubiquitous, tastes fairly good and is usually not surrounded by a lot of competing products at the places where it's sold? Don't believe me? What about if you're in a restaurant that sells only Pepsi. Do you leave the restaurant in search of another that sells Coca-Cola? Most people probably don't, thereby proving that all the so-called "positive emotions" advertisements instill in consumers do absolutely nothing when the time comes to make purchase. Theoretically, yes, in a situation where you can choose either Pepsi or Coca-Cola for (roughly) the same price, Coca-Cola's advertising campain may have an effect, but such situations are exceedingly rare. In most purchasing decisions there are variables that have much more significance than the advertising history of the products. So ads are, probably, not effective. And despite this fact, there has been an industry selling them for over a century and that industry has been getting richer and richer, thereby proving that you can perfectly well build a business on scamming people and keeping it up indefinitely. You do, however, have to keep playing around with some superficial parameters of your business model to keep it convincing. Which is exactly what Google is doing here. (btw, I use - and love - Google's services, but never in my life have I clicked one of their ads or even looked at one for more than a split second)
  - JanezStupar 15y ago
    I was talking of marketing in general. Advertising is only a single branch of marketing. And its obvious that Coca-Cola's marketing has been waaay better than Pepsi's. And also I believe that Pepsi is quite comfortable in its #2 position. As is Burger King in its own. Don't forget, that second biggest player in a huge market is usually still a friggin big behemoth. And that for Pepsi and BK being #2 is a core business strategy. Less upside, but also less downside. These companies basically use their bigger competitors as a hedge against market change.
    - mtts 15y ago
fttechfounder 15y ago
Excellent point here. There's a lot of advertising dollars to be spent, in fact too much. Superbowl advertisements certainly didn't help companies like Pets.com during the bubble, but man, did the NFL cash in on that one! A lot of sales guys sell by telling stories, not necessarily by persuading metrics, and all the contextual data makes for GREAT stories.

skarayan 15y ago

"I think the value of the so called social graph for advertising is overestimated." I disagree, for certain businesses it is more beneficial then Adwords. I have had really good experiences with Facebook Ads.

tdoggette 15y ago
I would guess that you were initially downvoted for a lack of specificity.
- skarayan 15y ago
  I originally wrote from my iPad and I have a hard time using the touch keyboard. Here's my 2 cents: 1) Cheaper than Adwords, much much cheaper. The ads tend to be expensive when you first get an estimate from Facebook, but in practice, this number goes down 5-fold. Also, in comparison to Adwords, it is at least 5-fold cheaper. 2) Easier to target people. This depends on what you are doing, but I believe it works better if you are trying to build a community with a specific interest. However, Adwords is probably better for targeting advertising for an e-commerce store. 3) If you advertise your fan page, you have a hook to constantly advertise to your fans. I like building my fan page, generating conversation, and sparking interest. It is important to give users good content, but it also doesn't hurt to self promote about 10-20% of the time. It all depends on what you are doing.

redxaxder 15y ago

> "I am not convinced it is that useful to have explicitly targeted audiences for advertisement. It may be better to understand and interpret an ad campaign, but generally, what works best when doing statistical prediction is not what is the most intuitive." If you've collected marketing data that tells you your conversion rate among pet owners is 2% when your conversion rate among the general public is 1%, then you know that every ad you show to pet owners is going to have twice the impact on your bottom line. Ad targeting enables you to collect this kind of data and to exploit it once you have it. If you find the right audience, your advertising dollars can go more than twice as far.

onemoreact 15y ago
Unless it cost your more than twice as much for that advertizing or your showing the same add to the same person several times (ex: hulu). But, the real problem with facebook users is you are far less intrested in adds while on a social website and a lot of clicks are simple mistakes.
- uxp 15y ago
  Buying a sponsored AdWords ad on Google results in people viewing it while they are actively looking to solve a problem or buy a product. Buying an ad on Facebook that happens to be related to something they once had interest in, and may still do, will result in it being shown while they are not always looking to solve a problem or buy a product, but to entertain themselves, and most importantly may not care about that subject at that moment. Online advertising is not a cut and dry field. You can get great results from either place, but you won't get the same results from both, at least in my experience.
  - juliano_q 15y ago
    The thing is that Google dont kneed to place ads on Google+, but they will know your personal information and place better targeted AdWords for each person.
    - 15y ago

scrollbar 15y ago

I am convinced that it is useful. I do it every day :) Without going into specifics, think of this data as just another signal to use in ad targeting. Maybe users in certain regions are more likely to purchase a product? Maybe men versus women, people who have kids, people in certain income ranges. We ad people use all this info to eek out performance from campaigns. Google is going for the holy advertising grail with +