3 ms·
That was an incredibly misleading article. If you check the links, you find the following: 1. P&G didn't turn off that spend, it shifted it to other marketing
by aerosmile 5y ago
That was an incredibly misleading article. If you check the links, you find the following:
1. P&G didn't turn off that spend, it shifted it to other marketing platforms.
2. Chase didn't change its marketing spend, it just concentrated it from 400k sites to 5k sites.
3. Uber found out that their agency was committing fraud and AFAIK the case is still being litigated.
I hate being that guy, but check the links. Those reporters really must have an agenda or something (or are just struggling to get the clicks, so they need to make a story out of nothing).
- croes 5y agoTo 1. "P&G’s $200 million digital cut were reinvested into areas with “media reach” including television, audio and ecommerce" So they awitched to other platforms with mostly no back channel and no user tracking. So the whole tracking seems to be pointless