4 ms·

This is so obvious to everyone who has used their ad system. They get away with that because they know marketing departments don't care - they have ad budgets

by seydor 3y ago

This is so obvious to everyone who has used their ad system. They get away with that because they know marketing departments don't care - they have ad budgets to spend. Google gives them enough dashboards and excuses to satisfy their bosses. It is still unknown which half of advertising works.

danpalmer 3y ago
Ad attribution is difficult, but it's difficult everywhere because customer behaviour is complex. It's much easier to attribute digital ads sources than it is to attribute out of home advertising. This isn't anything Google specific.
- espadrine 3y ago
  Very true. At work, our data science team had to employ subtle methods to truly be convinced that a particular offline ad channel was ineffective: https://medium.com/qonto-way/how-to-invest-better-in-acquisition-channels-a-1-million-question-for-data-science-591c82b3e0e4 https://medium.com/qonto-way/how-to-invest-better-in-acquisi...
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Hey look, it's another online-first startup reinventing media mix modelling! (Sorry for the snark but this is a very well studied technique in the offline world that gets completely ignored by online advertisers, rather like AB testing gets mostly ignored by offline advertisers).
- naijaboiler 3y ago
  this is true but why does Google and all other ad-sellers provide dashboards that pretend to make it easy
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Because it makes them more money.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    Because compared to the alternatives, they significantly easier. Attribution is arguably the biggest challenge in marketing. If you know that someone bought because of an ad you know you can spend more on that ad, if you know no one is buying from it you know not to. With almost all digital marketing there's some amount of tracking, not necessarily of users, but of ads. When you make a sale you know which ad it came from. Now that's not perfect attribution, users might take a few views to click through, may go direct rather than clicking through, or may click through multiple different ads, but it's pretty good. With non-digital marketing there's nearly zero information. Billboards, TV adverts, magazines, radio, even podcasts which are digital, etc. The way that attribution is done is based on times of day (did you get a spike after your TV advert aired), or it's based on location (did you get a spike in the area of the billboard). Sometimes discount codes are used for attribution (use code TUBE10 to save £10 on your next order), but those only work for some types of product and users forget more often than not (yes, even with discounts). Marketing on Google, Facebook, affiliate marketplaces, etc, is all automatable, and more accurate, more precise, and therefore it's easier to understand marketing ROI, and easier to justify more spend.
pyrale 3y ago
> They get away with that because they know marketing departments don't care Even if they cared, they have no leverage. In the financial sector, any market-maker in Google's position would be heavily regulated, and the kind of shit Google pulls would land people in jail. Even without the market manipulation, there's no way a company like Google could operate without a clear separation between departments. The reason for that is that centuries of playing that game have shown that it's the only way to keep market makers honest.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  It's not a two-way market really, so no real market making. One seller auctioning things of.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    Google doesn't only sell their own eyeballs, they also are the de facto marketplace for other people to sell space.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Is there ad space to ad space business? Interesting.
    - strongpigeon 3y ago
      While true, this is in the context of the search monopoly trial. In which case they only sell their own inventory.
      - pyrale 3y ago
        It's always useful to show the otherwise fraudulent nature of the business, and the moral bankruptcy of the people running it. Inevitably some google exec will testify that they "strive to bring the best to their customers and bring a public-good service". By then, everyone will have been warned that this person is unquestionably a swindling weasel.
beefield 3y ago
> This is so obvious to everyone who has used their ad system. This. I tried once and am still a bit confused if I understood it correctly. Google seemed to refuse "too low" bids completely for no other disclosed reason than that they were too low. And the UI was hellbent to make me give google authority to bid on my behalf on googles own ad auction. Like, WTF? Who on their right mind would agree to that? I'd very much like these folks to be my customers. I guarantee, I will sell you whatever (legal) you want, as long as you agree that I can set the price to whatever I want. It just boggles my mind.
- urbandw311er 3y ago
  This was my reaction to it too, and that was after a few days diving pretty deep into it.
sixothree 3y ago
I've always kind of assumed buying more ads increases your search ranking. I wouldn't be surprised to find out if that's true at this point.

by seydor 3y ago

danpalmer 3y ago

Ad attribution is difficult, but it's difficult everywhere because customer behaviour is complex. It's much easier to attribute digital ads sources than it is to attribute out of home advertising. This isn't anything Google specific.

espadrine 3y ago
Very true. At work, our data science team had to employ subtle methods to truly be convinced that a particular offline ad channel was ineffective: https://medium.com/qonto-way/how-to-invest-better-in-acquisition-channels-a-1-million-question-for-data-science-591c82b3e0e4 https://medium.com/qonto-way/how-to-invest-better-in-acquisi...
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Hey look, it's another online-first startup reinventing media mix modelling! (Sorry for the snark but this is a very well studied technique in the offline world that gets completely ignored by online advertisers, rather like AB testing gets mostly ignored by offline advertisers).
naijaboiler 3y ago
this is true but why does Google and all other ad-sellers provide dashboards that pretend to make it easy
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Because it makes them more money.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Because compared to the alternatives, they significantly easier. Attribution is arguably the biggest challenge in marketing. If you know that someone bought because of an ad you know you can spend more on that ad, if you know no one is buying from it you know not to. With almost all digital marketing there's some amount of tracking, not necessarily of users, but of ads. When you make a sale you know which ad it came from. Now that's not perfect attribution, users might take a few views to click through, may go direct rather than clicking through, or may click through multiple different ads, but it's pretty good. With non-digital marketing there's nearly zero information. Billboards, TV adverts, magazines, radio, even podcasts which are digital, etc. The way that attribution is done is based on times of day (did you get a spike after your TV advert aired), or it's based on location (did you get a spike in the area of the billboard). Sometimes discount codes are used for attribution (use code TUBE10 to save £10 on your next order), but those only work for some types of product and users forget more often than not (yes, even with discounts). Marketing on Google, Facebook, affiliate marketplaces, etc, is all automatable, and more accurate, more precise, and therefore it's easier to understand marketing ROI, and easier to justify more spend.

pyrale 3y ago

> They get away with that because they know marketing departments don't care Even if they cared, they have no leverage. In the financial sector, any market-maker in Google's position would be heavily regulated, and the kind of shit Google pulls would land people in jail. Even without the market manipulation, there's no way a company like Google could operate without a clear separation between departments. The reason for that is that centuries of playing that game have shown that it's the only way to keep market makers honest.

RandomLensman 3y ago
It's not a two-way market really, so no real market making. One seller auctioning things of.
- pyrale 3y ago
  Google doesn't only sell their own eyeballs, they also are the de facto marketplace for other people to sell space.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Is there ad space to ad space business? Interesting.
  - strongpigeon 3y ago
    While true, this is in the context of the search monopoly trial. In which case they only sell their own inventory.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      It's always useful to show the otherwise fraudulent nature of the business, and the moral bankruptcy of the people running it. Inevitably some google exec will testify that they "strive to bring the best to their customers and bring a public-good service". By then, everyone will have been warned that this person is unquestionably a swindling weasel.

beefield 3y ago

> This is so obvious to everyone who has used their ad system. This. I tried once and am still a bit confused if I understood it correctly. Google seemed to refuse "too low" bids completely for no other disclosed reason than that they were too low. And the UI was hellbent to make me give google authority to bid on my behalf on googles own ad auction. Like, WTF? Who on their right mind would agree to that? I'd very much like these folks to be my customers. I guarantee, I will sell you whatever (legal) you want, as long as you agree that I can set the price to whatever I want. It just boggles my mind.

urbandw311er 3y ago
This was my reaction to it too, and that was after a few days diving pretty deep into it.

sixothree 3y ago

I've always kind of assumed buying more ads increases your search ranking. I wouldn't be surprised to find out if that's true at this point.