6 ms·

Didn't Barry Dillar go see Sergey and Larry early in Google's beginnings? I think the direct quote was "you are f'ing up the magic" referring to the fact that

Didn't Barry Dillar go see Sergey and Larry early in Google's beginnings? I think the direct quote was "you are f'ing up the magic" referring to the fact that advertisers don't know what's working, and Google was ruining that. Although it's taken them many years they seem to now be taking his advice to heart. I looked to cite this but couldn't find it on Google, so I may be mistaken...

AuthError 3y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/mar/04/google-ken-auletta https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/mar/04/google-ke... looks like 2 different things (barry dillar met them but larry was on phone which he thought was rude, clicks vs impressions was something google was looking for in CEO (eric schmidt passed that test or something))
jshen 3y ago
enshitification This also means there is a huge opportunity to disrupt google at this pont. edit to add reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  How do you disrupt a monopoly?
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    One feature at a time
  - jshen 3y ago
    I don't think that is the right way to think about google. There is virtually no friction or switching cost for a user to use a different search engine. I think the biggest thing keeping google at the top is that they are the default on mobile phones, and they pay a ton of money to apple to keep it that way. I also think that disruption will come from something that looks different than google, maybe something like chatgpt, that doesn't appear to be a direct competitor at first but ends up taking a significant bite out of usage of google.
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      There is a some amount of friction because browsers default to it and user inertia from using it for decades.
      - jshen 3y ago
        That's a good point, and I think the big issue here is that Google owns the most popular browser too.
      - userinanother 3y ago
        And the billions Apple gets paid to pick Google as the default
    - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
      Google's product is not their search engine.
      - jshen 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean.
        otabdeveloper4 3y ago
        Google sells ad space on certain web properties. Some of those properties are search engines, but that is entirely incidental and not important. What they actually sell is a B2B SaaS for participating in auctions on those web properties.
        jshen 3y ago
        Do you know the split between their search ads and the others?
kromem 3y ago
Google was never actually changing that. We still largely don't know what half of advertising works and what half doesn't. There's just more metrics obfuscating that reality. Source: worked on market research focused on identifying what advertising worked and what advertising didn't which Google white labeled
- riku_iki 3y ago
  was this solved with conversion tracking long ago?..
  - kromem 3y ago
    Not really. For example, did they see a TV ad which primed them before they saw the banner ad they clicked that led to the conversion? I recall a conversation with a CMO who was discussing how all their metrics indicated TV ads were a waste of money, so in a few of their DMAs they pulled TV ads and their sales in those areas dropped by double digits. The additional metric fidelity is a false sense of security in the data. There's a lot more going on to drive someone to purchase than simply the ad tagging that gets picked up. It can be useful in optimizing spend a bit, but should be considered more like correlation than causation. So you can add budget to things that are converting and see if that linearly leads to more conversions, just don't assume that it's as clear cut as a dashboard makes it out to be - it generally won't be and after a few low hanging fruit gains you'll hit diminishing returns because it's not actually as simple as "person sees banner ad A and clicks = 4% chance of sale."
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      old cable TV ads, yes, can't be tracked. Ads on HBO Max and Hulu totally can.
      - kromem 3y ago
        Yes. But it goes well beyond just that. For example, you might have 4% of people who clicked through your banner ad end up purchasing. But 80% of those 4% had previously read a CNET review for your product before seeing that ad. How are you getting that data point? And even if you do, it doesn't necessarily mean putting a link to that review on the landing page for the ad will result in much lift, as there may have been a selection bias where most people swayed by a CNET review were the ones who had already read reviews. One of the most influential touch points is WoM. So certainly offline product recommendations aren't ending up in your dashboard, and exposure to social media positive sentiment isn't either. Easily half to 2/3rd of the things someone sees that influence their purchasing decision aren't being picked up by an attribution model for conversion tracking. And "old cable TV ads" . Still an audience of 72 million for those in 2023. And cross platform attribution really isn't as straightforward as you seem to think.

AuthError 3y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/mar/04/google-ken-auletta https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/mar/04/google-ke... looks like 2 different things (barry dillar met them but larry was on phone which he thought was rude, clicks vs impressions was something google was looking for in CEO (eric schmidt passed that test or something))

jshen 3y ago

enshitification This also means there is a huge opportunity to disrupt google at this pont. edit to add reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

candiddevmike 3y ago
How do you disrupt a monopoly?
- ipaddr 3y ago
  One feature at a time
- jshen 3y ago
  I don't think that is the right way to think about google. There is virtually no friction or switching cost for a user to use a different search engine. I think the biggest thing keeping google at the top is that they are the default on mobile phones, and they pay a ton of money to apple to keep it that way. I also think that disruption will come from something that looks different than google, maybe something like chatgpt, that doesn't appear to be a direct competitor at first but ends up taking a significant bite out of usage of google.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    There is a some amount of friction because browsers default to it and user inertia from using it for decades.
    - jshen 3y ago
      That's a good point, and I think the big issue here is that Google owns the most popular browser too.
    - userinanother 3y ago
      And the billions Apple gets paid to pick Google as the default
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    Google's product is not their search engine.
    - jshen 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean.
      - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
        Google sells ad space on certain web properties. Some of those properties are search engines, but that is entirely incidental and not important. What they actually sell is a B2B SaaS for participating in auctions on those web properties.
        jshen 3y ago
        Do you know the split between their search ads and the others?

kromem 3y ago

Google was never actually changing that. We still largely don't know what half of advertising works and what half doesn't. There's just more metrics obfuscating that reality. Source: worked on market research focused on identifying what advertising worked and what advertising didn't which Google white labeled

riku_iki 3y ago
was this solved with conversion tracking long ago?..
- kromem 3y ago
  Not really. For example, did they see a TV ad which primed them before they saw the banner ad they clicked that led to the conversion? I recall a conversation with a CMO who was discussing how all their metrics indicated TV ads were a waste of money, so in a few of their DMAs they pulled TV ads and their sales in those areas dropped by double digits. The additional metric fidelity is a false sense of security in the data. There's a lot more going on to drive someone to purchase than simply the ad tagging that gets picked up. It can be useful in optimizing spend a bit, but should be considered more like correlation than causation. So you can add budget to things that are converting and see if that linearly leads to more conversions, just don't assume that it's as clear cut as a dashboard makes it out to be - it generally won't be and after a few low hanging fruit gains you'll hit diminishing returns because it's not actually as simple as "person sees banner ad A and clicks = 4% chance of sale."
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    old cable TV ads, yes, can't be tracked. Ads on HBO Max and Hulu totally can.
    - kromem 3y ago
      Yes. But it goes well beyond just that. For example, you might have 4% of people who clicked through your banner ad end up purchasing. But 80% of those 4% had previously read a CNET review for your product before seeing that ad. How are you getting that data point? And even if you do, it doesn't necessarily mean putting a link to that review on the landing page for the ad will result in much lift, as there may have been a selection bias where most people swayed by a CNET review were the ones who had already read reviews. One of the most influential touch points is WoM. So certainly offline product recommendations aren't ending up in your dashboard, and exposure to social media positive sentiment isn't either. Easily half to 2/3rd of the things someone sees that influence their purchasing decision aren't being picked up by an attribution model for conversion tracking. And "old cable TV ads" . Still an audience of 72 million for those in 2023. And cross platform attribution really isn't as straightforward as you seem to think.