4 ms·

This is a new spin on an old phenomenon. For banner advertising, a tiny percentage of the population (< 10%) contributes a massive percentage of all display ad

by patio11 14y ago

This is a new spin on an old phenomenon. For banner advertising, a tiny percentage of the population (< 10%) contributes a massive percentage of all display ad clicks (> 80%). She's disproportionately a lower-middle to lower-income older American female in the Midwest who plays the lottery and subscribes to Reader's Digest. Totally not joking. A word often used to describe this segment is "compulsive clicker." Online publishers are well aware of this and, well, do not go out of their way to highlight this fact on their rate cards. Instead they'll provide their audience information and often do not mention that they know their typical click is not representative of their audience. Given that they're the "whales" of the CPC business model, they're frequently not quality-priced down to zero, unless they so dominate an advertiser's campaign that the advertiser complains. There are related issues with almost all online advertising. One should be very attentive to the default settings at one's major advertising network of choice, because the default settings almost always group the prime rib cut of the attention market with the pink slime and sell it at prime rib prices. (Examples: there are strong differences in pricing with regards to user location. Many advertising platforms, ahem, make it very straightforward for American advertisers to advertise their wares to users in developing markets. All you have to do is not opt out.)

pikewood 14y ago
What is the reasoning behind this type of behavior? Is it that she is very susceptible to the techniques used in banner ads (animated dancing mortgage people, "one weird trick", etc.)? Or does she have some OCD behavior of clicking all the links on a page? In the OP's case, I can see the motive of the Like-collecting mindset, but with the compulsive clickers, I'm imagining someone who clicks on ads for no reason other than a compulsion to "complete the page".
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Could simply be that they are less familiar with the internet, people who have been using it for a while learn to filter out the banner ads to a certain extent. If you are less familiar with using search engines etc, clicking big obvious links on pages might seem like the easiest way to "surf". I imagine if you looked at one of these people's PCs you'd find at least 6 toolbars installed in their browser.
- curveship 14y ago
  My wife grew up in Oklahoma, and there are several women in her extended family who fit the profile. I've been watching how her family interacts with technology for over a decade now. The behavior cited in the article makes a lot of sense to me. First, a warning: it would be a big mistake to think these women are technologically backwards. They _love_ computers and the internet. They were installing wifi routers years before my own East Coast elite-educated family. My wife's sister has 5 iphones for 4 family members, half of them are jailbroken. Part of what they love about the net is that it makes them feel _modern_ and _included_. They're no fools. They see the money, the power, the TV all emerging from NYC and LA. They know that the most their town has produced is a country singer with a chip on his should (Toby Keith). Going online, by contrast, feels cosmopolitan, sophisticated, like they're "in it," in the modern world. (There's a similar phenomenon with chain restaurants: Oklahomans _love_ chain restaurants, because it's the same meal you could get anywhere.) So having heard all the buzz about the net, they go online and ... well, here the paths diverge. The younger and/or savvier become sort of power-consumers. Like my sister in law with the jailbroken iPhones. She can quote you all the specs and all the industry-celebrity gossip, and there are at least a dozen USB devices hanging off her computer. But the older and/or less savvy, they equate the net with buzz, so when they go online, they go to its buzziest parts: banner ads, scams, get-rich-quick schemes, "empowerment" classes, etc. They click the banner ads because they think that's what you're "supposed to do" on the net, and doing so makes them feel a part of the modern world. They're not stuck in a fly-over state, they're right in front of the busy modern world, right there on their computer screen.
jiggy2011 14y ago
This makes sense to me, I delete all my cookies and sessions frequently in my browser and usually browse the internet logged out. At least 50% of adverts I see are for either weight loss products or anti-ageing products. Personally, on the rare occasion that I do see an ad that I find interesting I won't click it (due to an ingrained fear of losing the page that I am on) and will simply open a new tab and google search for the product name. Not sure if most "internet savvy" people do the same? I also wonder how well your average holds across websites. If you are selective on the websites you advertise on, say advertising a programming product on Stack Overflow then I wonder if the majority of your clicks still come mainly from the midwest moms who ended up on SO by mistake?
- seiji 14y ago
  on the rare occasion that I do see an ad that I find interesting I won't click it With Google, they at least give you a URL below the ad. Sadly, about half the time it goes to a non-existing page so you have to search around anyway. I refuse to intentionally* click on ads because I ran some adwords campaigns years ago. Seeing Google charge you multiple whole dollars for a "click" feels like one of the largest scams in the world. You have to trust that: they are never lying to you, they aren't running a shadow click-happy network, and they monitor and refund bot clicks. Each click gives google money essentially for free. I'm not fond of working for Google for free. * Google keeps decreasing the contrast difference between the top row text ads and actual search results. If my laptop screen is tilted the wrong way, I can't see the shaded "THIS IS ADVERTISING" box. Each mistaken click there gives Google $3 to $25+. Just for one click of the mouse. The mind boggles.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    This reminds me of the ethical dilemma I face whenever I search for something and the site I'm looking for comes up in both the organic and paid search results. Do I like them enough to save them a few pennies or not?
    - nucleardog 14y ago
jiggy2011 14y ago
This makes sense to me, I delete all my cookies and sessions frequently in my browser and usually browse the internet logged out. At least 50% of adverts I see are for either weight loss products or anti-ageing products. Personally, on the rare occasion that I do see an ad that I find interesting I won't click it (due to an ingrained fear of losing the page that I am on) and will simply open a new tab and google search for the product name. Not sure if most "internet savvy" people do the same? I also wonder how well your average holds across websites. If you are selective on the websites you advertise on, say advertising a programming product on Stack Overflow then I wonder if the majority of your clicks still come mainly from the midwest moms who ended up on SO by mistake?
lrs 14y ago
I am so fascinated by the idea that these people exist. I would love to read an interview with one of them.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Odds are that you have one in your family tree.
- erik_larson 14y ago
  Here is a quote from one of them: "Yes, I do remember why I liked things in batches. Facebook suggests things for you to like in the right column on some pages. As soon as you click to like one of them, it replaces it with another suggestion. I’m quite happy to like thousands of things on Facebook as it improves the kind of stories and ads that come up in my news feed and again in the right column. I would rather see things I am interested in than things I’m not." A little different than the typical idea of a Reader's Digest granny who doesn't understand the internet. Unlike the problem with display ads, in this case Facebook's UI purposefully encourages clicks based on user intent that is highly unrelated to the ad itself. Plus, as a FB advertiser you can actually see the profiles so you can see that these folks are heavy-duty clickers...and if you check the numbers carefully, you can also see that FB invalidates some of the clicks from the folks who like your page, since at some point the behavior is clearly indefensible. However, FB still leaves them attached to the page, since in the end FB can't tell if they really meant to click on your ad or not. And they don't appear to go back and invalidate previous or subsequent clicks from that invalidated user. They just trim off a few. I consider this unethical business behavior on the part of Facebook. And since I also believe in caveat emptor, I wanted to make sure to get the caveats out there for any emptors who are interested.

by patio11 14y ago

pikewood 14y ago

What is the reasoning behind this type of behavior? Is it that she is very susceptible to the techniques used in banner ads (animated dancing mortgage people, "one weird trick", etc.)? Or does she have some OCD behavior of clicking all the links on a page? In the OP's case, I can see the motive of the Like-collecting mindset, but with the compulsive clickers, I'm imagining someone who clicks on ads for no reason other than a compulsion to "complete the page".

jiggy2011 14y ago
Could simply be that they are less familiar with the internet, people who have been using it for a while learn to filter out the banner ads to a certain extent. If you are less familiar with using search engines etc, clicking big obvious links on pages might seem like the easiest way to "surf". I imagine if you looked at one of these people's PCs you'd find at least 6 toolbars installed in their browser.
curveship 14y ago
My wife grew up in Oklahoma, and there are several women in her extended family who fit the profile. I've been watching how her family interacts with technology for over a decade now. The behavior cited in the article makes a lot of sense to me. First, a warning: it would be a big mistake to think these women are technologically backwards. They _love_ computers and the internet. They were installing wifi routers years before my own East Coast elite-educated family. My wife's sister has 5 iphones for 4 family members, half of them are jailbroken. Part of what they love about the net is that it makes them feel _modern_ and _included_. They're no fools. They see the money, the power, the TV all emerging from NYC and LA. They know that the most their town has produced is a country singer with a chip on his should (Toby Keith). Going online, by contrast, feels cosmopolitan, sophisticated, like they're "in it," in the modern world. (There's a similar phenomenon with chain restaurants: Oklahomans _love_ chain restaurants, because it's the same meal you could get anywhere.) So having heard all the buzz about the net, they go online and ... well, here the paths diverge. The younger and/or savvier become sort of power-consumers. Like my sister in law with the jailbroken iPhones. She can quote you all the specs and all the industry-celebrity gossip, and there are at least a dozen USB devices hanging off her computer. But the older and/or less savvy, they equate the net with buzz, so when they go online, they go to its buzziest parts: banner ads, scams, get-rich-quick schemes, "empowerment" classes, etc. They click the banner ads because they think that's what you're "supposed to do" on the net, and doing so makes them feel a part of the modern world. They're not stuck in a fly-over state, they're right in front of the busy modern world, right there on their computer screen.

jiggy2011 14y ago

This makes sense to me, I delete all my cookies and sessions frequently in my browser and usually browse the internet logged out. At least 50% of adverts I see are for either weight loss products or anti-ageing products. Personally, on the rare occasion that I do see an ad that I find interesting I won't click it (due to an ingrained fear of losing the page that I am on) and will simply open a new tab and google search for the product name. Not sure if most "internet savvy" people do the same? I also wonder how well your average holds across websites. If you are selective on the websites you advertise on, say advertising a programming product on Stack Overflow then I wonder if the majority of your clicks still come mainly from the midwest moms who ended up on SO by mistake?

seiji 14y ago
on the rare occasion that I do see an ad that I find interesting I won't click it With Google, they at least give you a URL below the ad. Sadly, about half the time it goes to a non-existing page so you have to search around anyway. I refuse to intentionally* click on ads because I ran some adwords campaigns years ago. Seeing Google charge you multiple whole dollars for a "click" feels like one of the largest scams in the world. You have to trust that: they are never lying to you, they aren't running a shadow click-happy network, and they monitor and refund bot clicks. Each click gives google money essentially for free. I'm not fond of working for Google for free. * Google keeps decreasing the contrast difference between the top row text ads and actual search results. If my laptop screen is tilted the wrong way, I can't see the shaded "THIS IS ADVERTISING" box. Each mistaken click there gives Google $3 to $25+. Just for one click of the mouse. The mind boggles.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  This reminds me of the ethical dilemma I face whenever I search for something and the site I'm looking for comes up in both the organic and paid search results. Do I like them enough to save them a few pennies or not?
  - nucleardog 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

lrs 14y ago

I am so fascinated by the idea that these people exist. I would love to read an interview with one of them.

pavel_lishin 14y ago
Odds are that you have one in your family tree.
erik_larson 14y ago
Here is a quote from one of them: "Yes, I do remember why I liked things in batches. Facebook suggests things for you to like in the right column on some pages. As soon as you click to like one of them, it replaces it with another suggestion. I’m quite happy to like thousands of things on Facebook as it improves the kind of stories and ads that come up in my news feed and again in the right column. I would rather see things I am interested in than things I’m not." A little different than the typical idea of a Reader's Digest granny who doesn't understand the internet. Unlike the problem with display ads, in this case Facebook's UI purposefully encourages clicks based on user intent that is highly unrelated to the ad itself. Plus, as a FB advertiser you can actually see the profiles so you can see that these folks are heavy-duty clickers...and if you check the numbers carefully, you can also see that FB invalidates some of the clicks from the folks who like your page, since at some point the behavior is clearly indefensible. However, FB still leaves them attached to the page, since in the end FB can't tell if they really meant to click on your ad or not. And they don't appear to go back and invalidate previous or subsequent clicks from that invalidated user. They just trim off a few. I consider this unethical business behavior on the part of Facebook. And since I also believe in caveat emptor, I wanted to make sure to get the caveats out there for any emptors who are interested.