4 ms·

I doubt if the ads are working better. I suspect their measurement approaches related to ads effectiveness is wrong. If we are just measuring viewing of an ad

by ivell 1y ago

I doubt if the ads are working better. I suspect their measurement approaches related to ads effectiveness is wrong. If we are just measuring viewing of an ad as positive, then obnoxious ads will be viewed and thought to be effective. But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative.

ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior. In the end, platforms like Netflix and Hulu don't need to prove that a higher volume works, but perhaps their customers think that it works, and that is enough.
- iinnPP 1y ago
  This service problem is fixed like most media-related service problems. Sailing. MPC has the ability to normalize volume in a video automatically.
- iamacyborg 1y ago
  > I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior. Or the alternative, you can track it therefore you assign a disproportionate amount of value to it versus the things that are harder to track.
rickdeckard 1y ago
I'd say the metric is simply "if it's suddenly louder than the content before, we have the users attention and eyeballs". > But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;) Frankly, if the volume is too high I think the annoyance would be mostly directed towards the entire service playing ads at all, not the maker of the individual ad.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;) This really just tells me that either I'm an outlier (probably) or advertisers are morons If I remember something annoyed me with an ad, I will move heaven and earth to avoid their product I loathe advertising in general and the more intrusive it is the less I want your product. I keep a shit list of particularly irritating brands and go out of my way to avoid them
  - dahart 1y ago
    Personally I feel like keeping a list of annoying ad brands and avoiding them would take up too much of my mental space, and it would lead me occasionally to bad purchasing decisions. Advertising is what it is, sometimes manipulative and sometimes very annoying, but basically all companies have to do it and they tend to do what works and behave similarly. As long as I have a choice, I’ll avoid advertising in general, regardless of whether it’s annoying. There is evidence that louder ads work: https://news.nd.edu/news/loud-and-clear-high-energy-ads-keep-viewers-tuned-in-study-shows/ https://news.nd.edu/news/loud-and-clear-high-energy-ads-keep... This feel unsurprising to me given the long known fact that people tend to rate audio quality based on volume. (It’s what the stereo sales scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High was based on.)
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      > Advertising is what it is, sometimes manipulative and sometimes very annoying I think the difference between you and I is that I think it is always manipulative, and therefore is always very annoying There are no honest advertisers. Only scum.
      - dahart 1y ago
        I could agree that advertising is ‘always manipulative’ in the sense that, of course, it always seeks to sell you something and hope you’re swayed into buying. Most of it isn’t secretly or overtly manipulative, most of it is someone saying out loud “here’s my thing, buy it”. > There are no honest advertisers. Only scum. That’s a step too far, IMO, and before saying that you should at least reflect on how some advertising somewhere likely benefits you. There are many kinds of advertising. Advertising is not necessarily dishonest. If you work for a for-profit company, your company probably advertises. If you work for a non-profit company, your company probably advertises. If you work for a government agency, your org probably advertises. Advertising is any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist. If you’re only talking about a subset of that, we should discuss how you’re defining advertising. We are chatting on the website of a venture capital company. This very forum you’re using is a subtle advertisement, and a significant portion of the chatter here is about how to start a company, including marketing and advertising. The type of ad/marketing that HN is is neither annoying nor manipulative. If you ever start your own company - and I recommend it - that’s when you learn the fact that advertising is both absolutely necessary and fairly difficult to do well. If you ever do anything in public, announcing it is advertising. The vast majority of companies advertise, as do many government and non-profit and public-interest organizations, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Advertising is a huge part of the business model that funds the arts in the US, and without it, we’d have a lot fewer plays, dancing, and music.
neves 1y ago
I don't mind ads in the beginning of movies, but I hate with my full heart all companies and products that interrupt a tense scene
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Sorry for the mini rant but... One of the things that annoy me about TV shows is that the pacing on shows that were designed for network TV with ads is so predictable you can know whenever a tense scene is going to have an interesting outcome or not. Tension somewhere between the usual ad boundaries? Nothing's happening. Tension near the 7 or 10 minute boundaries (depending on 30 or 60 minute shows)? Something's gonna happen. It makes TV shows predictable even when watched on an ad-free platform.
  - wingspar 1y ago
    I think that is bumping into the standard three-act structure common in fictional narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      Maybe if you consider that the "three-act" structure is forced onto 20 and 40 minute runtime shows at precise time windows. What I'm talking about is far less visible, if at all, in adless 60-minute runtime episodes. Edit: and "what I'm talking about" is clear before-the-ad cliffhangers with after-the-ad "rewards" in the form of events that advance the plot.
- randycupertino 1y ago
  > all companies and products that interrupt a tense scene reply Like the PEPSI vending machine, brightly lit up and just happened to be there PERFECTLY working order in the middle of an apocalypse to provide a refreshing Pepsi to Brad Pitt at the tense zombie cat-and-mouse moment in World War Z? https://youtu.be/XzMhRnpTrL0?si=8FqSm_42Cx9sZE4R&t=93 https://youtu.be/XzMhRnpTrL0?si=8FqSm_42Cx9sZE4R&t=93
s1mplicissimus 1y ago
Unfortunately that's not how human attention works. Being annoyed (or really having any strong emotional reaction) causes the ad to have a stronger impression on your memory. Now pair that with "autopilot mode" while shopping and you have a desirable (for the business) outcome.
- netsharc 1y ago
  I still avoid some products because their maker paid the local version of the insufferable Simon Cowell to promote their products.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    YOU still avoid. But not the vast majority of consumers.
everdrive 1y ago
Whether or not this actually turns into purchases, I would imagine that obnoxious == memorable, and therefore advertising companies believe more memorable ads will turn into more purchases.
AdrianAvtomat 1y ago
I tend to believe this is some form of Goodhart's law running amok, but when I see obnoxious ads converting I have to wonder if the emotional response eventually boils off leaving behind that sweet sweet brand awareness.
immibis 1y ago
AFAIK even annoying people with ads still makes them more likely to buy your product. Even making people think "ugh, I'll never buy that" still makes them more likely to buy that. They do this stuff because it works. Even if you think it doesn't work, it still works.
OkayPhysicist 1y ago
My personal little doomsday theory is that the entirety of the advertising industry is built on faulty data. Approximately no one has the complete data set to determine how much an ad is worth. For direct ads ("enter promo code BLAH", "Click Here to check out the new...", there's hard data. But most of the perceived value of advertising is different: The company buying the ads has zero chance of knowing if someone seeing a car ad on YouTube 6 months ago factored into their decision to purchase a different car by the same manufacturer. Maybe the advertising platform has a chance of knowing (though Google AdSense has never asked me for my sales data), but they are strongly motivated to never reveal any results that would damage their industry. The platforms that serve the ads have no reason to thoroughly vet whether ad impressions are being accurately measured because error is almost always in their favor. Basically, nobody has the data because anybody who could have the data is incentivized to not look at it. That's the recipe for a rather long-lived bubble, one which if it popped (say, some short trader targeting the entirety of tech industry) would fundamentally change the tech industry. In short, I don't think making me watch a video of a truck for a couple seconds should be worth a nickel.

by ivell 1y ago

ulrikrasmussen 1y ago

I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior. In the end, platforms like Netflix and Hulu don't need to prove that a higher volume works, but perhaps their customers think that it works, and that is enough.

iinnPP 1y ago
This service problem is fixed like most media-related service problems. Sailing. MPC has the ability to normalize volume in a video automatically.
iamacyborg 1y ago
> I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior. Or the alternative, you can track it therefore you assign a disproportionate amount of value to it versus the things that are harder to track.

rickdeckard 1y ago

I'd say the metric is simply "if it's suddenly louder than the content before, we have the users attention and eyeballs". > But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;) Frankly, if the volume is too high I think the annoyance would be mostly directed towards the entire service playing ads at all, not the maker of the individual ad.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
> In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;) This really just tells me that either I'm an outlier (probably) or advertisers are morons If I remember something annoyed me with an ad, I will move heaven and earth to avoid their product I loathe advertising in general and the more intrusive it is the less I want your product. I keep a shit list of particularly irritating brands and go out of my way to avoid them
- dahart 1y ago
  Personally I feel like keeping a list of annoying ad brands and avoiding them would take up too much of my mental space, and it would lead me occasionally to bad purchasing decisions. Advertising is what it is, sometimes manipulative and sometimes very annoying, but basically all companies have to do it and they tend to do what works and behave similarly. As long as I have a choice, I’ll avoid advertising in general, regardless of whether it’s annoying. There is evidence that louder ads work: https://news.nd.edu/news/loud-and-clear-high-energy-ads-keep-viewers-tuned-in-study-shows/ https://news.nd.edu/news/loud-and-clear-high-energy-ads-keep... This feel unsurprising to me given the long known fact that people tend to rate audio quality based on volume. (It’s what the stereo sales scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High was based on.)
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > Advertising is what it is, sometimes manipulative and sometimes very annoying I think the difference between you and I is that I think it is always manipulative, and therefore is always very annoying There are no honest advertisers. Only scum.
    - dahart 1y ago
      I could agree that advertising is ‘always manipulative’ in the sense that, of course, it always seeks to sell you something and hope you’re swayed into buying. Most of it isn’t secretly or overtly manipulative, most of it is someone saying out loud “here’s my thing, buy it”. > There are no honest advertisers. Only scum. That’s a step too far, IMO, and before saying that you should at least reflect on how some advertising somewhere likely benefits you. There are many kinds of advertising. Advertising is not necessarily dishonest. If you work for a for-profit company, your company probably advertises. If you work for a non-profit company, your company probably advertises. If you work for a government agency, your org probably advertises. Advertising is any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist. If you’re only talking about a subset of that, we should discuss how you’re defining advertising. We are chatting on the website of a venture capital company. This very forum you’re using is a subtle advertisement, and a significant portion of the chatter here is about how to start a company, including marketing and advertising. The type of ad/marketing that HN is is neither annoying nor manipulative. If you ever start your own company - and I recommend it - that’s when you learn the fact that advertising is both absolutely necessary and fairly difficult to do well. If you ever do anything in public, announcing it is advertising. The vast majority of companies advertise, as do many government and non-profit and public-interest organizations, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Advertising is a huge part of the business model that funds the arts in the US, and without it, we’d have a lot fewer plays, dancing, and music.

neves 1y ago

I don't mind ads in the beginning of movies, but I hate with my full heart all companies and products that interrupt a tense scene

rkomorn 1y ago
Sorry for the mini rant but... One of the things that annoy me about TV shows is that the pacing on shows that were designed for network TV with ads is so predictable you can know whenever a tense scene is going to have an interesting outcome or not. Tension somewhere between the usual ad boundaries? Nothing's happening. Tension near the 7 or 10 minute boundaries (depending on 30 or 60 minute shows)? Something's gonna happen. It makes TV shows predictable even when watched on an ad-free platform.
- wingspar 1y ago
  I think that is bumping into the standard three-act structure common in fictional narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Maybe if you consider that the "three-act" structure is forced onto 20 and 40 minute runtime shows at precise time windows. What I'm talking about is far less visible, if at all, in adless 60-minute runtime episodes. Edit: and "what I'm talking about" is clear before-the-ad cliffhangers with after-the-ad "rewards" in the form of events that advance the plot.
randycupertino 1y ago
> all companies and products that interrupt a tense scene reply Like the PEPSI vending machine, brightly lit up and just happened to be there PERFECTLY working order in the middle of an apocalypse to provide a refreshing Pepsi to Brad Pitt at the tense zombie cat-and-mouse moment in World War Z? https://youtu.be/XzMhRnpTrL0?si=8FqSm_42Cx9sZE4R&t=93 https://youtu.be/XzMhRnpTrL0?si=8FqSm_42Cx9sZE4R&t=93

s1mplicissimus 1y ago

Unfortunately that's not how human attention works. Being annoyed (or really having any strong emotional reaction) causes the ad to have a stronger impression on your memory. Now pair that with "autopilot mode" while shopping and you have a desirable (for the business) outcome.

netsharc 1y ago
I still avoid some products because their maker paid the local version of the insufferable Simon Cowell to promote their products.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  YOU still avoid. But not the vast majority of consumers.

everdrive 1y ago

Whether or not this actually turns into purchases, I would imagine that obnoxious == memorable, and therefore advertising companies believe more memorable ads will turn into more purchases.

AdrianAvtomat 1y ago

I tend to believe this is some form of Goodhart's law running amok, but when I see obnoxious ads converting I have to wonder if the emotional response eventually boils off leaving behind that sweet sweet brand awareness.

immibis 1y ago

AFAIK even annoying people with ads still makes them more likely to buy your product. Even making people think "ugh, I'll never buy that" still makes them more likely to buy that. They do this stuff because it works. Even if you think it doesn't work, it still works.

OkayPhysicist 1y ago

My personal little doomsday theory is that the entirety of the advertising industry is built on faulty data. Approximately no one has the complete data set to determine how much an ad is worth. For direct ads ("enter promo code BLAH", "Click Here to check out the new...", there's hard data. But most of the perceived value of advertising is different: The company buying the ads has zero chance of knowing if someone seeing a car ad on YouTube 6 months ago factored into their decision to purchase a different car by the same manufacturer. Maybe the advertising platform has a chance of knowing (though Google AdSense has never asked me for my sales data), but they are strongly motivated to never reveal any results that would damage their industry. The platforms that serve the ads have no reason to thoroughly vet whether ad impressions are being accurately measured because error is almost always in their favor. Basically, nobody has the data because anybody who could have the data is incentivized to not look at it. That's the recipe for a rather long-lived bubble, one which if it popped (say, some short trader targeting the entirety of tech industry) would fundamentally change the tech industry. In short, I don't think making me watch a video of a truck for a couple seconds should be worth a nickel.