3 ms·

I keep hearing this same story over and over. It's starting to sound like that's just Google's business model.

by weare138 14d ago

tokioyoyo 14d ago
But in large, it works. We only hear from people for whom it doesn’t work.
- aorloff 14d ago
  I think Google's business model in large part is having a super complicated ad console that very few, if anyone, actually knows how to most efficiently operate. So what happens is that the savvy media teams figure out what works through meticulous trial and error, and constantly monitor Googles weird changes to the levers you are given to operate the "console."
  - jfoster 14d ago
    That seems in the interest of the savvy media teams, but surely Google would be better off having a market that encourages all healthy competition?
    - aorloff 14d ago
      Would the casinos benefit from a careful presentation of the mathematical odds of all the games and how to best position your wagers ? Or would they benefit by seeming like a fantastic place to wine, dine, splurge on things you can spend money on, and also make a few wagers on fun betting games while you are at it ? The advertising market is a place that used to be dominated by the big advertisers meeting with the big networks (upfronts), but now is dominated by large platforms that only marginally care about the biggest users because the tail is so long
  - tokioyoyo 14d ago
    For a good chunk of businesses, ROI tracking is really not that hard. It gets harder as your business becomes larger, or oriented more towards B2B, or in specialized niches, or online only businesses. I know first hand small/medium businesses (whom I've helped myself in the past) that basically survive on traffic coming from ads. Obviously it all depends*. But I just wanted to chime in that it's not all totally useless, and "nobody clicks on ads". Us (tech-adjacent people), are less likely to be prone to it, but still get swindled through other sort of ads as well. It works more effectively for people not in our group. And keep in mind, we're in extreme tiny minority.
    - baxtr 14d ago
      Google makes a ton of money. It has to come from somewhere… so yes definitely agree that even though it’s hard to imagine for some people in the HN bubble, ads seem to be working for most people.
      - chadgpt3 14d ago
        They are working meaning people keep buying them. This has nothing to do with ROAS. This developer gave Google $220 of revenue.
        bcrl 14d ago
        $220 is irrelevant to Google. The bot farms spend more. Hence, the small honest customer is not worth supporting when the large malicious customer will generate orders of magnitude more revenue. Viewed through the profit incentive, the end result makes perfect sense. Perverse incentives will only change when regulators are made to care.
      - malfist 14d ago
        Ads seem to be working for most people or are people in protection racket where they have to pay to fend off the mobster from plastering the front of their store with roadblocks and directions to a competitor?
    - aorloff 14d ago
jfoster 14d ago
I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly no reason. Wouldn't maximizing all legitimate participation be much better? Also seems a lot more possible to do now with AI to check all campaigns, landing pages, etc.
- ra 14d ago
  I imagine it's a side-effect of another fraud prevention effort. In my experience ad fraud on a google search ad is at least 17% of traffic, and potentially a lot more. Whilst I don't doubt that Google invest heavily in fraud prevention, they're not actually succeeding.
  - e40 14d ago
    Who benefits from the fraud, though?
    - bflesch 14d ago
      Google is fleecing other megacorps.
    - losteric 14d ago
      Spam website owners pay for these bots, they get compensated for the conversions. In an ideal world, google’s ad prices and fraud detection would render this ineffective.
  - nikanj 14d ago
    Without the fraud prevention, it would be 99.9998%. Pushing it to 17% is impressive, even if not sufficient
- weare138 14d ago
  Hypothetically you would have already paid for the ads before your account gets suspended/banned then hypothetically Google just keep sending you automated replies denying your requests for support until you give up or lawyer up. And when you consider the shear scale Google's adtech networks run at, this would add up fast and generate revenue over costs. Hypothetically
latexr 14d ago
In fairness to Google, it’s not like they didn’t warn us. The service is called “Ad Mob”, after all. “Nice app you got there. It would be a shame if your account got banned.”
deleted 14d ago
[deleted]
whstl 14d ago
I know a company that spends >15M per year on Google ads, and Google blocked one campaign on a Friday night claiming it was fraud, in the middle of a hot sales season. Took the rep two weeks to actually find out what happened. It's just how the whole company operates at this point.
- easyThrowaway 12d ago
  If you spend that much money on ads you should be a Google Ad partner, and you usually get to have a dedicated, on-call support agent directly from Google. We had a similar situation arise once (big marketing agency in EU), up to that day I've never had heard anyone screaming so loud at someone than my boss to whatever poor soul was assigned to us by Google.

I keep hearing this same story over and over. It's starting to sound like that's just Google's business model.

tokioyoyo 14d ago

But in large, it works. We only hear from people for whom it doesn’t work.

aorloff 14d ago
I think Google's business model in large part is having a super complicated ad console that very few, if anyone, actually knows how to most efficiently operate. So what happens is that the savvy media teams figure out what works through meticulous trial and error, and constantly monitor Googles weird changes to the levers you are given to operate the "console."
- jfoster 14d ago
  That seems in the interest of the savvy media teams, but surely Google would be better off having a market that encourages all healthy competition?
  - aorloff 14d ago
    Would the casinos benefit from a careful presentation of the mathematical odds of all the games and how to best position your wagers ? Or would they benefit by seeming like a fantastic place to wine, dine, splurge on things you can spend money on, and also make a few wagers on fun betting games while you are at it ? The advertising market is a place that used to be dominated by the big advertisers meeting with the big networks (upfronts), but now is dominated by large platforms that only marginally care about the biggest users because the tail is so long
- tokioyoyo 14d ago
  For a good chunk of businesses, ROI tracking is really not that hard. It gets harder as your business becomes larger, or oriented more towards B2B, or in specialized niches, or online only businesses. I know first hand small/medium businesses (whom I've helped myself in the past) that basically survive on traffic coming from ads. Obviously it all depends*. But I just wanted to chime in that it's not all totally useless, and "nobody clicks on ads". Us (tech-adjacent people), are less likely to be prone to it, but still get swindled through other sort of ads as well. It works more effectively for people not in our group. And keep in mind, we're in extreme tiny minority.
  - baxtr 14d ago
    Google makes a ton of money. It has to come from somewhere… so yes definitely agree that even though it’s hard to imagine for some people in the HN bubble, ads seem to be working for most people.
    - chadgpt3 14d ago
      They are working meaning people keep buying them. This has nothing to do with ROAS. This developer gave Google $220 of revenue.
      - bcrl 14d ago
        $220 is irrelevant to Google. The bot farms spend more. Hence, the small honest customer is not worth supporting when the large malicious customer will generate orders of magnitude more revenue. Viewed through the profit incentive, the end result makes perfect sense. Perverse incentives will only change when regulators are made to care.
    - malfist 14d ago
      Ads seem to be working for most people or are people in protection racket where they have to pay to fend off the mobster from plastering the front of their store with roadblocks and directions to a competitor?
  - aorloff 14d ago

jfoster 14d ago

I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly no reason. Wouldn't maximizing all legitimate participation be much better? Also seems a lot more possible to do now with AI to check all campaigns, landing pages, etc.

ra 14d ago
I imagine it's a side-effect of another fraud prevention effort. In my experience ad fraud on a google search ad is at least 17% of traffic, and potentially a lot more. Whilst I don't doubt that Google invest heavily in fraud prevention, they're not actually succeeding.
- e40 14d ago
  Who benefits from the fraud, though?
  - bflesch 14d ago
    Google is fleecing other megacorps.
  - losteric 14d ago
    Spam website owners pay for these bots, they get compensated for the conversions. In an ideal world, google’s ad prices and fraud detection would render this ineffective.
- nikanj 14d ago
  Without the fraud prevention, it would be 99.9998%. Pushing it to 17% is impressive, even if not sufficient
weare138 14d ago
Hypothetically you would have already paid for the ads before your account gets suspended/banned then hypothetically Google just keep sending you automated replies denying your requests for support until you give up or lawyer up. And when you consider the shear scale Google's adtech networks run at, this would add up fast and generate revenue over costs. Hypothetically

latexr 14d ago

In fairness to Google, it’s not like they didn’t warn us. The service is called “Ad Mob”, after all. “Nice app you got there. It would be a shame if your account got banned.”

deleted 14d ago

[deleted]

whstl 14d ago

I know a company that spends >15M per year on Google ads, and Google blocked one campaign on a Friday night claiming it was fraud, in the middle of a hot sales season. Took the rep two weeks to actually find out what happened. It's just how the whole company operates at this point.

easyThrowaway 12d ago
If you spend that much money on ads you should be a Google Ad partner, and you usually get to have a dedicated, on-call support agent directly from Google. We had a similar situation arise once (big marketing agency in EU), up to that day I've never had heard anyone screaming so loud at someone than my boss to whatever poor soul was assigned to us by Google.