Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mywittyname 2266 days ago
Well, we are a collection of people with our own independent thoughts and feelings on subjects, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some people feel the opposite of others are a variety of subjects.

Though, to be honest, I don't think I've heard #2. I think any rational person understands that advertising has some degree of effectiveness. After all, many bright minds from a variety of hard sciences have spent decades of their lives, and extraordinary sums of money studying human behavior for the explicit purpose of selling more shit. Many of the largest companies in the world are advertising companies; before Google and Facebook there was the TV and Radio giants, who were massive, in spite of pretty serious regulations.

None of this would have happened if advertising wasn't effective. At some point in time, people would have realized it didn't work and spent their money elsewhere.

There are two big issues that I see:

1) More views have driven down bids for ad views. The ad industry is largely driven by companies bidding for views, so without a large influx of cash, the spike in views was going to depress ad impression prices.

2) Consumers have less discretionary money to spend, even if they wanted to, so the ROI on each view/click is going down.

Each of those alone would be cause for concern, but combined, they do pose a significant issue for Google, Facebook, and smaller content creators.

1 comments

I sometimes say something vaguely like #2. And it doesn't conflict with #1. The argument is this:

- A lot of advertising is effective, and a lot the effectiveness boils down to lies, manipulation and general dishonesty.

- Ad attribution - i.e. tracing how much money spent on what advertising resulted in how much profit and when - is a hard problem. It's easy to make mistakes with it, and it's also easy to lie and not get caught.

- Most people involved aren't exactly experts in statistics. That's especially true for small businesses, which don't have money or institutional expertise to hire talent just to evaluate their ad spend.

- Which means people trust they aren't being bullshitted by the very industry that specializes in lies and manipulation.

I've seen this play out in real life myself; I vividly remember working next desk to social media marketers who were clueless at maths. They'd take the numbers and graphs from Facebook's panel, write up stories that made these numbers always sound like everything is going perfectly, and send such reports to the customers who were even more mathematically clueless, and thus incapable of verifying whether the numbers and the story presented add up.

The way I see it: some advertising is effective sometimes, but you don't know which one is effective and when, it's mighty hard to figure that out, and the advertisers have every incentive to confuse the issue for you.

(Note that they'll also happily confuse the issue for themselves, too. The industry consists of a lot of players building their products and services on top of each others' products and services; there's a lot of competition happening, and there's plenty of incentive to use the same advertising tactics within the industry as outside.)