Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4753 > unrolled thread

A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-09 02:57 +0000
    Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-09-09 07:58 +0000
    Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-09-09 20:15 +1000
    Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-09-09 16:14 +0000
      Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-09 19:23 +0000
        Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-09-10 09:18 -0400
          Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-10 16:28 +0000
          Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-10 16:37 -0300
            Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-09-10 20:10 +0000
            Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-10 20:35 -0400
              Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-11 10:24 +0300
            Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-13 10:51 +0200
              Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-13 15:51 -0300
          Re: A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-13 04:17 +0200

#4753 — A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-dangerous-question-does-internet-advertising-work-at-all/372704/?single_page=true

   Nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is responsible for perhaps
   the most repeated line in marketing: "Half the money I spend on
   advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half."

   Today, marketers are grappling with the Wanamaker Paradox: The more we
   learn which half of advertising is working, the more we realize we're
   wasting way more than half.

   Perhaps you're nodding your head about now. Most people you know don't
   click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting
   closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and
   exactly how ineffective they are. It's not a pretty picture.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4755

On 2014-09-09 02:57:18 +0000, Rich said:
> 
>    Perhaps you're nodding your head about now. Most people you know don't
>    click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting
>    closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and
>    exactly how ineffective they are. It's not a pretty picture.

That's a great quote.  Internet advertising is working on me, probably, 
but it's hard to figure out how.  My life is almost totally digital now 
– I prefer ebooks, read digital magazines, and don't receive much paper 
in the mail.  So I'm being exposed to products.

But Barnes & Noble (my ebook retailer) constantly "recommends" to me 
books I'd be loathe to read.  So their advertising is being wasted.  
I'm trying to remember the last time I clicked on a banner ad - I'm 
lucky if it's once per year.

I /am/ susceptible to forums like this one where someone says "I used X 
to solve Y problem" and I then go look up X to see what it's all about. 
 I'd say word gets around on the Internet, but I'm not sure banner ads 
– even Google's hyper-algorithm super expert software statistically 
identified ones – are having any effect on me at all.

But then, I'm on Usenet - not exactly Madison Avenue's target audience 
these days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4757

On 9/9/2014 12:57 PM, Rich wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-dangerous-question-does-internet-advertising-work-at-all/372704/?single_page=true
>
>     Nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is responsible for perhaps
>     the most repeated line in marketing: "Half the money I spend on
>     advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half."
>
>     Today, marketers are grappling with the Wanamaker Paradox: The more we
>     learn which half of advertising is working, the more we realize we're
>     wasting way more than half.
>
>     Perhaps you're nodding your head about now. Most people you know don't
>     click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting
>     closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and
>     exactly how ineffective they are. It's not a pretty picture.
>
>     ...
>

Well, I started seeing advertisements for my dentist on YouTube. So I 
thought, "he's trying to get more patients, but he's already booked out."

"Ah, " I said, "he wants to put his prices up."

So I moved to different dentist.

It worked for me.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4760

On 2014-09-09, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-dangerous-question-does-internet-advertising-work-at-all/372704/?single_page=true
>
>    Nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is responsible for perhaps
>    the most repeated line in marketing: "Half the money I spend on
>    advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half."
>
>    Today, marketers are grappling with the Wanamaker Paradox: The more we
>    learn which half of advertising is working, the more we realize we're
>    wasting way more than half.
>
>    Perhaps you're nodding your head about now. Most people you know don't
>    click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting
>    closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and
>    exactly how ineffective they are. It's not a pretty picture.
>
>    ...

It certainly works for those content providers for whom it is their only
source of income, and Google seems to be fairly solvent.  

I make a point of clicking on interesting adverts on 'free' websites I
like; it's the only way I have of encouraging those sites to continue
doing what I like them doing.  But I'm not aware of any purchases that I
wouldn't have made without first seeing an advert on the web.  However,
I have visited or taken part in 'events' which I first learned about on
line - so that publicity certainly 'worked' for all concerned.

I do block web adverts from companies whose practices or reputations I
find obnoxious or intrusive, and I'm selective about which 'cookies' I
allow to persist.  So those efforts are wasted on me.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4768

On 2014-09-09, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-09-09, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/a-dangerous-question-does-internet-advertising-work-at-all/372704/?single_page=true
>>
>>    Nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is responsible for perhaps
>>    the most repeated line in marketing: "Half the money I spend on
>>    advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half."
>>
>>    Today, marketers are grappling with the Wanamaker Paradox: The more we
>>    learn which half of advertising is working, the more we realize we're
>>    wasting way more than half.
>>
>>    Perhaps you're nodding your head about now. Most people you know don't
>>    click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting
>>    closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and
>>    exactly how ineffective they are. It's not a pretty picture.
>>
>>    ...
>
> It certainly works for those content providers for whom it is their only
> source of income, and Google seems to be fairly solvent.  

There's advertising on the Internet? Who knew?

(Adblock+, Flashblock, Ghostery & a big hosts file.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4793

On 9 Sep 2014 19:23:19 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2014-09-09, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

>
>There's advertising on the Internet? Who knew?
>
>(Adblock+, Flashblock, Ghostery & a big hosts file.)


I think advertising on the Internet works about as well as advertising
anywhere else. Measuring it by click-count is a fools game, though;
how many people immediately pick up the phone when they see an advert
in the paper or on TV? Advertising is not about direct results, it's
about getting your product and image lodged in the unconscious. The
focus on clicks has never been accurate, and - by making the ads ever
more obnoxious in order to generate those clicks - has only worked
against advertisers by pushing people towards adblockers.

That, and advertising has so completely inundated our lives that in
order to maintain any semblence of sanity I have to consciously block
it even while walking down the street. It's in our newspapers, books,
TV, Internet, radio, on our clothes, our cars, and even on our food
packaging. It's everywhere. Want ads to be more effective, Mr.
Marketeer? Have less of it around so when I actually see an
advertisment it will actually be noteworthy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4795

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2014 19:23:19 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> >On 2014-09-09, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

> >
> >There's advertising on the Internet? Who knew?
> >
> >(Adblock+, Flashblock, Ghostery & a big hosts file.)


> I think advertising on the Internet works about as well as
> advertising anywhere else. Measuring it by click-count is a fools
> game, though; how many people immediately pick up the phone when they
> see an advert in the paper or on TV? Advertising is not about direct
> results, it's about getting your product and image lodged in the
> unconscious. The focus on clicks has never been accurate, and - by
> making the ads ever more obnoxious in order to generate those clicks
> - has only worked against advertisers by pushing people towards
> adblockers.

And this is the root cause of the problem.  When an advertiser runs a
print ad in a newspaper or magazine, the most they get is either a
"subscriber count" or a "issue sales count" that one million copies
were printed and distributed to readers.

But they have zero way to know how many readers actually saw the ad.

Yet, somehow, with the internet they wanted to know exactly how many
people directly responded to the add, hense the "pay to click through"
model.

Although all this likely shows is that they would have loved to have a
"pay per click" model for print, television, and/or radio, but as there
was zero way to make such feasable, they didn't try.

> ... It's everywhere. Want ads to be more effective, Mr. Marketeer?
> Have less of it around so when I actually see an advertisment it will
> actually be noteworthy.

Oh so true....  But 100% counter to the very ideals of Mr. Marketeer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4809

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> That, and advertising has so completely inundated our lives that in
> order to maintain any semblence of sanity I have to consciously block
> it even while walking down the street. It's in our newspapers, books,
> TV, Internet, radio, on our clothes, our cars, and even on our food
> packaging. It's everywhere. Want ads to be more effective, Mr.
> Marketeer? Have less of it around so when I actually see an
> advertisment it will actually be noteworthy.

At home I use Netscape 4.76 with js, stylesheets and images disabled.
Recently I bought a new laptop, installed the latest Slackware, so's
to be able to go out to wi-fi-land to fetch big data lumps such as new
Linux distros or reference data without hogging the phone for days at
a time.  And every time I run Firefox on wi-fi I'm just *shocked*,
totally gobsmacked, to see how much advertizing crap I've been
missing.  Not to mention the banners, icons, stock photos, 50K
pictures of 5-letter words etc. etc all laid out by someone with the
same aesthics as the people who design the the glossy advertizing
blow-ins for K-Mart.  It's just visually nasty out there. I'm fher nf
fuvg not going to buy a product that scatters visual pigeon poo on the
screen of *my* network tool.



-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4811

On 2014-09-10, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> That, and advertising has so completely inundated our lives that in
>> order to maintain any semblence of sanity I have to consciously block
>> it even while walking down the street. It's in our newspapers, books,
>> TV, Internet, radio, on our clothes, our cars, and even on our food
>> packaging. It's everywhere. Want ads to be more effective, Mr.
>> Marketeer? Have less of it around so when I actually see an
>> advertisment it will actually be noteworthy.
>
> At home I use Netscape 4.76 with js, stylesheets and images disabled.
> Recently I bought a new laptop, installed the latest Slackware, so's
> to be able to go out to wi-fi-land to fetch big data lumps such as new
> Linux distros or reference data without hogging the phone for days at
> a time.  And every time I run Firefox on wi-fi I'm just *shocked*,
> totally gobsmacked, to see how much advertizing crap I've been
> missing.  Not to mention the banners, icons, stock photos, 50K
> pictures of 5-letter words etc. etc all laid out by someone with the
> same aesthics as the people who design the the glossy advertizing
> blow-ins for K-Mart.  It's just visually nasty out there. I'm fher nf
> fuvg not going to buy a product that scatters visual pigeon poo on the
> screen of *my* network tool.

Try running something like 'Etherape' in one window while using a fully
loaded graphical browser in another; the number of different URLs
connected to is quite staggering sometimes.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4815

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Mike Spencer wrote:

>
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> That, and advertising has so completely inundated our lives that in
>> order to maintain any semblence of sanity I have to consciously block
>> it even while walking down the street. It's in our newspapers, books,
>> TV, Internet, radio, on our clothes, our cars, and even on our food
>> packaging. It's everywhere. Want ads to be more effective, Mr.
>> Marketeer? Have less of it around so when I actually see an
>> advertisment it will actually be noteworthy.
>
> At home I use Netscape 4.76 with js, stylesheets and images disabled.
> Recently I bought a new laptop, installed the latest Slackware, so's
> to be able to go out to wi-fi-land to fetch big data lumps such as new
> Linux distros or reference data without hogging the phone for days at
> a time.  And every time I run Firefox on wi-fi I'm just *shocked*,
> totally gobsmacked, to see how much advertizing crap I've been
> missing.  Not to mention the banners, icons, stock photos, 50K
> pictures of 5-letter words etc. etc all laid out by someone with the
> same aesthics as the people who design the the glossy advertizing
> blow-ins for K-Mart.  It's just visually nasty out there. I'm fher nf
> fuvg not going to buy a product that scatters visual pigeon poo on the
> screen of *my* network tool.
>
It gets worse.  For some weird reason, I can't sign out of gmail on my 
Microsoft Surface 2 tablet (I won it in a contest), so it really tracks me 
well.  I'll check something at llBean, and wham, I keep seeing those 
clearance shoes all over the place.  I check Mountain Equipment Coop last 
night, and then an hour later, wham, their ad was on a webpage.

I realize there's no magic, they are displaying ads to match me, but under 
those conditions, it's no longer vague ads that I won't buy from, it's 
things I was looking at and they keep nagging at me, as if I was really 
going to buy, rather than merely looking at it wondering if it was 
suitable to buy.  Nagging me won't make me buy sooner.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4816

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

> I realize there's no magic, they are displaying ads to match me, but
> under those conditions, it's no longer vague ads that I won't buy
> from, it's things I was looking at and they keep nagging at me, as if
> I was really going to buy, rather than merely looking at it wondering
> if it was suitable to buy.  Nagging me won't make me buy sooner.

Yeah. I've heard also that the ads will keep nagging at you even if you
buy. It just keeps coming. But maybe that's better than them pushing
accessories or batteries or shoelaces to things you bought in the past?
That would probably feel rather uncomfortable...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4865

On 2014-09-10, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
> At home I use Netscape 4.76 with js, stylesheets and images disabled.
> Recently I bought a new laptop, installed the latest Slackware, so's
> to be able to go out to wi-fi-land to fetch big data lumps such as new
> Linux distros or reference data without hogging the phone for days at
> a time.  And every time I run Firefox on wi-fi I'm just *shocked*,
> totally gobsmacked, to see how much advertizing crap I've been
> missing.  Not to mention the banners, icons, stock photos, 50K
> pictures of 5-letter words etc. etc all laid out by someone with the
> same aesthics as the people who design the the glossy advertizing
> blow-ins for K-Mart.  It's just visually nasty out there. I'm fher nf
> fuvg not going to buy a product that scatters visual pigeon poo on the
> screen of *my* network tool.

My experience in 2010 when I got thrown into the Windows Server world was
very similar to yours.

My introduction to the Bad Things That Can Happen with Javascript enabled
came circa 2000 when a spam post to a newsgroup tried to redirect me to a
hard porn site.  Fortunately I caught it in time but it could have been
very embarrassing in an open plan office.  As it happened I had initiated
Netscape from the command line and a swift Ctrl-C killed the browser
window immediately.

The other thing Javascript was guilty of was refreshing a newspaper page
on my home system so that they could display a ticker tape.  This was when
I was on dialup so it hit my phone bill. Nobody messes with my phone
bill...

Anyway, I had got into the habit of disabling Javascript unless really
needed but in 2010 I was all of a sudden using a locked down XP system at
work that I couldn't tailor myself *and* had to visit Windows-centric
technical sites.

It wasn't the presence of ads on the sites I had traditionally visited
that shocked me but the sheer amount of crap on the Windows centric, so-
called technical sites.  Various of those sites employ devious methods to
make it difficult to locate the download you are really after; even with
concentration you can download some registry cleaner or other "go faster"
tool without wanting to.

The net outcome was that I managed to get a Windows 7 box that I
controlled where I was free to employ NoScript, ad blockers and change the
download behaviour to simply dump stuff to disk without opening it.

The majority of folks who don't know how to do that really are exposed to
a tremendous amount of rubbish.

-- 
People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know
we don't                                           -- Bjarne Stroustrup

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4877

Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> writes:

> It wasn't the presence of ads on the sites I had traditionally visited
> that shocked me but the sheer amount of crap on the Windows centric, so-
> called technical sites.

It's amazing [1] how the sites that actually want to *sell* you
something make it almost impossible to navigate to meaninfull, or any
particular, content.  Sites by Just Some Guy with opinions or useful
free info tend to be plain and simple.  Huh.  If I can find detailed
technical info for my aging FooWizard DigitalDevice, I'm likely to buy
a new FooWizard when it fails. Not if the FooWizard site is
impenetrable. 


[1] Or maybe it isn't amazing, seeing as how such vendors have whole
    Web Design Departments which in turn have a vested interest in
    maximizing "deliverables" and are judged by non-technical senior
    managers who periodically glance over the eye candy.


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4861

On 2014-09-10, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think advertising on the Internet works about as well as advertising
> anywhere else. Measuring it by click-count is a fools game, though;
> how many people immediately pick up the phone when they see an advert
> in the paper or on TV? Advertising is not about direct results, it's
> about getting your product and image lodged in the unconscious.

Agreed for the majority of TV advertising (the exceptions being the ads
which feature a telephone number and encouragement to Call Now).

I am reminded of a story I read a few years ago where someone in the
marketing department of a pharmaceutical company had worked out that they
could cut a decent amount from the advertising budget for a certain
product and still get the same results.  When they put this idea forward
it was vehemently rejected by management, who knew the value of blanket
coverage to as you say "lodge it in the unconscious".

> That, and advertising has so completely inundated our lives that in
> order to maintain any semblence of sanity I have to consciously block
> it even while walking down the street.

I'm a compulsive reader and cannot avoid reading adverts wherever they
are.  Indeed when I'm travelling I take an active interest in them as they
give me an insight into the culture.  Since the early 80s I have spent
more time in Europe than the UK and have constantly used adverts as a
source of new phrases in other languages.

Having said that my parents went to great lengths when I was young to drill
into us that we should take adverts with a pinch of salt, and that does
seem to have sunk in.

> It's in our newspapers, books, TV, Internet, radio, on our clothes, our
> cars, and even on our food packaging. It's everywhere. Want ads to be
> more effective, Mr. Marketeer? Have less of it around so when I actually
> see an advertisment it will actually be noteworthy.

I found the dearth of adverts in the bits of Africa I have been to very
refreshing and even educational (getting a feel for the local culture as
I mentioned above).  Of course you would still come across a small kiosk
in the middle of nowhere sporting Coca Cola or Pepsi ads, but that was
probably how they financed their fridge :-)


-- 
People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know
we don't                                           -- Bjarne Stroustrup

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web