I remember reading the tobacco industry was actually secretly grateful when the EU banned them from advertising.
As I remember it, they were in a stale-mate. The market was pretty much divided up. Most people were loyal to their brand and that was that. Despite that, they were spending a massive amount of money on advertising even though their market shares remained unchanged.
The reason was that if one of them stopped funnelling massive amounts of cash into advertising, they would lose a big chunk of their market share to the others. So they were all paying mostly to maintain the status quo.
With the ban on advertising, the amount of money saved greatly outweighed the revenue lost as others couldn't advertise either so it really only affected new smokers rather than convince current smokers to switch brands.
I see a similar thing happening in my line of work. In our niche of e-commerce every player of importance works with the same online marketing networks and paying rather a lot per sale or click.
There's a whole lot of sites out there which basically exist to infest organic search results, send traffic to us and our competitors and collect their referral fee from the advertising network. They add no value[1]. Without them, the customer would have been similarly divided amongst the competition as well without having to pay for it. Yet, if we stop paying them, we'll lose a lot of business as our competitors will continue to do so.
Disclaimer: this is all as I understand it and in no way my employers opinion or persepctive ;)
1) Some do, by providing extra information or ranking the shops by what's best for the consumer (price, reviews) rather than the most cash-per-click.
Tobacco advertising was never about trying to persuade existing smokers to switch brands - that was the 'cover story'. In reality it was about trying to persuade young people to smoke their brand rather than some other brand. By young people < 21 years old - people do not start smoking once they get past those formative years. Sure the marketing message was different to what Kellogg's have for Coco Pops, however, the 'sophistication' of the imagery was very much targeted at young people wanting to be 'adult'.
Everything tobacco is controversial, however, how does this relate to online advertising for regular things? The only people who haven't heard of eBay will be people too young to have seen the adverts already. Same with every other brand. Everyone will know you can get everything and anything from Amazon. But there will always be this new supply of kids getting old enough to have their own debit card, they will also have impressionable minds and not have their habits cast in stone. Therefore the high pay per sale per click is actually about getting new life-long customers, in much the same way as it was for Big Tobacco.
The tobacco adverts appeared to be about persuading existing smokers to switch brands yet they had this secret darkside 'get em young' agenda. With online adverts there may be genuine 'switch brands' thinking to it yet in reality all that is effective is 'get em young', where this 'get em young' idea is not even being thought about or being looked for in the analytics.
I think they do a good job via product placement in movies and shows. Sometimes they are in "historic" or period pieces. I mean the ones create today by portraying historical periods. Sometimes there is what seems like a deliberate advertising or showing off someone lighting up. Sometimes it is cool villains so it works on a more subtle level "Oh see we are only show bad guys smoking, so we are dissuading young people to smoke".
In the branding world, the general philosphy is that PR and word of mouth build brands and advertising defends brands and market share.
In your theory, if advertising stopped existing the world would save a ton of money and everyone would maintain market share... but since brands are built on PR and Word of Mouth, brands will always be at risk if they can't advertise and keep you on the forefront of their mind.
They might not lose market share to other big brands, but new brands with a fresh positioning will be able to uproot their position.
Advertising creates a disincentive for trying unknown products. Combine this with brand loyalty from good PR, and you keep control of your market share.
This is well illustrated with Ironbru in Scotland. Lucozade and Tango in the UK in general. The introduction of Fanta into the North American market too, I knew it from the UK and one of the last flavours introduced was actually Fanta Orange (the most popular one in the UK, direct rival with Tango) due to the saturated market for that type of drink.
Because advertising typically reinforces a products quality. Why would you try a no name brand when you buy Heinz who is the leading national brand.
If you have a vending machine selling Coke, Pepsi and Joe's Discount Soda, you're going to go with Coke or Pepsi.
Personally (here in Canada) I prefer the Noname brand baked beans over the Heinz brand due to the Heinz brand over using the hickory flavouring. However, this is because I grew up in the UK and the Noname brand in Canada tastes exactly the same as the Heinz Baked Beans formulated for the UK market.
I actually continued to buy Heinz Baked Beans for a couple years before I finally gave in and bought one of every brand to get one that tasted like I was used to.
If it wasn't for the advertising I would have likely bought a different brand of beans within a month, not within a couple of years. Why? Because Heinz is the best, surely the others must taste worse! Since then I always try the store brand and lesser brands
That also describes presence at trade shows and conferences.
Quite often those are useless and costly in time and money. Yet companies do it because if they don't and the competitors do then everyone will ask "How come so and so wasn't at the show? Are they have financial issues?" and so on.
So companies spend money on booths and talks without getting much back except to stave off the appearance that something might be wrong.
There's also often a quid pro quo with partners. At a long ago employer, I remember when we decided to drop out of a show put on by a large ISV who was important to some big accounts but certainly wasn't a source for new business, our CEO got a call from their CEO and pretty much was told to get on board if we wanted the partnership to continue.
I've also seen big shows that creaked along for years until one or two major vendors in the space decided to stop exhibiting. Suddenly the emperor had no clothes and the show didn't last much longer.
(There's also just a lot of momentum and interest behind the status quo. Mind you, there can be a lot of value in sessions for attendees and, generally, just getting people together in one place. But a lot of money also goes into staging trade shows that's arguably not really necessary except for appearances sake.)
This has happened to me.
We decided last year to take our tradeshow budget and spend it on "point of purchase" materials for our resellers. This has worked well, sales are up 20% this year.
NB, while tobacco ads are banned from TV, they are still everywhere on outdoor advertising, at least here in Germany. Actually, I went on a "street art tour" that turned out to be sponsored by a cigarette company, and they were handing out free cigarettes. So: tobacco advertising is alive and well in Germany.
Australia is very different from that. They banned advertising to consumers in most ways. They still can put ads in magazines for retailers (because they aren't the end user).
Now we also have "plain packaging laws" which means packets cannot have the Tobacco companies design on it. They must be olive green and have government anti-smoking ads, and the product name in plaintext.
This reminds me of a fascinating article in The New Yorker called "Twilight of the Brands." [0] The author's basic argument is that brands have historically filled an information gap. Before the Internet, when consumers didn't have tons of on-demand info about products, brands were a compass that pointed them in the right direction. If the last Sylvania TV you bought worked well, you might buy another one without hunting down reviews for the new model.
Now that product info is ubiquitous, the author says, the role of brands and traditional advertising is declining. So, when I hear critiques about a particular form of online advertising, I think about the broader, more subtle ways in which websites influence our purchases. Companies are starting to pay more attention to online forums and social sites, which are more persuasive to consumers than traditional banner ads.
One place where marketers have gotten around this quite adeptly is Windows PCs and laptops.
Try searching for reviews on a laptop you find at Best Buy. There are none. The model number is 10+ random characters and completely meaningless. Comparison shopping between laptops on the basis of reviews is impossible. Consequently, they have you buying on 1) brand and 2) specs, which is right where they want you, and completely ignoring things like build quality and MTBF of parts which might be revealed by long-term reviews.
This is one of the (many) refreshing things about Apple. Macbook Pro is Macbook Pro until the next refresh.
> Try searching for reviews on a laptop you find at Best Buy. There are none. The model number is 10+ random characters and completely meaningless.
This is a problem for a number of users but I think you got the reasoning a bit wrong.
The real reason this is done is for the purpose of reducing price-match deals when other retailers have a discount on the same model.
I for one have never faced a problem finding reviews as a number of tech reviewers mention all model numbers in their posts.
Also, this is not limited to Windows PCs but to most high(er) ticket electronics like televisions.
> This is one of the (many) refreshing things about Apple. Macbook Pro is Macbook Pro until the next refresh.
While partially true, Apple does have multiple model numbers within the same generation, they just don't tell the customers about it. The models are based on hardware used. This makes any review somewhat inaccurate as different customers who bought the same product based on the same reviews from the same retailer may get marginally different hardware.
ex. Macbook Pro - Retina - mid-2012 - came with either a LG display or a Samsung. The LG displays had problems with image retention. A few Samsung had a yellow tint. And at the time of purchase the customer had no way to know which one they were buying.
Considering that your MBP screen issue is the same one always mentioned about Apple, and it was widely discussed online and screens got replaced under warranty, it seems to be the exception that proves the rule.
And it's way more pervasive than that. Companies who make appliances, mattresses, etc. have been doing this for decades. It enables them to say, "We'll beat anyone's advertised price!" Since all the major retailers are getting models tailored and numbered for their chain, they know they can do this with impunity. This is one of the reasons it's so hard to find the models Consumer Reports reviewed at your local retailer. You have to buy the one from that brand that's close enough.
I noticed this as well, but it just pushed me towards those kinds of companies that use reliable identifiers like Lenovo. I find that if a company is doing this kind of weird naming, they're probably not in the business of selling things based on quality.
I think Best Buy and co. do that to prevent them having to make good on "price matching" promises - everyone sells a different model (that really only differs by the model number), so since no-one sells "the same" model they can SAY they price-match without ever actually having to. I believe they do this for TVs too.
Ummm... I love my MBP but it's no way 'the' Macbook Pro until next refresh. I got a choice of two form factors and multiple hard drive/SSD, processor and RAM configurations.
The build quality is great, but don't pretend for a moment Apple don't play the specs game.
This isn't about meaningful variations. Go to Dell and HP's websites and see how many different ways (with different model numbers and sometimes even prices) you can configure a laptop with the same screen, processor, RAM, and hard drive.
I tried it at one point and stopped counting after around 10.
One big issue for me is that brands have become drastically less useful in predicting product quality.
Very few of the major brands that were big when I grew up in the '70s haven't thrown away their quality in favor of ... I'm not sure. Sony is a good example, even good through the '80s as well, as long as you didn't get something manufactured in Mexico with cold soldier joints, as my family back in SW Missouri did, fortunately they knew how to deal with that problem.
Today every purchase I make is proceeded by research, caution or whatever to make sure I'm still getting the same thing, or that the New And Improved version isn't significantly worse, or that the manufacturer hasn't thrown away quality in their new model.
For me, outside of some rare exceptions like Amazon, or some providers of higher end products, brand equity is all but dead. No amount of advertising can counteract the facts on the ground for someone who's been around long enough, and I'll bet even young whippersnappers are getting wise to this new scheme of things.
I think people underrate how much this benefits apple. While I'm sure there are people with different experiences, apple in general, and in my experience, don't sell shit products and stand behind what they sell. With a full motherboard changeout available at a local apple store if necessary. Contrast to hp: we had a hp laptop w/ a next business day in-home warranty that nonetheless spent a week or more in hp's repair shops on two occasions. I've also gotten new power bricks outside of warranty basically by asking nicely at the local apple store. It may be because I do spend a lot of money on apple gear, but I used to do that w/ dell and dell never gave a shit.
The brand I'm most surprised about is sears. They used to make great appliances and stand behind them until the private equity thieves fucked that all up. My partner runs a medium-sized apartment building; the owner is happy to pay for quality, and if sears cost less on the 10-15 year time frame they'd buy it. But sears is the same cheap crap, so they just buy whatever is close to cheapest at home depot.
When brands throw away their brand name and turn into the same cheap shit, you can't blame consumers for shopping just on price.
Well, Sears never actually made their white goods appliances, but they used to do a very good job of sourcing their Kenmore brand ones. That's what my mother, something of a Laundry Nazi, used when she was washing for my father, who hunted and did other things that got clothes dirty, and me, my sister ... and my two younger brothers. Serious cleaning required, which I helped with. Hummm, ditto refrigerators.
Now it's a don't even bother with them.
I don't know about your private equity compliant; are you referring to the late 2004 deal with K-Mart? I'm pretty sure Sears had already "lost it" by then, although I'd have to check to be absolutely sure about Kenmore appliances. If so, it took them only two years to completely lose it, because I bought a washer and dryer in 2007, started looking in Sears and then went with GE (in part because my family has a special relationship with the local dealer). Of course I learned my own Laundry Nazi style from my mother....
"When brands throw away their brand name and turn into the same cheap shit, you can't blame consumers for shopping just on price."
Bingo. There are times when I just give up trying to get something I have confidence in being good and roll the dice with price being a major factor.
Your mom got lucky. When Kenmore was good, they were OEMing Whirlpool stuff. When they weren't, they usually sucked.
The GE stuff that you mentioned actually buying is a similar crapshoot. Until recently, GE was offshoring most whitegoods, and the quality was mostly junk. If you got the stuff made in the US or a higher end line, it's usually ok. But you never know.
If you want quality in laundry, buy Speed Queen or other vendors that make most of their money selling to laundromats.
A few weeks ago a solenoid failed in that GE (it determines what the motor does to the drum and agitator), requiring a $250 repair after $45 for the visit to figure that out. I looked into buying a Speed Queen as an alternative, and based on Amazon reviews discovered a serious problem with their service. They apparently pay by the service call, so if e.g. the I gather old fashioned electromechanical timer breaks, you're fine, it's a obvious, quick replacement. But if you get a rare lemon, you're SOL.
Do you have names for other vendors that sell mostly to laundromats?
GE is now clearly declaring their current stuff is garbage, having dropped their warranty to 1 year, and the reviews confirm that. I ended up having the repair done; when combined with the fact that companies like GE get tax credits to make washers that year by year do a worse job by using less water and less hot water (something buying a Speed Queen avoids), I plan to keep pouring parts into my 2007 GE as long as that's feasible. It's got a good design.
Contrast to hp: we had a hp laptop w/ a next business day in-home warranty that nonetheless spent a week or more in hp's repair shops on two occasions.
Back before flat screens were good, I remember our company would source big old CRTs from a brand with 'on-site replacement'. Turns out this actually meant "Did you keep the box and packaging? We'll pay for the shipping back to the repair depot". Um, no, because the boxes are huge and so is the polystyrene foam packaging. "Sorry, warranty doesn't apply to you". Sorry, last time we buy your big monitors.
Similarly, the Toshiba customer support centre wouldn't talk to you unless you paid them $55 first. Uh... I just want ask about buying some technical manuals. Nope, $55 to talk.
I haven't yet found it to be that bad, at least not yet. E.g. I've always considered Kingston to be iffy except for DRAM, where their lifetime warranty speaks for itself (and isn't bogus, I've had to do one replacement).
The auto decontenting is pretty obvious if you pay any degree of attention, and American tend to do that with their cars.
For medium scale purchases with many interchangeable competitors, this may be true. But for cheap impulse purchase and for high-end commodities, brand still matters quite a bit.
Apple and Samsung are two great examples of higher end companies whose products aren't appreciably superior or inferior to most of their competitors, but through relentless advertising, they have made themselves seem distinct from their competitors.
A significant function of advertising is to reinforce decisions. Very few people buy a car because they saw an ad for it, or a iPhone, for that matter. But the ad serves to reinforce the decision of those who already bought the product, decreasing buyers remorse. It's the reason most higher end car ads are selling the idea of a car rather than the car itself. Ditto with the older iPhone and iPods ads.
And a similar thing is true for low end, cheap products. People buy Coca Cola over store brand cola because of the brand identity coca cola creates. They may be totally unaware of it, but it's just enough of an impetus to push someone to spend the extra $1.50 on a 12 pack of Coke vs another brand.
Apple and Samsung are two great examples of higher end companies whose products aren't appreciably superior or inferior to most of their competitors
I'm not sure this is true: Samsung is not a (particularly) higher-end company, and their phones at least are lower cost than Apple.
In the case of Apple, their phones were appreciably better up until two years ago or so. Their laptops have been physically better in fit and finish for at least a decade (http://paulgraham.com/mac.html).
I didn't mean that Apple doesn't make good products. They make pretty damn good products. But the products are only part of Apple's marketing strategy.
Much of what has made Apple successful is the idea of what a Mac, an iPod, or an iPhone is. For most of the iPod's lifespan it was not the best product on the market, it was just the best marketed. In the case of macbooks, the hardware has been roughly on par with equivalently priced competitors for several years. But they sell the idea of what it means to be a 'mac person'. They get you invested in the idea that macs are better regardless of the reality.
And that strategy is as much about reassuring people who already own Apple products (fighting buyers remorse, and grass-is-greener impulses) as it is about selling more.
For most of the iPod's lifespan it was not the best product on the market, it was just the best marketed.
I wouldn't say it was just better marketed, although that is true. It was also better designed, both in its hardware and software. An iPod in your hands felt and looked great and the scroll wheel made it intuitive to use. Anyone could easily pick it up and check out what you had in your library.
Before I had one, I had an iRiver iHP-120[0], which had a plethora of features an iPod didn't have. But it was ridiculously hard to use if you didn't know what you were doing.
Indeed. I was once engaged on a project to develop a new personal media player. QA had quite a selection of other vendors' PMPs, so we could learn from their mistakes: and ye gods and little fishes, poor UIs were abundant, not to mention often sluggish to respond.
(Sadly, ours never came to be, but that's a long and occasionally hilarious - in the DailyWTF sense - tale. Suffice to say, if your application crashes on trying to close any file, and the vendor's recommended workaround is to never close files, get ready for interesting times)
The scroll wheel was a gimmick in the tradition of the Apple hockey puck mouse, that was worse than the obvious alternatives (a regular rocker is much easier to use for scrolling through long lists) but people bought because they look cute and trusted Apple's supposed design insight.
I too have never understood how the scroll wheel could be considered intuitive. The first time I saw one I was somewhat baffled until my friend showed it to me and even then it was always a struggle to control.
Intuitive (to me) would be the scrolling on other players...hit up it goes up one, hold up and it goes up increasingly fast. Maybe that's boring but it's completely obvious how to work it when you pick it up.
Anyone could easily pick it up and check out what you had in your library.
This is subjective, of course. I'm lost every time I have to change songs on a friend's iPod classic :-). Give me traditional buttons or a touch screen any day.
> For most of the iPod's lifespan it was not the best product on the market,
I first learned the dubious value of reading off a spec sheet after I bought my first iPod. No wireless, less space than a Nomad indeed. But wireless and more space than a Nomad doesn't mean much when your UI and synchronization system is a steaming pile of shit that makes me die a little inside at the mere thought of having to use it. An iPod's specs may not have been top-of-the-line, but the experience sure was in comparison to the competition.
A more modern example is the Samsung Gear Fit that I've complained about previously. Lovely piece of hardware that stomps on everything else if one goes by the spec sheet. Unfortunately, Samsung produced a gigantic steaming turd of software (both firmware and more so on the client software side) that makes me regret that I purchased it. Sure, a FitBit doesn't even have a screen, and it's limited in its capabilities, but at least it works.
Piggybacking this, Coca Cola is the king of marketing prowess, in part because the product stays the exact same (or 99.8% the same). It's part of their "moat." Tech can't do that, in my opinion almost by definition due to expected and continuous innovation -- you can't stay the same. You do see it sometimes in short bursts -- such as with the Thinkpad brand (but even that line will be short lived vs. Coke).
With Coke, they can then use that consistency on anything from Santa Claus to the Olympics to feed on nostalgia of that recurring same-ness -- they're investing in a lifetime of feelings, not a few years or months of popularity. Hershey's, Disney (high repeat visits), and McDonald's to some extent are other great examples of being able to leverage long term marketing on consistent or nostalgic products -- something difficult for tech to do.
"Now that product info is ubiquitous, the author says, the role of brands and traditional advertising is declining"
Declining but still very important. All else equal someone will make a purchase from a brand that they have used, know, or trust, over another brand which they have less or no experience with. I would also argue that even on a lesser feature set the existing brand has a clear edge. And there are other issues like wanting everything to look similar (say with kitchen appliances) or other tie ins.
Let's look at YC as a brand. My guess is that even if statistics were shown that another place was "better" for a startup (if better could be defined) the edge, because of the "brand", would go to YC. Now if YC is not "in your face anymore", say HN declines in popularity, that brand could easily suffer.
Well, I have to say that there are many labels call themselves brands. And a brand is actually more like a notion in one's mind, if there is any, connecting the cognition and the outside world. It helps people quickly get their answers from their brain "HDD" without extra time/energy cost. We often call this "impression" or something like this. ad banner is just one of those channels to deliver the information to your target audience. It is a way to deliver your message to help build the notion in people's mind. So I think they are different things. Hope this helps.
I understand the point he is making, and I agree that the importance of advertising is declining. However, I wouldn't be able to explain Samsung's success without looking at advertising.
If that were mostly attributable to advertising, I think you would see an equivalent success built on a horizontal brand - that is, an OEM without Samsung's vertical integration.
Otherwise an equally valid conjecture is that Samsung bought-in to the idea that the only way to consolidate success is through establishing a brand. As Intel did, for example. But I don't think anyone could argue that Samsung's ad campaigns are mostly cost-effective, coherent, and well-targeted. In other words, I don't think one can articulate a set of hypotheses that links the vast majority of Samsung's ad spending to Samsung's market success.
Contrarywise, there is a pretty good theory that Samsung succeeded in PCs, before they cranked up the ad spending, by being vertically integrated in almost all high-value components except CPUs.
Huh? Samsung pays kickbacks to sales people and carriers. At least with regards to their top of the line phones, that's how they have muscled out all their Android competitors. It's a vicious cycle that you can't sustain unless you're a huge company that can subsidize the strategy with cash from profitable businesses.
When the minimum-wage salesperson at the carrier store or mall kiosk gets $25 in their pocket for selling the top line Samsung phone and $0 for any other phone, the "choice" is clear: customers will be walking out with Samsung phones. That is a majority of their marketing budget, though they go through great lengths to bury the lead in what little numbers they release.
Part of the reason Apple gets so much organic press is they're the only one to release actual hard numbers on a regular basis, though they are certainly coy in some areas.
I agree that establishing causality is very difficult and especially when it comes to the advertising business.
Nevertheless, my point is that when it comes to high end Android phones it is starting to look like a commodity market. So in my opinion the only way to explain Samsung's success is either their ad spending or sheer luck, which may as well be a really good explanation.
My point is that, as with PCs, which have been commoditized for decades, Samsung's success is mainly a product of vertical integration. In fact I'd cite their recent mobile handset launch events as a prime example of marketing and advertising spending gone off the rails.
I also compared them with Intel for a reason. Intel wins because they can simultaneously push chip and chip fab technology. That's an explanation that can put most people to sleep by the fourth word. And yet, once it was a small enough part of their budget, they went into the ad market, spent tens of millions, and bought brand recognition. It was a check-off item.
From a consumer's perspective all I see is a bunch of high end cell phones with very similar features and priced the same. Nevertheless, many people decide to buy the Samsung flagship phone over the Sony, LG or HTC.
Better economies of scale could be the reason if they decided to price their phones lower, but they don't. So that it's not the reason why people are choosing Samsung.
About the competent design, I don't see the Galaxy being superior to the HTC one or the Z2.
An economy of scale doesn't necessarily mean they price their phones lower. It could mean they offer more expensive products at the same price and with the same profit as their competitors, or offer equivalent products at the same price but higher profit than their competitors.
That's right. But they do not offer a better product, the flagship phones are all pretty much the same. And there is no reason why a higher margin should turn into a higher market share.
You can use web analytics to measure a conversion rate from ads. Hence user clicks ad -> sales happens (in the best cases). That's Internet Ads 101
In fact, with online ads the "if it works" part is much more measurable than for other medias
"Last year, a group of economists working with eBay’s internal research lab issued a massive experimental study with a simple, startling conclusion: For a large, well-known brand, search ads are probably worthless."
Once again: "For a large, well-known brand"
Well, so do you mean that pumping ads for something everybody already knows (and already gets massive advertisement everywhere else) doesn't work? Color me shocked.
The point of the article is that the sale would happen regardless of the ad.
Ie showing an ad on Google to someone who types 'Ebay' in the search string is a waste of money - since Ebay shows up as the first natural result anyways.
However, this leads to the other flaw in the argument, where eBay has been the company most famous for abusing Google's ads, and using them in a completely nonsensical way.
I'm sure you've noticed that a search for any noun called forth an ad for eBay. You're enticed to "buy Dog Vomit on eBay" when your dog is sick. And then, even if it was something eBay plausibly sold, when you clicked through it'd take you to a generic eBay search page or, often, a landing page that was not useful at all.
It is very unfortunate that the extremely interesting ebay study is being ignored by the SEM community because ebay has some bad adverts.
The methodology and findings should be something that advertisers look at and learn from (i.e. that traditional methods of tracking do not always do a good job of showing value) but instead people just like to point fingers and call names
It is not ignored, because eBay has some bad adverts. It did attract significant attention more than a year ago (the study was conducted in 2012, and media reported on it in early 2013).
"eBay has no idea if online ads work" would be a better title. Or "eBay can't get their online ads to work".
If you looked at eBay's search advertisements in the last years you probably have seen very ridiculous ones, like:
Love.
Buy it cheap on eBay
Low Prices. New and used.
This is a significant waste of money, and seems endemic at eBay, not a rare occasion. Though it is too easy to point at this and discard the entire study, it is a relevant prior.
As a control they take MSDN/Yahoo vs. Google. The control should be a different advertiser, not a different advertisement network.
In the paper they mention removing the term "eBay Shoes" from their keywords, because they rank organically for that. They should have never added it, because it is a bad keyword for them. They should advertise on the brand name shoes they are selling. This ties back to the bad adverts by eBay: Fixing your mistakes and seeing change, is different from performing a controlled experiments on a healthy advertiser.
They muse about "the types of consumer that may already be informed about the advertiser’s product". This adds a few problems: those customers may have been informed through the very advertisements they now claim don't work. Suddenly shutting down advertisements does not negate the effects of running advertisements years before that. The paper does not investigate the effect that ads have on brand recognition and brand trust. Usability tests show people clicking on advertisements first, because then they expect quality and a simple commercially interesting proposition.
I do think the problem they are describing "some customers may be so aware of a brand, that advertising to them becomes worthless" is valid. Maybe ad networks could help here and implement a form of "demarketing" next to their "remarketing" options: Once a user has enough knowledge of the brand, stop advertising. But a better (and currently available) method could be to apply remarketing and give these power users tailored advertisements. An example could be a buyer's program, promoting a new product from a well-purchased brand, or a referral bonus. To continue offering them advertisements like "eBay shoes" does not make much sense.
I am aware of the significant attention this paper got about a year ago. In my filter bubble (and I am in a massive filter bubble with regards to this kind of thing) the attention was similar to the rest of your comment - focusing on ebays failures of execution rather than the failure of measurement.
Other advertisers do not make the same mistakes as ebay with regards to landing pages, adverts or keywords selection but many make the same mistakes when it comes to measuring their advertising value.
Now, perhaps the errors caused by faulty measurement are not as important for other advertisers and I can see why this might be the case (for the reasons you list about how ebay is running their PPC) but what should be an opportunity for the SEM industry to look at how their work in valued and measured has instead turned into something else
> As a control they take MSDN/Yahoo vs. Google
They also used a geographic split as a control. E.g. if in the past areas A and B have performed similarly then pick one of them at random to stop showing ads in.
AdWords geo-targeting combined with this technique is a way for other advertisers - regardless of scale - to run similar tests. But we won't see many doing this because of the attitude that it is ebays execution that sucks rather than their measurement
The paper sure is interesting and should add value to the debate and approaches to SEM. To discard it by scoffing at eBay's execution would indeed be your own loss.
My biggest take-away is the saturation of advertisements and the effects it can have on running ad campaigns. Yours seem to focus on the common correlation-causation misinterpretation, and faulty measurement approaches.
I do think there are enough problems with the paper to not grant it the authority to speak for an entire industry (as Slate put it). eBay is just one (and a very big and unique) advertiser in this arena, and every move it makes (even to measure it) changes the entire ad network.
> They also used a geographic split as a control.
Thank you for this correction.
Aside: The problem with eBay's non-profitable advertisements seems to me a beautiful problem: The paper authors subscribe to the benefits of saved costs. I do not think that the marketing department of eBay subscribes to this benefit. For them, and external ad agencies, the more ads your run, the more clicks you get, the more you get rewarded, the better your monthly reports look. People at eBay's online marketing department must be smart enough to realize that many of these ads were worthless to the company, yet it was worth it for them to empty the monthly budget on a list of generic keywords.
People at eBay's online marketing department must be smart enough to realize that many of these ads were worthless to the company, yet it was worth it for them to empty the monthly budget on a list of generic keywords.
I read somewhere that alleged cookie-stuffers claimed that eBay's staff knew about the cookie-stuffing all along, and encouraged it so long as it increased the sales attributed to their own work in courting affiliates.
If true, these are both cases where incentive design (and measurement) are as important as people's skill with their craft.
I now agree with most of what you say - as you point out we were just looking at different parts of the same thing.
Your aside comment is really interesting. I'm not sure what the solution here is - more accurate systems of measurement lose the tight feedback loop that make online ads so successful, but simpler measurement is wrong. Some sort of combination of the two is the answer, but how that exactly works in practice I have no idea!
Well, there's nothing to say that eBay's research lab was using these horrible PPC ads in their tests. In fact, I would guess that they had to hold the landing page as a constant (e.g. homepage when "ebay" was the keyword), or otherwise account for that variable in the study design.
For instance, the study notes that, for one test, they simply turned off their PPC campaigns for one geo and compared results to others. So, presumably, even if they were using their horrible PPC ads during this test, they would have been equally horrible across geos.
It's worth noting that display advertisers can and do account for this by running a control group that sees public service announcements instead of the ads they'd normally run.
Exactly right. If search ads don't work for this kind of activity, we only know that because online ads allow measurement. If your takeaway from the article is that you should go back to buying billboard space instead, you're an idiot.
Search ads DO work for plenty of use cases for less-omnipresent companies. And they would probably start working a lot better if the Amazons and Ebays stopped bidding.
> You can use web analytics to measure a conversion rate from ads. Hence user clicks ad -> sales happens (in the best cases). That's Internet Ads 101.
As the article pointed out though, the ad conversion rate is so low, it is very difficult to separate the signal from the noise, particularly for smaller campaigns. There is also the additional issue that the ad itself doesn't necessarily directly lead to a simple click->convert cycle. Having worked in the industry for the better part of the decade, I can tell you that separating the signal from all the noise absolutely does require a ton of data. There's a reason why "Big Data" rose to prominence in the advertising world.
There are ads and then there are ads. One of the things that the company I work for, Qubit, does is to validate that the tracking tags that vendors put on people's websites drive an uplift. We talk about one of our clients doing it here [1]
While blindly targeting people using search engine "promoted searches" may not work for every impression, this does not take into account the ads that you see on other 3rd party sites - which is probably what people think of when they talk about "ads". Google's version of this is AdSense (as opposed to AdWords).
This is something that is quite easy to test, and we have seen that some really do work and some not so much.
But driving someone back to a website with an offer on something that they have added to their basket but not purchased, is one way to be sure that you are getting people buying after seeing your content. The problem then is to make sure you aren't cutting into your margins too much...
> But driving someone back to a website with an offer on something that they have added to their basket but not purchased, [...]
People like useful recommender engines (e.g. Amazon.com).
But not so personalized smart ads that follow them on every website the visit. What's wrong with the static ads that fit the targeted website category?
As per the article, there is more than a bit of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning in the above. Just because you seeing "people buying after seeing your content" doesn't mean the ads are working.
We have no idea if online ads actually work at the scale of huge corporate brands competing for mindshare. I'm pretty sure it works for smaller outfits - every time I find an appropriate place to run an ad campaign, I see a permanant uptick in readers of my web comic. Eventually I'll have gotten everyone in that place who's going to be interested in my stuff, and I move on.
Actually, per the article... its actually harder to know with certainty that ads are working for smaller outfits. Large campaigns are the one case where you might accumulate enough data to know.
Willing to share where you advertise and why? I've got lots of friends and relatives doing comics online, would love to have a little specialist knowledge to help them out.
Mostly just Project Wonderful, an ad network that mostly sells ads on web comics. It's pretty easy to drop a couple hundred into a broad campaign, dink around in your analytics to see what sources give you engaged traffic, and drop some more money onto those specific places.
Also your friends and relatives may want to check out webcomics.com; I don't agree with everything Brad says about Making Comics On The Web but for the most part his site is full of a ton of great advice that's well worth the yearly fee.
There are also new annoying features of online advertising that might turn consumers off. Even after buying something I frequently see ads for the same exact product from the same exact vendor for several days. For some reason this annoys me so much that it turns me off from the vendor.
It's called remarketing. If they're showing you an ad for a product you actually bought, they're doing it wrong. It's supposed to show you an ad for something you looked at, but didn't buy.
If it's not being done purposely for reasons others have mentioned, then I wonder if it comes down to the company's integration with Google. Presumably, Google wouldn't know if a sale took place unless the merchant somehow notified them. I'm guessing this might be with a pixel, script, or similar on their order confirmation page.
So, if the merchant failed to implement this, Google would never know to stop showing the ad.
Generally speaking, no. The cookie pools of users to retarget will be stored not by the merchant but a third party (either the company serving the ads, or a middle man). When a user gets tagged they'll stay in the pool of people to re-target either until their expiration date is hit, or until they are removed. So the merchant would have to notify (automatically) that a user should be removed, not just chose to stop bidding on that user.
Or at least trying to avoid the feeling of being stalked you might get if their all-pervading ad-retargeting campaign that follows you round the internet for weeks after you first visit their website stops the day you actually buy.
> ...after buying something I frequently see ads for the same exact product from the same exact vendor...
There is a theoretical justification for that (note: "theory" not used in the scientific sense!) -- for large ticket items like cars, recent buyers are more likely to notice an ad for the expensive item they just bought. Some ads are aimed at them to make the whole "experience" somehow better, to offset buyer's remorse. That way you will talk up your purchase and be more likely to buy another when you replace it.
The other is when you have a high volume low-price item (e.g. toothpaste): you've demonstrated a willingness to buy (i.e. you're a qualified buyer at some level) so why not try to remind you that the next time you need toothpaste you should get it from the same place?
Since so much marketing "science" is bull, nobody actually knows if this works (any more than they do with the online ads). But at least your seeing these time-wasting ads is intentional, rather than necessarily a software error.
That's a fair point, but I meant advertising as one of the tools of marketing (like datastructures are one of the tools of computer science). Sorry I was not clear.
Thus in my last sentence I was generalizing to say that marketing, even formal marketing analysis with statistics and A/B models, is still a mixture of heuristics, data, and superstition. And its practitioners
Since it's a kind of social science, I say that in contrast to fields like economics and psychology which also have plenty of charlatans but whose major practitioners are well aware of, and discuss, the epistemological flaws that still remain in the foundations of the fields. By comparison most marketing "theoreticians" remind me, at best, of alchemists.
There's no question that marketing is crucial to any successful business. But we have to realize that it's typically simply just gut judgement.
I don't think gut feeling is accurate. There is a popular saying that marketing is about applying a great deal of common sense. I think that's a bit more accurate description.
In any case, there's plenty of exact science in marketing dealing with statistical modeling. Then you have pricing, which is arguably the biggest part of marketing (a lot of people don't realize how much thinking goes into a pricing strategy). Then you have communication in all of its marketing forms, and lastly you have the product creation, which in itself is part of the marketing.
I view it like operating a jet. I have access to lots of buttons, switches and dials, and I know the science that takes care of what's beneath them. But in the end, I'm only interested in what happens as a result of using them.
There was a time when I could use a search engine to get a bit of information about something and then move on.
Now? That one minute websearch will stay with me for weeks as people push ads for things that I have no use for.
Prosthetic testicles for dogs; specific terms used for bras; packers and binders - my search history gives me a variety of eye-popping adverts.
Also: they really need to let people opt out of some advertising. People with alcoholism might not want any alcohol; people with OCD might not want cleaning products on a TVOD page about OCD (real example. I'd post an image but it's on the other computer).
Online ads is a broad category. It includes social media, display ads, re-targeting ads, and paid search ads. Social media adverts are hard to measure in terms of ROI. At my workplace we have found a way to measure profitability for paid per click ads. We can optimize to drive more conversions at a cost effective price. Success depends on what one is measuring and what the end goal is. In the sea of data it is easy to get carried away on optimizing and improving front end metrics.
Read the article. The point is there is so much noise in the signal that optimization is generally not possible unless you are running a truly massive campaign.
As someone who leads an analytics team in the advertising industry I have to say this title and the studies they are referencing are not accurate to the entire industry at all.
Advertising absolutely works when done right. The effect on brand consideration, shopping behavior, and incremental purchase value can be quantified. The most sophisticated advertisers spend a lot of money to accurately track and ensure their campaigns are lifting their desires metrics.
Now to the eBay study they reference. That study is specific to eBay, a large brand that has spent hundreds of millions a year on advertising for many years and is a top web property visited by a significant percent of the online audience. For eBay it turns out brand search marketing largely does not have a contribution as most of their shoppers are likely going to buy anyway.
Trying to generalize that to a brand that did not have the amount of equity, natural SEO rankings, and established shopping behaviors would be foolhardy. Additionally if you dig deeper into the eBay study they did find a positive effect for the small percent of users that are new shoppers to eBay. They just happen to be a relatively small percent of the audience reached with the spend given the large size of eBay.
In the digital space there is a huge variability in performance based on the type of ad, the nature of the targeting, the product being advertised, the creative message, etc. Trying to generalize to all online advertising without controlling for the kind of brand, product being sold, current marketing positioning, and campaign objective seems a bit naive.
In our work we find huge variability in performance even within the same web property dependent on the placement of the ad within the site and the unit being served. We measure how long the ad was on the page, how many users actually hovered over it in view, and then the incremental lift of exposed users compared to control group. Turns out if you properly optimize to maximize true ad viewing and engagement you will see lifts in brand response, digital visitation, and shopping metrics compared to the control.
In fact I'd much rather have money for digital advertising any day over old fashioned ads with the limited tracking possible. I know how many people saw our spot on the YouTube home page, how long they spent interacting with it, and can tell you exactly what they were interested in. For that TV spot I don't know if you were watching, skipping, going to the bathroom, looking at your phone, or any number of other factors which could diminish effectiveness.
TLDR; online advertising works when done correctly and absolutely can be measured
I've said this before on here, but online advertising is incredibly dumb. If you consider all the info Google and Facebook have on me, it's a really sad state of affairs.
I bought a new bicycle and religiously researched this topic and consumed a ton of cycling videos. What ads do I see on YouTube? Cars. I don't have a driver's license.
I once bought a NI Maschine Midi Controller. YouTube then showed me video ads for the NI Maschine Midi Controller for over a year after the purchase. Great business for Google, not so much for Native Instruments.
During a vacation in South Korea, I had logged into Facebook to post a picture. Facebook then showed me Korean ads in Hangul for over a month after my return. They have all the info on me, where I was born, what language I speak, where I live, where I work. Hilariously bad.
1.If you have never visited a car company's website then it's just that Google categorized your profile wrongly and only the car companies are bidding for you when it comes to show an ad.
2. Just a company wrongly retargeting converters (people who have bought a product) with the same product that they have bought.
3. In Real Time Bidding [1] for Facebook, their information about the user is very much lacking [2] so depending on the advertiser that bids you might get very bad ads.
It's a game of averages - what you're doing is watching a blackjack game and saying "why on earth didn't you double down on that 18, the next card was a 3!"
Sure there's a lot of errors in advert targeting, but they don't need 100% accuracy to see results, and on a scale from "just chuck adverts at everyone, some will be relevant" to "let's have people manually look into every user to profile them and know exactly what to target them with" there has to be a point where it's not cost-effective to make things even more accurate.
No advertising "absolutely can be measured" because no one has access to time machines nor alternate universes to see what a consumer would have done without the advertising. This is a simple fact. Of course, when you can invent your own criteria ("brand consideration," "shopping behavior," "incremental purchase value,"), you can't be wrong.
One of the corner stones of their article is that in order to measure the lift on the ROI of an ad the sample sizes need to be incredible large - mainly due to noise and large variances.
The metrics/measure you mention are helpful but very limited. Since, IMHO the ROI is the most important metric for an advertiser.
Ebay is known for very ineffective campaigns, which they tried to justify by publishing "papers". They basically claimed that the fact that search results exist, makes the advertising next to them mostly ineffective. There are so many issues with this argument, it is not even worth starting. But yeah this circle jerk has been going for a while. Also to claim that if it did not work them, it won't work for anyone else is a bit of an over generalization.
You will also find papers stating the exact opposite and how to get great returns and stuff. Everyone it seems gets a different experience from the same platform and then they justify it by publishing white papers. Just like anything else, it is never black and white. But black folks want everything to be black while white folks make fun of the black.
They're a bit vague when describing the "I-was-going-to-buy-it-anyway" problem, but it sounds like they're mainly talking about PPC ads on search engines stealing from SEO links on the same pages. (Some of it seems to be talking about stealing sales from the direct channel, which I have no idea how to handle.)
If your website is already tracking ad performance on a per-ad basis (i.e., tracking all the clicks on that ad, and keeping what you pay per click below what you're getting per click), then optimizing for only the paid search traffic that's incremental, and not cannibalistic, is pretty straight-forward, conceptually.
For a given ad's keyword, instead of optimizing only for the results you get from PPC traffic, you treat your PPC bid as an input that affects sales across PPC and SEO traffic for that keyword, and optimize accordingly.
There are a few extra steps and decisions that need to be made before full implementation, but this is the basic idea. It's actually not too bad to account for.
There are other reasons to advertise in search engines on your branded keywords.
For starters, you have account wide and campaign wide quality scores which impact how much you pay per click across your entire account. Having branded keywords which will have high quality scores can help lower all your costs.
Secondly, your competitors can advertise on your brand even if its trademarked. Owning the top position is cheaper for you and a good idea.
Third of all, You would think a brand would want to own as much of the search results page as possible. It will drive up clicks even on your organic listings.
There are also many case studies that show paid search for branded keywords getting more traffic than just organic listings.
I'll search for a product and amazon all the time. I would just easily buy that same product from Walmart if they had it for less.
Branded search does not mean they will buy from you anyway. It could mean that, but it certainly doesn't guarantee that.
This is a classical example of a Prisoner's Dilemma [0]
The conclusions drawn by the author don't seem to consider the fact that if Ebay doesn't buy ads next to it's own name, Amazon would. As with a Prisoner's Dilemma situation, if all parties(In this case companies with substantial recognition and brand loyalty) stop buying ads, they would stand to make the maximum profit. However, this opens them up to the possibility of losing clicks to a 'cheating' competitor, thus driving them into essentially an 'ad war'.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#In_economics
This topic came up in a month-old submission about why eBay lost many of its organic rankings in Google's Panda 4.0 release. Some of the comments from that discussion seem quite relevant to this one.
Advertising by definition is Arbitrage. Leveraging a disconnect between the value of the audience and the cost to reach and engage them with content.
Efficient Markets dictates that over time advertising will become less effective. It is the natural progression of all advertising.
One of the flaws of many advertising strategies is that it assumes the main flaw of the market is imperfect information. However that requires a rational consumer. And Consumers are not rational. Selling ideas is as important as the good itself.
Take most car advertising for example. A significant portion of the ads are from dealers advertising sales. Those are classic attempts to correct for imperfect information on the part of the consumer. But the other portion of the ads are all about how you should feel in a given car.
When you see an add for a luxury sedan combined with platitudes about performance, speed, and engineering or a truck and cliches about America, the goal isn't to sell you on the merits of the vehicle, but to sell you on a concept of a brand. The ideal targets for these ads aren't actually consumers currently in the market for a new car, but the people who just bought a new car. The people for whom the shine is starting to come off the rose. If you sell someone the idea that yes their purchase makes them special, then they are more likely to be happy with their decision, more likely to repeat that decision later, more likely to be a unwitting brand ambassador.
That's the thing I always saw as lacking with online advertising -- there's no brand placement.
Online ads always seem to me to be focused on transactional response "Wow, I can use this weird trick to buy a vitamin, sign me up!"
Billboard/display advertising is really effective at this. I happen to know that a particular orthopedic medical practice that I wasn't familiar with has a walk in clinic until 10PM every day to fix broken bones, etc. That's effective advertising!
In contrast, I've been a heavy internet user since 1994. The only product I can think of that I actually learned of via online advertising is those X10 video cameras that dominated pop-up/under advertising a decade ago. That's pretty sad for advertisers!
> Online ads always seem to me to be focused on transactional response "Wow, I can use this weird trick to buy a vitamin, sign me up!"
Billboard/display advertising is really effective at this.
Heh. For the most part online branded advertising is spent on display ads.
> As someone responsible for $xxxxxx monthly spend in online advertising, it clearly works. We measure it pretty much from end to end.
Do you know how much profit you would have earned without the advertising? How do you determine that (if you can say)?
That is, without the ads, some customers would purchase more or more profitable products; some would purchase the same, and some would purchase less. But how would it net out -- and more interesting to me, how do you measure that?
It's very frequently measured with pretty standard experimental designs involving treatment and control groups. Track sales to each group, and you can easily figure out the return on ad spend.
I had guest lecturers from chief data scientists of companies that purchase these adds for companies targeted to users. I was told most companies do not want to pay for the controlled experiments, and many times even when they are run for 'free' they do not want to know the answer. i was surprised at the latter
I think some idiotic consumer products will always require advertising--like soda, candy bars, figh fashion, etc.?
There are some industries like auto insurance where
I think it's a waste of time. Every year I call around and get the cheapest insurance. I face had good luck with Mercury(last 4 years). Esurance only quotes for 6 months--that's why they seem cheap.
As to Internet advertising; my biggest grip lately is having to watch a ad video before the intended video.(I
turn down the volume and look away for 20 seconds).
I have a feeling Google tracking works too well. I am
waiting for the day DuckDuckgo is King. I don't like to be
tracked. I don't like my house photographed.(Google put up
previously requested blurred homes, cars, persons without
any notice. If you think you have a blurred out house--check again.)
Since Google does not have vast majority (more than 90%) market share in the US and it is possible to do geo-location based advertising (location based on IP information is largely accurate), they were able to test it out. Well, this shows that being a monopoly helps a lot with monetization when there are few technical possibilities to test . The slate article puts it very nicely. "Art was far more profitable than science."
Well far too many online ads do the exact opposite with me, as in I tend to avoid the advertiser and/or their product. This usually only occurs when the ad is presented in some fashion which inconveniences me in the task I am using the site for.
Unobtrusive ads, more power to you. Pop up on me, find ways to circumvent blockers against such, or hide parts of the article I want to read, you get mentally flagged.
How sophisticated is click-tracking these days? Is a click on an advertising link always billed, or are there other qualifying criteria in play? I ask because the only time I ever click on an ad link is by mistake (typically when Safari is busy jiggling about with the page layout so that my finger hits the wrong target), and wonder if this is actually costing the company concerned.
I think people are being harsh in the down-votes here.
I suspect most people (HN people) hold pretty strongly the belief that everything can be quantified. However, within reasonable limits and current stats and science, lots of things in practice cannot - yet at least.
A lot of advertising probably falls under this. To verify effectiveness we'd need, as the article notes, to control for so many other factors that it would often be too difficult.
So we often guess, or leverage past knowledge and apply it to what we hope are similar circumstances.
If you take the point to be that marketing is not a hard-science, than it's true. Some cases sure, but plenty not.
Lewis/Rao are certainly relevant, and indeed, OP spends several paragraphs on them:
> It isn’t easy, of course. In 2013, Randall Lewis of Google and Justin Rao of Microsoft released the paper “On the Near Impossibility of Measuring the Returns on Advertising.” In it, they analyzed the results of 25 different field experiments involving digital ad campaigns, most of which reached more than 1 million unique viewers. The gist: Consumer behavior is so erratic that even in a giant, careful trial, it’s devilishly difficult to arrive at a useful conclusion about whether advertisements work.
>
> For example, when the researchers calculated the return on investment for each ad campaign, the median standard error was a massive 51 percent. In other words, even if the analysis suggested an ad buy delivered a 50 percent return, it was possible that the company actually lost money. You couldn’t say for sure. “As an advertiser, the data are stacked against you,” the researchers concluded. That bodes poorly for your typical marketing schmo trying to glean meaning from a Google analytics page—all he can do is try to stack enough data to overcome his statistical problems.
>
> Still, in an email, Lewis told me that he believes “online ads absolutely work.” Or, at least, they can work. For instance, Lewis and his Google colleague David Reiley have written papers showing that display ads on Yahoo led to more customers making purchases in stores. The problem, Lewis argues, is that most analytics firms aren’t scientific enough about measuring profitability. Because they don’t run real experiments, he thinks most end up conflating correlation and causation.
(It's a very nice paper, I think, one of the most insightful applications of power analysis I've seen.)
How does one know that a keyword is a brand or not? If the click through rate is above 30% (people really searched for the term) and there is some normal conversion after clicking (meaning that people really search for the relevant keyword, they do not mistake it with something else), then the keyword is a brand.
There is one very important point that I didn't see in the article, nor the comments. By not advertising in search, incumbents would make it less expensive for newcomers to put their offer in front of the incumbent's customers. This can be very risky.
Other people here. I've been working in online advertising for 10 odd years and have seen advertising working and not.
This Ebay example was great showing both sides; bidding for their brand term was a waste of money as they are a brand leader not in a defensive strategy. Finding new customers was profitable. It seems they let the former get out of hand and dominate their spend mix.
I see similar situations of excessive wasted spend all the time as companies target the wrong metrics (note: there always is some). Until this study I would bet my house the PPC team at eBay were being largely judged by 'CPA' type metrics. Every year they would have tighter goals in a market that is getting more competitive so they go for cheap wins that look good on paper i.e.grab customers already coming in as you know they will convert. I see this at almost every company.
Profitable advertising absolutely does exist but like anything, you need smart people running the program and you can't surround them with targets that make them go for the wins that look good in the short-term reports. As much as we monitor more advertising remains part art, part science. And I say that as a guy that likes his data more than most.
Anyway, if you're being told ads only work for other people you're talking to the wrong people. I love my marketing and what it can do for a company when run well. If you have any questions I'll happily talk your ear off.
Well, sort of. It's funny because it really proves the headline right. Slate are trying to get you to sign up for their subscription package because I guess the ads aren't entirely cutting the mustard money-wise ;-)
Why cannot they?
Online ads usually work and they benefit the company as well as the individual users in the long run as well as the short run
Ever heard of Google AdSense?
That is the most common way to make the online ads work
> Yeah we do: Coca-cola <-- The product offers no value other than "brand". (Brand is advertising).
It tastes good. How is it different than any other form of pleasure that is sold, such as (non-artistic) video games, alcohol, any luxury good, fashion, etc.
The two go had in hand. It's certainly a tribute to the breadth of Coca Cola's distribution that you can find it sold in ramshackle huts in the most-off-the beaten track overseas locations imaginable.
But it's the brand that makes the distribution network worthwhile, so people living on $2 per day who traditionally drink tea and eat an abundance of locally grown fresh fruit believe a 20 cent bottle of sugary water is a worthwhile luxury.
There's also a certain amount of effort that goes into persuading very different consumers that it's socially acceptable to mix that same blend of sugary water with mid-priced spirits or in cocktails at exclusive bars in the expensive cities.
There are media productivity companies, like MarketShare that cost a boat load but accurately track every possible interaction with an ad and brand to see what actually works.
If you use a company like this and a DMP (data management platform) you can track ads and measure on a scale this article doesn't seem to even know exists...
It might cost you a few million to close the feedback loop accurately but there are companies that can correlate an unclicked banner impression to an in store offline purchase...
As I remember it, they were in a stale-mate. The market was pretty much divided up. Most people were loyal to their brand and that was that. Despite that, they were spending a massive amount of money on advertising even though their market shares remained unchanged.
The reason was that if one of them stopped funnelling massive amounts of cash into advertising, they would lose a big chunk of their market share to the others. So they were all paying mostly to maintain the status quo.
With the ban on advertising, the amount of money saved greatly outweighed the revenue lost as others couldn't advertise either so it really only affected new smokers rather than convince current smokers to switch brands.
I see a similar thing happening in my line of work. In our niche of e-commerce every player of importance works with the same online marketing networks and paying rather a lot per sale or click.
There's a whole lot of sites out there which basically exist to infest organic search results, send traffic to us and our competitors and collect their referral fee from the advertising network. They add no value[1]. Without them, the customer would have been similarly divided amongst the competition as well without having to pay for it. Yet, if we stop paying them, we'll lose a lot of business as our competitors will continue to do so.
Disclaimer: this is all as I understand it and in no way my employers opinion or persepctive ;)
1) Some do, by providing extra information or ranking the shops by what's best for the consumer (price, reviews) rather than the most cash-per-click.