| obviously folks |
| ||
|
I've been saying this for years as far as valuing internet sites for advertising prposes. I cannot remember the last time I ever clicked on an ad, and I certainly block pop-ups. We even had a thread on this at some point. Bad day for Facebook, just prior to its IPO, as major advertiser General Motors pulls advertising, citing ineffectiveness. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/general-motors-advertising-facebook_n_1518862.html |
| bguyJXCaliber |
| ||
|
GM is f*king stupid. Soon, they'll be begging Zuckerberg to take them back. Look at how companies came crawling back to Rush Limbaugh after he dissed that lady. |
| Aghast |
| ||
|
You don't have to click an ad for it to be effective. All you have to do is see it. Pop-up ads aren't effective but the industry is moving away from those.
|
| DL13 |
| ||
|
Why are they stupid? Facebook may not be a fad but in GM's estimation, Facebook didn't deliver as an advertising tool. They have the data and they determined that it just wasn't working out. For GM, and this might not hold true for other types of companies, they were generating next to zero sales from Facebook. |
| bguyJXCaliber |
| ||
|
The clicks are one of the metrics used to measure against sales, and help determine if it was actually seen or not. IT also translates to payment by whatever site is hosting the ads...you get a certain amount of money per click. As something that can be measured and compared against another number (the sales figure) clicks are important. Otherwise, you're just making wild assumptions without anything to measure against. |
| credit where credit is not due |
| ||
|
slightly unrelated, but god how disgusting is Huffington Post? They literally did ZERO original reporting for the story linked in this thread. Jesus. Weaving together information from at least two WSJ reports and another from LA Times. How is pilfering like this not only tolerated but even rewarded? |
| The breakdown |
| ||
|
How do they measure how effective magazine and television ads are?
|
| bguyJXCaliber |
| ||
|
With TV ads, you have X number of households tuning in at the time an ad is run. Let the number of times the ad is run = Y. Total impressions(I) at time t = X * Y. Impressions for the ad department's purpose will be the largest of the I's throughout the day. It is more accurate than Internet advertising because, unlike with the Internet, the number of times the ad will be run on television is fixed. There is less room for error in determining true impressions. However, with the Internet, one person can visit a page containing an ad 20 times in a single night, or even 100 times, meaning the number of impressions can wildly vary because of the user. To rely on only the number of times the ad is viewed is silly in this case, as you can see with all the room for error. With that said, GM COULD easily be getting 1 million views of an ad in a single day, which, to use our example of 20 impressions, translates to only 50,000 real views. As an ad exec, I would want the lowest number of views to profit ratio. So you can see the problem with the 1 million views. And you might say that they can monitor by ISP, but with that, you have a large number of people using DSL, giving you a different IP each time possibly. |
| redux |
| ||
|
FB sucks. |