P&G Cuts More Than $100 Million In 'Largely Ineffective' Digital Ads (wsj.com) 204
schwit1 quotes the Wall Street Journal: Procter & Gamble said that its move to cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spend in the June quarter had little impact on its business, proving that those digital ads were largely ineffective. Almost all of the consumer product giant's advertising cuts in the period came from digital, finance chief Jon Moeller said on its earnings call Thursday. The company targeted ads that could wind up on sites with fake traffic from software known as "bots," or those with objectionable content. "What it reflected was a choice to cut spending from a digital standpoint where it was ineffective, where either we were serving bots as opposed to human beings or where the placement of ads was not facilitating the equity of our brands," he said... The cuts echo marketing executives' mounting concerns around the efficacy of digital advertising and the growing perception that they are wasting money on digital ads that never reach their intended audience.
Or maybe digital audiences don't respond to tradit (Score:1)
But we do respond to authenticity. Make a better product or a better company, and show us. We'll buy it then.
P&g actually did this once iirc, making saran wrap less toxic but also less profitable and also sadly less effective.
Re: (Score:2)
P&g actually did this once iirc, making saran wrap less toxic but also less profitable and also sadly less effective.
Less effective, how? Did she break free and spilled hot grits?
A $100 million study (Score:3, Insightful)
It took them $100 Million to figure out what they probably knew themselves.
I have more or less trained myself to not pay any attention to ads. This could be part of my overall "training" in the workforce to try and block out everything while I focus on said task, while co-workers are nagging me about lunch, beers, other projects, etc., while I'm trying to focus.
Regardless, the constant barrage of online advertising from the flashing text of the late 90's, animated GIF's of the 00's, interactive flash from this decade, are enough to make any human that spends a large portion of their time online, shy away from this garbage.
The idea of ads doesn't bother me. The forceful "We'll make you read it, like it or not, and we know we aren't targeting you, we only need 1% to respond" type of advertising, is what made me think like this. I actually feel GOOD when I know there is an ad and I know I haven't digested any of it.
With this type of reward system, its no wonder I enjoy not looking at ads. At some level, there is a piece of me that feels that I'm "giving it to the man", when I purposefully don't read their ads. By spending any energy even avoiding this, I also feel like I have lost. In the end it makes me despise the system even further.
Like everything, the bad apples destroy the good intentions of others. I'm sure I would benefit from some form of advertising as there are services I do use and would benefit from if they actually were "cheaper, faster, better", but when I can't trust any of it, the sites that claim "low impact ads", end up getting hurt first, and the 1% of the time I might care, I miss.
Of course, on the other hand, there is a part of me that feels the folks making a killing off of ads no one pays any attention to, are in one sense "winning" from the perspective that the companies, willing to dump money into something so worthless, deserve what they get.
Re:A $100 million study (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the people at P&G planning the internet ad campaigns need to justify their jobs, so they will find any bogus stat they can, starting with "Ad spending on Facebook is up X% year-over-year, we have to be there too." Internet ad buys are heavily influenced by what competitors are doing, rather than on any proof that it works, because it's really easy to show what the competitors are doing (screenshots of their ads) and really hard to show any effectiveness (mostly because there is none, and the fallback "creates brand awareness" is now more and more known to be bullshit).
Hopefully the trend will continue, and social media will DIE DIE DIE!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Originally the idea was not to advertise on the web so much as create informative interactive sites and draw people to them. Show me an ad when I don't fell like it and it will put me right off the product. This is because I see far fewer ads that in the days of free to air idiot box and the tolerance of them has faded away. Rather than an ad being buried in a hoard of ads, it now stands out, scream at me to buy your product and there is every likelihood that I will stop buying all of your products for quit
Re: (Score:2)
Many digital ads piss me off (Score:3)
and generate -negative- brand response. That's particularly true of in-line ads, and most of all of Facebook ads that are mixed in (deliberately camouflaged) with user-generated content.
And that's before taking user data mining into consideration, both sucking up my data, and then using it (most often to show me ads for something I've already purchased.)
i used to work in P&G's "Dolly Parton" buildin (Score:4, Interesting)
Direct shopping (Score:2)
Re:Direct shopping (Score:4, Interesting)
Except Amazon also started irritating me off with more and more of their own ads. Apparently, it's not good enough that I'm going there to buy something. They have to try to monetize my eyeballs as well by shoving paid adverts in my search results.
Companies just can't seem to resist the siren's lure of some "free" extra profit (nevermind how it annoys some customers). The web just got ridiculously top-heavy with ads, and worse, they started becoming *dangerous*. That's when I installed an ad-blocker, and no amount of cajoling will get me to lower my shields... not when infected ads even get delivered by mainstream sites, not just the sketchy ones.
Here's an EASY way to make sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Future of digital ads? (Score:2)
Let's extrapolate P&G's take on digital ad effectiveness and observe that Millennial attention span for them is 5 seconds [cnbc.com] and try to predict the future on digital ads if this applies across the board.
We know that where there are eyeballs, there is a buying market.
The advertisers know our demographics and buying habits and already target ads, so more information isn't the answer.
What do you think the future of digital ads will be?
Re:Future of digital ads? (Score:5, Interesting)
The future of digital ads from my perspective. [pi-hole.net]
No more chances for advertisers to fix it. I'm done. No whitelists. No browser adblock. No more bullshit. No sympathy. Every time you think you can trust a little... bam... more new horseshit. That pi-hole server running on my network is the coolest fucking thing since sliced bread. It runs in a VM, and even so, it's fast. Every device on the network is protected from a single source.
It's wonderful, and I sing its praise every chance I get.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh! Thanks for the heads up! I just installed this and am testing it out on my home network. Already I love it!
Whitelist begging is the present (Score:2)
It looks like you're using Pi-hole filtering software. To view this comment, please add this site to Pi-hole's whitelist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Products and actor used in traditional non internet ads.
Ads during and before a tv series.
Ads on buildings, in print, side of bus.
Radio and tv ads. Harder to stop listening to talk radio or block out an image in a magazine.
Ads placed in streaming media stream as part of the show not as part of the social media site's own ad layer.
The content maker will be contacted d
Re: (Score:2)
Thoughtful.
I think most of us are used to in-line ads for TV. We're getting more and more ads and less content.
Most of the sites I go to are not streaming video, except when I binge YouTube, and my ad-blocker works well there.
A large problem I see is those static sites I visit like news and social media.
I use ad-blockers there, as well, and wouldn't pay attention, even if I did see them.
P&G is essentially saying that they've exploited target ads, but consumers:
1.) Visit brand-inappropriate sites, draggi
They're moving, not cutting (Score:3, Informative)
Big data sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Cut them all! (Score:2)
Marketers that think their shit don't stink can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned. If that means site XYZ has to shutter, I'm ok with that because it's a shitty business model.
P&G should post here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$2/day isn't enough money to be really worth it.
No links this weekend. Hit my numbers first thing after midnight. Will resume regular posting on Monday.
Re: (Score:2)
So your "friend" gave you a lift, and that broke the car.
Nope. The car broke down during the work commute over the Santa Cruz mountains. I take the express bus in the opposite direction to Palo Alto.
Then instead of doing the Christian thing and helping him [...]
My advice was to sell the car to Pick-N-Pull for $250 and get a local job.
(with your massive 30 revenue streams and 20% savings)
Revenue streams stays in the business and savings stay in my retirement accounts.
[...] you go begging strangers.
I'm not afraid to ask for help for a friend who needs help.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it paid for coffee.
Eli the Computer Guy defines Coffee Money as $300+ per month, Part-Time Job as $1,000+ per month, and Salary as $4,000+ per month. Amazon on Slashdot is bringing in coffee money. If you watch the video, the relevant section is after the 30 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7TmvLW1qMY [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how this supports "Revenue streams stays in the business".
I don't take money out of the business and all revenue streams are reinvested in the business.
Re: (Score:2)
But you also said you pay for coffee with Slashdot.
I wrote that I make "coffee money," which Eli the Computer Guy defines as $300+ per month since he drinks two cups per day. That has nothing to do with my personal coffee drinking. Although a high-end expresso machine would be a legitimate business expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to humanize the guy by understanding his mental health issues.
Not sure why you keep comparing me to Trump. I'm quite happy with my life, career and side business.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was Trump mentioned?
The title from the Psychology Today article: "8 Ways to Handle a Narcissist". What's the biggest problem in Washington? Narcissist in Chief Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is quite happy with his life, career and side businesses.
Have you read his tweets? Six months in office and he still can't get 50 Republicans to rub two nickels together in the Senate. Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Chris, we can work together right here and fix you.
No, thanks. I got fixed a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you think Republicans need to have money in the Senate?
Where are the appropriation bills? The budget should have been a done deal before the Republicans slink away for a five-week vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
Help my friend with his car repairs. http://gf.me/u/bmjsyc [gf.me]
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
However, you only keep 4.5% commission, which comes out to $2.50/day.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers. Amazon Affiliate has a variable commission from 0% to 10%. I get eight cents on a box of crayons to $35 on a table saw.
Re: (Score:2)
Help my friend with his car repairs. http://gf.me/u/bmjsyc [gf.me]
Why?
If Slashdot readers are visiting my websites at ~60 clicks per day, and spending money on Amazon links at ~85 clicks per day, some may be willing to donate to my friend's Go Fund Me page.
Most advertising is useless (Score:4, Insightful)
On the rare occasions I see ads, they're almost always for things I already know about. Who the fuck buys a Coke because they saw a commercial for it? Literally everyone in America knows who they are, there is no reason why they need to advertise anymore except for new products. Likewise for any other big brand - sure, maybe Disney needs to advertise their latest movie, because it's new, but what is the point of Ford reminding everyone "hey, that F-150 that's been a staple of the American truck market for most people's entire lives is still around"?
Whatever tiny psychological effect that comes from constantly pestering people can't be worth the huge cost of it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Coke is selling emotions to the next generation... they sell sugar water, all they have are feelings...
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook and Google are now in SERIOUIS trouble. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a bit of saying in advertising. Half of your money in advertising is always wasted. The trick is to filter out what half you can throw away and replace as quick as possible. And this just proved that Facebook's NSA style of mass collection and tailored advertising just don't work. Google is lucky in that they have many other products and services that they offer. And there's another issue that is probably not being considered by too many people that Procter and Gamble's advertising policies are known to signal the trend in which advertising is going. And if they say that Facebook's product is useless other people will listen and change accordingly.
There's a real solid chance that Facebook is screwed. And if they don't bounce back from this it might signal of their downfall.
Re: (Score:3)
Noishkel [slashdot.org] wrote:
From the article (if only people read before commenting):
The very next sentence though:
WSJ has a paywall (Score:3)
From the article (if only people read before commenting):
Not every Slashdot commenter subscribes to The Wall Street Journal, in which the featured article was published. To which sites should Slashdot users expect to have to subscribe before participating in comments?
Re: (Score:2)
Most rags are worth a penny, but WSJ generally is...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah nice hack job of my original statement. Do you have some organic brain damage that gives you problems with interpreting statements? Did you just complete NOT read my statements about how when P&G change their marketing tactics the entire industry tends to follow? Because it's literally the very thing I said just after you cut out the rest of what I said. And I'm not talking about just WHAT they're saying in this article. I'm talking about the advertising industry as a whole. Greater. Context
Re: (Score:3)
There has been a war brewing between old and new media. These two videos (if you can excuse the pithiness) summarize it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0IYzF-zLMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cQHNtc3y0M
Don't get it (Score:3)
Good riddance (Score:3)
I've always wondered how advertising justifies its spending, never moreso than in the internet era.
Personally, I believe the internet would be well served by a drop in advertising revenue by a couple of orders of magnitude. Many,, many people who make their living mysteriously "on the internet" would of course have to get real jobs.
Re:Ads on the Internet != Other mediums (Score:5, Insightful)
Ads on the Internet make me less likely to buy a company's products. If I go you Youtube to watch a video, and Foobar, Inc forces me to sit through five seconds of their stupid ad before I can watch the video I want to watch, then I become pissed off at Foobar, Inc, and remember that next time I go shopping.
The good news is that stories like this show we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole Internet advertising scam.
Re:Ads on the Internet != Other mediums (Score:4, Insightful)
Ads on the Internet make me less likely to buy a company's products.
The ads I'm seeing online are mainly for products I have already bought.
Re:Ads on the Internet != Other mediums (Score:5, Insightful)
That too. 'Targetting' advertising basically just means showing me ads for things I already own.
Any company paying for this crap has far more money than sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Any company paying for this crap has far more money than sense.
Welcome to the world of advertising...
Re: (Score:2)
That too. 'Targetting' advertising basically just means showing me ads for things I already own.
There are two main kinds of ads, although an ad can be more than one thing at a time. There are ads designed to make you feel bad that you don't have something, and there are ads designed to make you good because you do have something, and the company that made it would appreciate it very much if you were to go buy more things from them, and they certainly wouldn't mind if you felt good enough about your purchase to tell other people about it.
Unfortunately, plenty of people have simply accepted advertisemen
Re: (Score:2)
The ads I'm seeing online are mainly for products I have already bought.
Or things that I've looked at, but decided I didn't want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that stories like this show we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole Internet advertising scam.
Have you considered implications of this statement? Advertising right now keeps the lights on. Without it, the days of Free Content are over.
Re:Ads on the Internet != Other mediums (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a ton of free content on the Internet before advertising. The main result of advertising has been to flood the Internet with useless sites that exist solely to make money from advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a ton of free content on the Internet before advertising. The main result of advertising has been to flood the Internet with useless sites that exist solely to make money from advertising.
Indeed. Do a search for anything these days, and you get multiple hits for ad-financed copypasta before you get any real meat. /., for cripes sake. We thought it was bad when the amount of original content went down and it became more of a news aggregator, but now it is at rock bottom as yet another reblogging site. A bad one at that, with attributions that often cannot even be followed.
And the quality goes down. Look at
Re: (Score:2)
There was a ton of free content on the Internet before advertising.
I agree, but...
The main result of advertising has been to flood the Internet with useless sites that exist solely to make money from advertising.
...most of the content I consume by volume (of bytes) has been financed in whole or in part by advertising. I don't think it's particularly accurate to suggest that the Romans never did anything for us.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always tried to avoid ads as much as possible, throughout my life as far back as I can remember. If I Google for a Product I even scroll down below the 'ad' for the manufacturer and click on the straight google link lower down. Before the internet, I'd turn off the TV, go do something else etc. when the ads came on and avoid channels with excessive ad breaks (I live in Australia now and simply avoid the commercial channels altogether).
As others have also said, I do my own research for most of what I bu
Would you go back to dial-up? (Score:2)
I remember back in the early-mid nineties (I guess I had internet access from around '94 through the university I worked at) how much nicer it was when everything wasn't filled with ads and most of the content was just from people with an interest in something.
How fast was home Internet access back in the good old days you remember? Without commercial works, is there really enough demand to sustain a market for high speed Internet? Or ought Internet access at a public or university library during regular library hours to be enough for anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that stories like this show we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the whole Internet advertising scam.
Be careful what you wish fo.... {Please subscribe for $9.90/month to read the rest of this comment}
Re: (Score:2)
I have occasionally seen a product advertised in print media that I was interested in buying, and maybe once or twice on television. On the Internet, not so much. Internet advertising tends to be 99.99% worthless scam bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Spend that 100 million on improving products (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
which then causes people to find active ways to remove them from their online experience
Sometimes by avoiding the offending site completely. I've seen plenty of sites that tried blocking ads, interstitials or really annoying flashing / moving stuff to grab your attention, only to remove those a little while later. Presumably because the readership moved on instead of having their retinas injured and their intelligence insulted.
Staying on topic: I'd really like to see some hard numbers on how effective targeted advertising really is. You know, the kind of advertising made possible by our
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with "shady" site placement and everything to do with the fact digital advertising simply by and large doesn't work. Seems like YouTube and Spotify, sites with a captive user, are the only ones that can even get their ads noticed (albeit marginally) with most other ads being completely ignored. Though sometimes they really try and force you to look at an ad (covers the page, countdown to proceed) which then causes people to find active ways to remove them from their online experience.
Oh, digital advertising works. When booking.com showed me an ad not that long ago saying that the price of a guest house I had checked out a couple of days earlier had gone down I booked a room for three days. That ad worked because it was correctly targeted. Youtube on the other hand can't seem to get it right despite all the brainpower of all those aspiring Nobel laureates and alpha type power-management types they have collected together on their campus. The only correctly targeted ad I've seen on YouTub
Re: (Score:2)
which is incidentally the first YouTube ad I've seen whose makers had picked up on the simple and obvious fact any content beyond 5 seconds in a YouTube ad is wasted
This is the one that really amazes me. You can skip the ad after 5 seconds, so you have 5 seconds to convince me not to (or, at least, to try to make me aware of your brand). So many YouTube ads spend the first 5 seconds on some build effect so that by the time I hit 'skip ad' I have no idea what company or product is being advertised.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that non-digital advertising works either? I suspect neither is particularly effective but that digital ads are actually measurable.
They point at fraud in digital, but we also know that Neilson numbers and print circulation numbers are flawed. Did users really stay the follow-up to a popular show, or did they simply forget to indicate they had stopped watching?
In general, I think advertising functions like a virus- the more you're exposed to it the less effective the tactics they use
Re: (Score:2)
I'm convinced that the only substantial success of advertising is in getting companies to pay for advertising. There may be some marginal benefit for entirely unknown brands, but there's no way that companies get $100bn [statista.com] of value out of it, in the US alone.
Re: Spend that 100 million on improving products (Score:4, Insightful)
get a safety razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. best move you can make.. blades are easily replacable and super-cheap. I picked up 100 for around $20 like 3 years ago and still have some left....
Re: (Score:2)
This! I was about to post similar, but you beat me to it. After initial cost of handle, brush and bowl, I spend less per year to shave than most people spend in a month. Hell, I spend less per year to shave than most people spend on saving cream alone in a month and I get a better shave and get to choose the scent of my soap.
Don't believe the marketing hype. No one needs more than one blade, and that chemical concoction you use as a "cream" is not only a wast of money, it's not good for your face eithe
Re: (Score:2)
If only i found out about the safety razor earlier in life.. but at lesat the days of spending $20 for 5 "cartridges" which only last a few weeks are long gone. A single safety razor blade easily lasts a month since they have two sides and at $20 for a HUNDRED....(been using a safety razor for 10 years now).
anyone who is buying any "multiple blade" heads is just throwing money away. Seems every few years they bring out their latest "N" blade head and pitch how much better it is then the N-1 blade head..
Re: (Score:3)
Put another aloe strip on that fucker, too. That's right. Five blades, two strips, and make the second one lather. You heard me—the second strip lathers. It's a whole new way to think about shaving. Don't question it. Don't say a word. Just key the music, and call the chorus girls, because we're on the edge—the razor's edge—and I feel like dancing.
http://www.theonion.com/blogpo... [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
i was looking for that article when this thread was started, but thought it came from straight dope and couldnt locate it.. thanks for the post!
Re: (Score:2)
how is a "safety razor" designed not to cut you dangerous? Maybe you are thinking "straight razor" by chance?
I've tried several electric shavers, they take FOREVER and by the time i pass over the area over and over again it is raw. Single blade safety razor is my personal preference..
Re: (Score:2)
I opted for a beard. Quick trim once a week, operating costs close to zero and the beard trimmer is useful for eyebrows and tidying up the back of the head too so even the capex isn't fully incurred by the beard.
Re: (Score:3)
get a safety razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. best move you can make.. blades are easily replacable and super-cheap. I picked up 100 for around $20 like 3 years ago and still have some left....
I picked up a ten years supply for the equivalent of $50. I used to use a straight razor, but those things require too much maintenance. My safety double-edged razor cost $5 in the 90s, and I'm still using it.
The best part is that the single-bladed (per side) means that only a single edge goes across my face. Having two edges placed next to each other means that the first blade pulls the follicle out a little while the second blade cuts it. This results in the hair actually being *lower* than the surface
Re: Spend that 100 million on improving products (Score:5, Informative)
They set the price where the income is maximized.
Sure, but they also need to decide how much to spend on ads and promoting their brand, then that cost has to be incorporated into the price. If a Gillette razor costs $10 and an Equate razor costs $5, you can't expect people to pay the difference based on quality, since the products are basically identical, so you have to run advertisements to make people think your product is better or more prestigious. It is surprising how well this works. When an ad runs, very few people think "If I buy that product, I am paying for that ad".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting they are maximizing for profit, not income - at least in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you daft? Proctor and Gamble and PG&E are not the same company. Good Lord.
Safety PSAs (Score:2)
ads from a power company are useless to begin with. They're usually a monopoly and everybody loves electricity. Why bother with ads then?
Electric utility ads are often safety PSAs (avoid power lines, call before you dig, etc.) or generic ads for electric appliances (such as "the electric heat pump" of no particular brand).
Re:Advertise to transsexuals (Score:4, Informative)
They spend money on both genders' products.
No, we don't. You're thinking of transvestites, aka drag queens, who just play dress-up on Friday nights.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like you don't like drag queens very much. That's not very progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's Bruce Jenner until he gets 'the big chop'?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Frankenfurter was (at least possibly) a transexual afterall? She was a doctor...
What about transexuals that never intend to change their junk, just live as opposite sex? You could conceivably have a married trans couple have a kid, but the husband would carry the baby.
Unrelated...Did you wake up screaming? Like the Lithgow character in Garp?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand Rocky Horror Picture Show - it was crap when I first saw 15 minutes of it trying to see what the big deal was, and I'm sure it hasn't improved with age, so I neither know nor give a shit about Frankenturter.
There are plenty who only go on cross-sex hormones because of one or more of the following:
Unable to access surgery where they live
Cost
Medical conditions that make surgery inadvisable.
You seem to intentionally not want understand what gender dysphoria is, from your comments. Both your
Federated subscription (Score:3)
Sure, as soon as federated subscription becomes a thing again. Back in 1999, the web had a $9.99 per month service called Adult Check. Subscribers could access numerous participating sites, whose respective publishers were paid based on page view count. I assume the name was supposed to mean "Because grown-ups can pay for nice things."
But nowadays it's $4/mo for WIRED, a similar amount for The Atlantic, etc. Take the number of distinct domains in your past month's browser history and multiply by $4 to see h
Re: (Score:2)
Paying to block TV ads (Score:2)
It is bad enough to see ads on TV which I avoid by recording the shows and then using the Fast Forward Button on my remote control.
How much have you paid TiVo for the privilege of avoiding TV ads? Or if you instead rent a DVR from your pay TV provider, how much have you paid for DVR rental since you started doing so?
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.K., if you go with Sky, you pay nothing for their Sky+HD DVR - you get one delivered regardless of what level of subscription you take out, they don't charge a specific rental for it, and they don't take it away once you cancel.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to rent. You can buy a DVR for $200.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus $550 up front or $15 per month for the required service (source: tivo.com)
Time warping patent (Score:2)
When the US Patent and Trademark Office awarded TiVo the so-called time warping patent.
Re: (Score:2)
I've run multiple businesses of different types
That in itself is a warning not to listen to you. If you couldn't run any of multiple businesses well enough to stay, I'm not sure I'd take your advice as golden. At least not for the business - perhaps it was for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how many adverts for Pampers nappies I see, especially as a proportion of total adverts I see, I think P&G need to get accurate, not creative.
I don't have a small human, I have no intention of having a small human and I don't buy nappies for my friends. Pampers wont fit me and I don't own a 1961 Ferrari 250GT California Spider so I'm really struggling to see how P&G expect a return on that particular advertising spend.
Would you prefer to be tracked? (Score:2)
How is an advertiser (or a publisher that takes advertisers' money and runs it's ads) supposed "to get accurate" other than by tracking you from one website to the next, building a profile of your web browsing habits, and using data from that to infer your interests?
Re: (Score:2)
I neither know nor care. Fuck 'em, I'm not paying for that advertising anyway. I'm just highlighting that they're misreading the demographics to which they're targeting their advertising spend.
Re: (Score:2)