Is Online Advertising Worthless? (zerohedge.com) 289
turkeydance shares a story from ZeroHedge:
Category 1 storm clouds are gathering over what has traditionally been one of the most lucrative, and perhaps only profitable, sectors to come out of Silicon Valley in decades: online advertising. Two months ago, it was P&G which fired the first shot across the "adtech" bow when not long after it announced it was slashing its digital ad spending because it thought it was not getting the kind of return on investment it desired, it made a striking discovery: "We didn't see a reduction in the growth rate." CFO Jon Moeller said "What that tells me is that that spending that we cut was largely ineffective"...
So fast forward to last week, when during Thursday's Global Retailing Conference organized by Goldman Sachs, Restoration Hardware delightfully colorful CEO, Gary Friedman, divulged the following striking anecdote about the company's online marketing strategy, and the state of online ad spending in general... What Friedman revealed - in brief - was the following: "we've found out that 98% of our business was coming from 22 words. So, wait, we're buying 3,200 words and 98% of the business is coming from 22 words. What are the 22 words? And they said, well, it's the word Restoration Hardware and the 21 ways to spell it wrong, okay?"
Stated simply, the vast, vast majority of online ad spending is wasted, chasing clicks that simply are not there....One wonders how long before all retailers - most of whom are notoriously strapped for revenues and profits courtesy of Amazon - and other "power users" of online advertising, do a similar back of the envelope analysis, and find that they, like RH, are getting a bang for only 2% of their buck?
So fast forward to last week, when during Thursday's Global Retailing Conference organized by Goldman Sachs, Restoration Hardware delightfully colorful CEO, Gary Friedman, divulged the following striking anecdote about the company's online marketing strategy, and the state of online ad spending in general... What Friedman revealed - in brief - was the following: "we've found out that 98% of our business was coming from 22 words. So, wait, we're buying 3,200 words and 98% of the business is coming from 22 words. What are the 22 words? And they said, well, it's the word Restoration Hardware and the 21 ways to spell it wrong, okay?"
Stated simply, the vast, vast majority of online ad spending is wasted, chasing clicks that simply are not there....One wonders how long before all retailers - most of whom are notoriously strapped for revenues and profits courtesy of Amazon - and other "power users" of online advertising, do a similar back of the envelope analysis, and find that they, like RH, are getting a bang for only 2% of their buck?
Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly they are spending their advertising budgets with the wrong consultants.
Anyone decently competent at online marketing knows how to narrow their most effective keywords, and push them harder, to achieve better click-through rates.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct, you should know to the penny, to the minute how effectice your online ads are.
You mean that you should get from Google metrics about how effective are the ads Google is selling you, or that you should get from Facebook metrics about how effective are the ads Facebook is selling you, without in either case having access to the information needed to verify the metrics they give you?
That's the world of online ads, in a nutshell.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you value your money. You should analyze it yourself. The most important metrics being dollars out, vs dollars in.
"Dollars in, dollars out" doesn't tell you you which ads are more cost-effective, unless you only pay for CPC ads, have a very limited number of ads, and have no other source of revenue
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dollars in, dollars out" doesn't tell you you which ads are more cost-effective
You have a specific landing page for each ad. Then you track that contact through to the purchase, whether that is online, or through an offline sales lead. You know how much the ad cost, and you know the revenue generated. You subtract out your COGS, and if the result is positive, your ad is making money.
This is advertising 101. If they don't even know how to do ads right, then P&G is run by morons.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you now who P&G is? Do you think that they sell direct to consumer? Their ads are far more indirect, meant to increase sales at retail.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Informative)
Correct, you should know to the penny, to the minute how effectice your online ads are.
Horseshit. Most sales cannot be directly connected to a click any more than viewing a commercial on TV can. Most of the time you don't know if the person who clicked is the person who bought your toothpaste or furniture. Clickthrough is not a measure of an ad's effectiveness, it's just a proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
A click-through doesn't do you any good unless you can give the person doing the clicking a reason to actually buy what you're selling.
Re: (Score:2)
Most sales cannot be directly connected to a click any more than viewing a commercial on TV can.
Of course not, that's not how it works. Marketing operates at the macro level
1) look at your sales this month,
2) run an ad campaign,
3) compare the cost of the advertising to the increase in sales.
You have a very good idea how effective the campaign was. Whether any given click generated a sale is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Even that does not work because a company like P&G has a pipe line. WallMart for example on of your re-sellers, has X units on hand all ready. You run an ad, Wallmart's sales change immediately yours do not.
A very metrics driven company like Wallmart probably responds pretty quickly by adjusting their re-order count so you get that data right away. Now how about Hussey's General Store in some rural mountain town in eastern Virginia? They sell more P&G product this month and little less of the c
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
It also does not capture brand building.
Jewellers, for example, advertise throughout the year, with less expectation of sales next month than people remembering the brand name come holiday season or anniversaries. Similar for plumbers and funeral homes with local ads.
The goal is being the first company you think of when you one day will use such services.
Re: (Score:3)
Decades ago I worked for a corporation that ran funeral homes (not SCI though that was the role model for the owners).
They don't want 'everyone', they are after a particular customer. A really crazy stupid and grief stricken one that will spend 20x the average to bury someone. 90% of their profits come from 10% of the market.
You saw it in the incentives to the peddlers. Commish for bronze caskets and marble mausoleums is over 50% of gross price.
They won't turn away the 'inexpensive' service customers
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasn't that been the modus operandi of marketing since, well, forever?
Spend $$$ on advertising, if sales increase then the advertising works.
Except there's very little about that process that's provable. About the only thing I'd trust is exit interviews as customers leave the store (brick-and-mortar, or online).
"How did you hear about us?" is one of the most reliable, and direct sources of information about how someone found out about your product - but the whole marketing industry has been built on unprovable BS based on third-hand information, or as said above, proxy information.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:2)
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of web sites ask this, generally with a drop-down. I frequently find that either I don't know, or I heard about them in multiple ways, mostly, neither answer is available, so I select the most irrelevant.
Seriously, guys, If you are trying to collect this information, do it properly on a small percentage of transactions. If I get asked 3 times cos I buy from you three times, then I will probably go elsewhere for the fourth. I ran a polling business 25 years ago, and we knew this then. The only two reasons for polling 100% of customers are (a) stupidity, and (b) evil intent.
Re:Shitty Consultants (Score:4, Insightful)
P&G, that lives on selling stuff, have "wrong/shitty" marketing consultants?
i doubt that. they know what they are talking about when they say something is "largely ineffective".
-
btw i for one have not clicked on an online ad for over a year, and last time was deliberate click to check the ad mechanics(and why it was not blocked by ad block) rather than because of interest in product.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. Even if I see an advertisement for a product I like, I will never click on the ad itself. That's just dumb and a way to get malware and tracking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
P&G, that lives on selling stuff, have "wrong/shitty" marketing consultants?
i doubt that. they know what they are talking about when they say something is "largely ineffective"..
Proctor and Gamble have finally discovered what any sane person has known for a long time. The Online Advertising Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
99% of ads are garbage that nobody would ever click on except by accident, which means that the way that everyone gets paid -- counting clicks -- is completely meaningless because click fraud is so rampant. Plus ads have become so intrusive and loaded with malware that more and more people are blocking them.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:3)
Re:Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
Spend some time with business leaders and you'll find that they're mostly clueless assholes, placed in their positions by wealthy families, running mostly brain-dead companies that make money due to some legacy accident.
Depressingly accurate with zero hyperbole.
Re:Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertisers are paying for ads that are viewed and clicked on by bots, not humans; and ads are placed by thousands of automated “ad exchanges” that are out of control of the advertiser, and on sites and pages that don’t match the advertiser’s products.
Over the past 5 years, spending on online adverting has more than doubled but retail spending by consumers has only increased by an average of 2.4% per year. Digital advertising – despite the lure of Facebook and the like – cannot induce consumers to spend more and increase the size of the overall pie for advertisers. It can only, at best, divide up the pie differently.
Re: (Score:3)
retail spending by consumers has only increased by an average of 2.4% per year.
In other words pretty close to the inflation rate. We might conclude from that consumer behavior really has not changed much at all at the macro level. One interesting question would be has online advertising impact the classes and types of products the retail dollars are chasing.
Re: (Score:2)
That type of precise measurement only exists with direct response advertisement as opposed to brand marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
What they found is that the most effective keywords were people who google their company already, and click on the ad, because it looks like the first result, expecting it to be a link to the company. So, they could just not pay Google to, you know, act as a search engine to themselves.
Re: Shitty Consultants (Score:2)
Perhaps paying for propaganda writers brings a better return than paying for among advertisements.
Re:Shitty Consultants (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't need to create a negative view of Silicon Valley when the companies are doing that so eagerly themselves.
Now most of those companies are SJW-converged and politics is job #1, no sane person is going to look at them in a positive light again. It's probably no coincidence that the two least evil big tech companies are based in Seattle.
And, heck, what kind of world are we living in when Microsoft is the second LEAST evil big tech company?
Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Please kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of the ads put in are useless. They are for stuff people already know about. I already know Toyota exists - I can see their cars everywhere. If a new car brand was introduced in your market, like Acura or Scion on Euro (which are basically domestic US re-branded stuff) then you'd need quite a campaign to make people dare buying that new brand.
If Toyota has a ground-breaking new tech that can be proven to change the life of people then it might be worth to throw in an ad for Toyota. Otherwise th
I always wonder why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I always wonder why (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't click on the ad in the case you describe above, because I simply don't trust the ad to be what it appears.
Re:I always wonder why (Score:5, Informative)
jetkust wondered:
When you search for a company or website on google there is an advertisement for it right above the search result taking you directly to the web site you were looking for. I always click on the search result because clicking on an ad is just weird to me, even though they both likely take me to the same spot. But what is the point of buying an ad like this if they are already trying to get to your site in the first place? Why convince someone to do something they are already doing? Are they afraid another company is going to buy the search ad and someone is going to randomly click on another website instead of the one they were specifically looking for?
The link in the ad does not take you "directly" to the website for which you were searching. Instead, it takes you there by a roundabout route. Here's the URL for the ad that the search string "procter and gamble" generates:
https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwing5erkavWAhUCl34KHRC6B2kYABAAGgJwYw&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESEeD2JLJzL1dBgUZFbmBGP-fz&sig=AOD64_3I39rwK0_DYxkNqTS1PJcvi8-iYg&q=&ved=0ahUKEwi42ZGrkavWAhVoxlQKHWkNCfwQ0QwIJQ&adurl=
Note that the url in question begins with "https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk". That's a call to googleadservices.com, which is google's central advertising hub, alerting it that a pagead has been clicked.
The next bit is "&ai=DChcSEwing5erkavWAhUCl34KHRC6B2kYABAAGgJwYw&ohost=www.google.com", which tells googleadservices to employ the script at "ai=DChcSEwing5erkavWAhUCl34KHRC6B2kYABAAGgJwYw", and that the request is originating from google.com. The "ai=" part might mean "advertising insight", or "artificial intelligence", or even "acknowledge immediately". I dunno - you'd have to ask one of google's advertising engine programmers (and they a are notoriously closed-mouth crew).
The "&cid=CAESEeD2JLJzL1dBgUZFbmBGP-fz" string which follows is clearly an identifier for the "client ID", or the Universe really is entirely devoid of meaning or logic. (YMMV. Or, y'know, not.)
That, in turn, is followed by "&sig=AOD64_3I39rwK0_DYxkNqTS1PJcvi8-iYg", which is pretty obviously a digital signature, probably included to prevent clickjackers from gaming google's revenue stream - or because google just likes to admire its own signature. (My own bet would be on security, rather than self-regard, btw.)
Finally, we have "&q=&ved=0ahUKEwi42ZGrkavWAhVoxlQKHWkNCfwQ0QwIJQ", followed by "&adurl=", the first part of which looks like a query string to me, with the last bit pointing to a null value. My guess is that, absent an actual value for "&adurl=", it causes the AI to redirect your browser to the client's default URL, per their contract with googleadservices. (Again, contents are packed by weight, not volume, and some settling may occur during shipping.)
Contrast all that with the non-ad link that the search string "procter and gamble" generates, which is simply "http://us.pg.com/".
In other words, "It's all about the Benjamins."
You're welcome ...
Re:I always wonder why (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, "It's all about the Benjamins."
Nice post. Average click-through rate is about 2%, and the average price to the advertiser is $1-2.00 US.
Re:I always wonder why (Score:4, Informative)
I searched for Procter and Gamble, then right-clicked on the first non-ad link that google shows. Here is the URL (remember, this isn't an ad):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an onmousedown event in the page's javascript that changes the link when you click on it. I wish browsers would disallow such sneakiness.
Re: (Score:2)
The "ai" refers to "advertising/advertisement id". "Advertising Id" would imply it's an ID for the user; "Advertisement ID" would imply it's an ID for the ad itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I always wonder why (Score:4, Interesting)
Contrast all that with the non-ad link that the search string "procter and gamble" generates, which is simply "http://us.pg.com/".
True BUT! When you click on that link (in most browsers without active defenses) you'll see that the click is intercepted and it fires off a POST request to Google anyway, tracking the click, with a link that looks something like:
https://www.google.co.uk/gen_2... [google.co.uk] string]&s=2&v=2&pv=0.[random number]&me=54:[random number],V,0,0,0,0:6834,h,1,52,i:49,h,1,52,o:214,h,1,51... [many more bits of data] 1,e,C&zx=[some other number]
That will then redirect you to the destination site.
You won't notice it unless you're really tracking requests - if you mouseover the us.pg.com link it doesn't show the Google tracker. If you inspect the source it just looks like a regular HREF link.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies buy ad words using the trademarks and product names other companies all the time.
I can see how companies see this as allowing Google to extort them into buying keywords to their own trademarks so a competitor doesn't appear above them when someone searches for one of those trademarks. Competitors on the sidebar or below, fine, but placed above a link where the searcher clearly wants to go?
Some is worthless. (Score:2)
Some is worthless, some is not. For example, Amazon advertises products you have looked at in your Facebook feed, and I'm sure those ads are well worth it for Amazon.
Re:Some is worthless. (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is now that we can see which half is working, if we measure it by immediate purchases. If you pay for ad, and it does not result in a sale, then is it working? Some would say no.
In a way we are back to the mode of print advertising a hundred years ago. A store runs an ad for a sale, the store can then look to see if revenue increases for the day, and then judge if the ad works. Since that ad is likely run on many outlets, one can't say exactly which ad works. This is what is different now.
But that misses the advertising model of the past 50 years, which is branding and long term returns. You advertise beer on the Super Bowl not just to get sales today, but so the kids will hopefully buy your beer later. You give away a magnum of expensive alcohol to soccer players not to sell the alcohol right then, but to connect with the fans that when they celebrate they are going to buy it.
So maybe branding is still a thing. Maybe putting the Amazon name everywhere is valuable. The problem with advertising and the dot com crisis was that there was an incestuous relationship between advertising dollars and advertisers. it was actually the same money looping around from one had to another, with no value being created. That is no longer the problem. it is that the 'new economy' people still think they have found a new economics, and the cost of acquiring customers can be reduced to zero.
wasn't there an executive.... (Score:4, Interesting)
...or someone who said half of his advertising budget was wasted...but identifying which half was the problem?
Lynx Avoids Many Pop Up Ads (Score:2)
I am one of those who ads do not do any good.
I am the one who uses lynx (linux text mode browser) that does not bother with pop ups. I get the text of the article without the pop overs. Therefore I do not see about 80 percent of the ads on sites.
And I cannot be the only one doing this. . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I am the one who uses lynx (linux text mode browser) that does not bother with pop ups. I get the text of the article without the pop overs. Therefore I do not see about 80 percent of the ads on sites.
And I cannot be the only one doing this. . . .
I use uBlock Origin with Firefox (inb4 "botnet pls"), and i only visit faecebook about once every six months - usually to plant stories about buying boats that I don't actually own, to throw off their analytics. As for the effectiveness of advertising, I'd like to see some figures for the relationship of click-throughs to purchases. Any number of times when I have lowered myself to clicking on one of the few ads I do see, I have very quickly decided "that's not what I was after" and abandoned the chase.
Re: (Score:2)
So you must be visiting Pornhub for the articles.
Google's revenue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything turns into shareware and you have to register your gmail every year or else you can only send 64 characters per message.
An old idea (Score:4, Informative)
No matter how near a monopoly a brand gets due to quality or price it has to keep spending big on its name as if it was entering the market.
Classic TV, print, radio, billboards ads gave way to banner ads and deep tracking internet ads. Anything to keep humans seeing the trusted brand name and its products everyday.
The new problem for the ads is the old separation of TV, print, radio, billboard ads is now their direct online competitor. Social media wants to sell and build their own trusted consumer and entertainment brands.
Private label https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and other ways computer company/social media owners/shopping sites now want to sell are replacing or buying up decades of generations trusted names.
Browsers are considering blocking outside ads. Social media and online shopping push their own new brands or partners that profit share.
The need for ads has not changed. The way select products get presented on a few captive platforms has changed.
Is this article useless? (Score:2)
Just in time to switch to mining (Score:4, Interesting)
Just in time, coin mining [slashdot.org] is coming to replace ads.
I suppose the next step will be to make all links internal to a site with ajax, so the coin mining script can run continuously as long as a user is on the site.
Re: Just in time to switch to mining (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, how many people are going to do that much work?
Plus it's more efficient to block the mining scripts with NoScript or the like, and run a native mining client yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
More probably they're doing it wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
My observation in retail has been that appeal to brand loyalty is the most effective form of advertising. You probably aren't surprised by that, but you likely don't realize how insane it gets. It's extremely common for my customers to think an HP printer will work better with an HP computer.
As for advertising: Fake reviews. They work. You don't even have to explicitly buy them; give someone a free product and they'll give it five stars about 90% of the time. Doesn't hurt that Amazon customers reliably upvote five star reviews and reliably downvote negative reviews.
Useful in a different way (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Yes it is. The only ad's that I see these days are reasonably well-targeted youtube ads on my kid's device. Those are just the same as broadcast commercials. The rest is garbage.
Three kinds of Web advertisements (Score:2)
The three ad types are:
1) Sales. Click here to instantly buy this thing we are advertising. This is the most common and the most useless. You can measure it's effectiveness exactly, which is what makes them popular. But they are remarkably uneffective. If you want to buy it now, you google it. (Or just go to amazon/ebay/etsy directly)
2) Branding. Hey, remember our product? We still sell it. People in X group love us. We are cool. You want to be cool right? When you need product like ours, r
Clicks resulting in sales (Score:2)
Here's an advertising idea: instead of paying for a click on the ad, pay only when the click results in a sale. (Surely modern tracking technology can figure out whether that happened.) Then you'll have a 100% accurate measure of effectiveness. If Google won't agree to it (and of course they won't), start a competing company that will.
Of course successful clicks will have a significantly higher price, but you pay only when the product is sold. Just like a salesman who is paid a commission only when a
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Coca Cola & a zillion other instantly concoctable clones would go for that.
For all the complaints I've heard (Score:2)
anti google news recently? (Score:2)
Rubles (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know, the Russians sure did a lot with $100,000 in Facebook buys. Maybe they just know their 'consumers' better.
Annoying is effective, but in the wrong manner... (Score:2)
generic products require advertising (Score:3)
Advertising anywhere is wasteful. The problem for all those advertisers is that they are selling commodities. Products and services that are indistinguishable from (or inferior to) their competitors.
The solution for those people is simply to produce a better product. As we hear daily on this site; Apple didn't invent the music player, the cell phone or the tablet device--but they made them better. They made them compellingly functional and attractive. While HP, Compaq, IBM and others were assembling generic parts into ugly desktop boxes, Apple was offering colorful, graceful computers that just happened to appear on every interesting TV show. Many consumers were influenced by the look and a growing reputation for ease of use, reliability and service after the sale.
Smart Americans are buying more Toyotas, Nissans, Hyundais and fewer Chevys and Chryslers. Nissans? Damn, most are UGLY! But they have a good reputation for reliability. I bought a Papa John's pizza today- their slogan: Better Ingredients, Better Pizza.
It works the other way too. Walmart has a reputation for lowest prices, which is enough to bring in hordes of buyers. Nordstrom's has a reputation for quality and service that places them high in retail sales. Radio Shack had a market niche that faded away and they couldn't adapt. Every seller needs a unique place in the market or they will have to advertise like crazy.
So long as there are commodities, there will be sales costs. The best investment for products is not advertising, but R&D topped off with functional and/or fashionable design principles. And IP protection. And reputation over the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Papa Johns is horrible shit - they just know what you want to hear and spam that; like Trump.
Grammer (Score:2)
that that spending that
Will someone PLEASE introduce the editors to the works of Strunk and white?!
Twitter is fucking worthless (Score:5, Interesting)
Twitter is fucking worthless. But we all already knew this. But just for shits and giggles, lemmie tell ya some numbers.
Twitter gave me one of those ad trials for their service, a free $100 credit to try them out as an advertising system.
My company received a 0% click-through rate.
I guess I got exactly what I paid for, absolutely nothing. But one thing was for sure, Twitter made sure I absolutely NEVER gave them any actual money for advertising, since it was literally useless and worthless for my business.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly was the content of your advert? It's hard to judge where the problem lies without knowing how effective your pitch was.
For me... (Score:3, Interesting)
...ads are either blocked by software or my mental ability to completely tune them out as visual noise. If I want something I search for it.
Don't be ridiculous (Score:2)
It's less than worthless.
black budget (Score:2)
Let's suppose this trend continues, and the whole online advertising business goes down the tubes. When they can no longer claim it's "ad revenue", how will Google account for all the black budget money they get from fedgov and other repressive regimes in payment for conducting mass surveillance?
Yeah, that's what all advertising does (Score:2)
People only have so much money to
the on-line advertising ecosystem (Score:2)
Jaron Lanier — 'Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one's anus to one's mouth.'
My experiment (Score:2)
About 3 years ago I performed a little experiment.
Had 20 EUR to spend. Spent them on Google AdSense (or AdWords? well whatever) to boost my Youtube channel which had many (unmonetized) World of Tanks replays. This was not to make any money, but to verify what would happen if I did go that way.
That 20 EUR lasted about a week, during which the amount of views of my channel increased tenfold, from about 200 accesses a week to over 2000. then it dropped straight back to 200-something a week.
Now, the question in
Shot themselves in the foot (Score:3)
Back in the day, when advertising on the web was just a simple banner ad that appeared on a page, things were good, we didn't feel a need to install advertising blockers, cuz they weren't disruptive to our experience of web browsing.
Fast forward and the rise of pop ups, pop under, video, sound, splitting articles into multiple pages so you get more advertising thrust in your face. So most of us said enough is enough and the rise of the ad blocker occurred. And now they wonder why advertising is so ineffective? You guys did it to yourselves, you made yourselves so frickin' obnoxious and a bane of the browsing experience, we've tuned you out, either with our brains solely, or with technology to assist in removing your garbage from our monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe you don't see this because you don't understanding how marketing works?
I don't see it anyway because I understand how an adblocker works.
Re: (Score:2)
...a device with decade old specs, and is non-upgradeable...It is a very expensive toy, and perhaps business device...It is a nice piece of tech...
You seem to be a bit undecided!
Re: (Score:2)
How much storage does it have compared to, say, a Nomad?
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, you bought an iCrap.
Yes, and? (Score:2)
It is a very expensive toy .... and now you all know why it's a good idea to advertise here.
Re: (Score:3)
a device with decade old specs, and is non-upgradeable.
Are you talking about Surface or Macbooks?
Re: (Score:2)
What laptops 10 years ago had quad core processors, 8+ GB RAM and 512+ GB PCI-E class SSDs and a higher than 1080p display?
Are you talking about Surface or Macbooks?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I'm not a fan of Surface because the keyboard sucks and I'd rather chew glass than use Windows. But it's not a device with decade old specs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this advertising is usually targeted at the 80% or so of the population that barely know what an internets is, I wouldn't agree with you. I still come across plenty of people that install stupid shit like Honey or coupon printers, so SOME advertising works, you just need to target it in the right way.
The same could be said for Nigerian Phishing scams.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this advertising is usually targeted at the 80% or so of the population that barely know what an internets is, I wouldn't agree with you. I still come across plenty of people that install stupid shit like Honey or coupon printers, so SOME advertising works, you just need to target it in the right way.
The same could be said for Nigerian Phishing scams.
Than those phishing scams are amazing, because on my domains I see a lot of traffic hitting tracking URLs that are not indexed and are only linked to garbage ads for which I pay pennies.
I don't know why, but a lot of people click on ads.
10 Shocking Things You Didn't Know About Ads that will Shock You Into Clicking Links About Shocking News [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Every computer I clean up has crap I know got there via clicking on ads or downloading computer speed up and optimization apps. Every customer I warn about this has no clue what I talking about and assures me that they don’t click on ads.
Clearly P&G just needs to be more deceptive in the placement of their advertising if they want clicks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to update my FeeNAS server today. I guess I shouldn’t have wasted so much time in the foums!
I spent half the day in the forums to confirm switching from a single six-drive RAIDZ3 vdev to three two-drive mirror vdevs. Found this article that convinced me.
http://jrs-s.net/2015/02/06/zfs-you-should-use-mirror-vdevs-not-raidz/ [jrs-s.net]
Tomorrow I'll spend half the day cleaning up my home office from blowing out two years of dust bunnies from inside the file server.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct (Score:2)
The ironic thing, like the crazy dude on the corner proclaiming the end of the world for the last 50 years the night before the Sweet Meteor of Death finally arrives, you have actually posted something as relevant as it is accurate.
Congratulations!
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd just app apps instead of spending on LUDDITE ads they would be getting 100% return from app appers app apping their apps. APPS!
I agree, it is all about payments for added value, like freemium.
If I'm buying stuff from an online store, there is not really much value for a middle-man to add. I'd much rather the store itself just have a searchable catalog.
Re: (Score:2)
P&G can't sabotage their rivals with someone horribly unlikable and full of skeletons like happened with the Trump thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats swung the election. Them along with most media outlets predicted Hillary in a landslide so why even bother running on a good platform or picking a good candidate? I lean towards Libertarian but still liked Bernie for the same reason the Democrats hated him. He doesn't take corporate money. No way would they stand behind a guy who can't be swayed by corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually were Libertarian, you wouldn't have a problem with corporate money in elections because its their money and they can spend it how they want to. Either you don't actually know what Libertarianism is, or you're a troll. Leaning towards the later.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly heretical to the doctrine of "Libertarianism" but I think there is a kind of neo-Libertarianism out there that generally aligns with traditional Libertarianism but rejects Libertarianism's reflexive and doctrinaire support for existing corporate power structures.
I think there's a notion in this neo-Libertarianism that too much corporate power is just as bad if not worse than too much government power. Democratically elected governments are at least nominally constrained by constitutions and
Re: (Score:2)
They sell something like 90% of the detergent in the world under a variety of names. They have trouble getting more people to buy their detergent for the same reason Facebook is having trouble getting people signed up - the population of the world is an upperlimit.