Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says Not All Ad Clicks Are Created Equal
kyle6477 writes to share that Microsoft is hoping to change the way advertising is thought of, and ultimately valued, online. Their new Engagement ROI tool tries to track a user's ad clicking habits and distribute the credit over all of the ads that led to an eventual sale as opposed to the last ad clicked getting all the credit. "Say a consumer sees an ad for a product in a video ad one day, and then clicks on a text ad to visit the retailer's site the next day, and then eventually sees a banner ad that leads to a purchase. All of the monetary credit tends to go to the text link that was clicked on."
Microsoft are wrong, I don't have any ads to click, so they are in fact all equal to me.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Hey MS, hows this for a new marketing strategy... none! This is what I do: I actively monitor all the ads that I am subjected to, then I inform my friends, and avoid these products like the plague.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
I barely trust javascript from Google, I trust even less stuff from Microsoft, so how well would their algorithms work without client side scripts?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I'm seeing this Verio Linux ad on /.'s main page and it lists some of the benefits of going with Verio.
#1: root access gives you control
I've heard some stupid slogans, but that one reaches a Hillary Clinton-level of idiocy.
As for the article, Microsoft sucks and no one should buy their products, no matter what sort of technology they use to track online activities. I spit on Microsoft.
I think that perhaps click through addds are a means to an end, in that they don't sell any product themselves but create awareness.
Once again tho, who are the people that actually buy something from a click through add, exempting porn of course, which everyone buys.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
To track all of your traffic.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
This really seems like a wasted effort. Presumably, it is either the case that the ad that was clicked on was more convincing than the other ads, causing the purchaser to finally cave in, or it was no more convincing and just benefited from the luck of the draw. If it was the case that this individual ad was what convinced the consumer, I see no reason it shouldn't get all the credit. If it was not the case that this individual ad was more convincing, then when you take the total ad revenue on average, none of the ads should be getting more revenue than any of the others.
To put it another way, if one ad is generating a lot more revenue than other ads, there's a reason for this. Whether it be placement, timing, appropriate context, better design, or whatever. If none of these things are the case, then I submit that the ads should all be generating equivalent revenue.
In short, Microsoft is developing a solution in search of a problem. Either that or it's just another attempt at tracking the consumer's every last act, hidden under a patina of equitable distribution of ad revenue.
... can probably afford to pay for every ad they click on. Why not make it so clicking an add withdraws 2 cents from your Visa account, or something?
I don't know anyone who's ever been surfing a website, saw an ad for a gadget, or a shirt, or anything, and said "Wow, I just found out I need to buy that!"
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Microsoft says a lot of things, but no one believes them.
Like most tech companies past their prime, welcome to club Novel Microsoft.
Some are more equal than others.
Ooo! Was that the first Orwell reference for this article? Do I win an iPod?
Even beyond that this is Microsoft, I think there's a simpler answer here too. Is not the only person who made the sale the one who clicked the final link to purchase? I would say so. No matter how much advertising went into before that and how well it can be tracked it is still only deserving to the owner of the sale.
How do you track reliably who is clicking on an ad? Unless the person is forced to sign in (emit a personal cookie) on every browser, on every computer, there's no way to know his/her clicking habits on other machines. If the person cleans cookies periodically, there's no way to know what ads led to the sale.
This seems to me like yet another boondoggle...
This would make me far less likely to click on ads. Right now, I only click on ads for two reasons:
1) I am already interested in that product
2) I would like to kick back a little money to the site I'm currently surfing. (I frequently have no other way of supporting them)
(OK, I also occasionally click on ads by accident -- especially those annoying ones that hover over the text and have really tiny "close" boxes)
If I'm no longer supporting the site I'm on by clicking an ad, then I lose all motivation to click on them. At that point, I start remembering how annoying ads are, and start considering an ad blocker.
Furthermore, it defeats the efforts of conscientious site hosters like Penny Arcade and Something*Positive (both webcomics, oddly) who are careful to only pick ads for products/sites they can support, and tailor the ads to be useful to their readers. As a result, I strongly suspect that their ads lead to more clicks and more purchases. A scheme like Microsoft's would add a whole lot of free-loaders to their hard work and make it no longer worth while (financially, anyway -- they still have their reputations, of course)
I don't know anyone who's ever been surfing a website, saw an ad for a gadget, or a shirt, or anything, and said "Wow, I just found out I need to buy that!"
Advertising doesn't really work like that. Much of advertising is just an attempt to create familiarity. So when you DO suddenly decide you "need to buy that!" you'll at least have a passing familiarity with the product that was advertised to you.
AccountKiller
But it's occurred to me that this business about measuring an ad's value by counting clicks is BS.
The same marketers that think an ad is worthless because not enough people visited their page don't think that television or newspaper ads are worthless because not enough people snapped off the TV and called the company.
They get no feedback from TV or newspaper ads - other than a rough estimate of how many people viewed them. Yet from an Internet ad, they expect potential customers to drop what they're doing and rush to the company's website.
For instance, the ad at the top of this slashdot page right now says "A golden opportunity to make Java apps richer... click here". It includes a meaningless picture of some golden eggs. No mention of the company name, product name, or anything that might stick in our minds for later. From their perspective, either we click now or the ad was useless.
They'd never run that ad on TV or in the paper ("blah blah blah, call now."), then cancel their TV ad because nobody called. They'd include some company and product info, and hope we remember them.
So why do they expect so much more from Internet ads?
Now that we couldn't buy Yahoo, let's get some FUD out there to try to discredit ads, and hopefully cause people to not want to pay Yahoo/Google as much. Then when the share price comes down maybe we can think about a hostile takeover of Yahoo again.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I suppose... most of the ads I see, though, just drive home the fact that I desperately don't need a product that uses a banner ad that bogs down the entire website, covers up the text I'm trying to read, has a hidden "Shut off" button, irritating music, animated flame effects, and so forth.
Then again, I'm probably not the target audience. If I want to buy something, I don't click banner ads... I research the different products that are out there, go directly to the site that has them, and buy the best one. Ad people probably hate me.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
That way, I won't be able to see them through my Linux box.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I know that I only click on sites as a result of google searches. Does this count?
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
In short, Microsoft is developing a solution in search of a problem.
Like in sports, the person who passes the ball/puck/etc does not do the scoring but they do get credit for the assist. Doing so in advertising does make logical sense, and it also seems to be a more fair system. Be careful that you are not against a good idea merely because it was from Microsoft, if Google had suggested this would you have had the same reactions?
Either that or it's just another attempt at tracking the consumer's every last act, hidden under a patina of equitable distribution of ad revenue.
To continue in the theme of the above question, does it bother you that google is actually doing so? Mining email, etc?
We can justify collecting an obscene amount of information about all of you.
Blazing Spiders
they are wrong. from a consumer view, all ads are equal, but some ads are more equal than others
It sounds like a scam to avoid paying, especially to sites they don't want to pay.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Why are Microsoft so desperate to get into net advertising? It simply isn't their area of expertise.
Microsoft's strongest markets are the corporate desktop market and games markets.
Sure, there's money in advertising. But why spend to much effort in these markets while your desktop OS is in crisis?
If a banner ad is indeed bogging down "an entire website" I propose to you that it is your browser/computer that is being bogged down, and needs to be replaced. go ahead and click on that Dell ad.
Honestly, one add is killing the website?
It sounds so Microsoft. They control the OS and the browser, so they could keep detailed history information about what you've been looking at. But they don't seem to actually be doing that. The Atlas Media Console, which is what this is all about, is just a tool for managing multiple types of ads and reducing the data that comes back as they're viewed.
Microsoft has a point, though. "Advertising doesn't jerk, it pulls" - John Wanamaker. The ad that was clicked on may not have been the primary influence on the buying decision. For advertisers who have brands with some value, an online presence helps to market the brand. Then when an ad for something for a consumer actually wants is displayed, a sale is more likely. Advertisers can't currently measure that effect.
Many Google ads are, of course, from "bottom-feeders", with no brand of value. They just want the click-through. Anything that improves measurement of return on investment for the actual seller will reduce the value of all those "bottom feeder" ads - the "made for adwords" sites, the spam blogs, and such. It's unclear how much of Google's revenue is generated that way.
Some Google text ads have a form of mouse-over tracking. When you mouse over some Google text ads, nothing appears to happen, but in fact, some Javascript executes and the URL you can click on changes. I'm not yet sure just what they're sending back to the mothership, or if they send anything on mouse-overs without a click.
As for the bottom-feeder problem, we've recently developed some tools for SiteTruth that tell us some things about Google AdWords. SiteTruth rates web site legitimacy, and we have a browser-plug in which displays those ratings alongside each ad. It's striking to see the difference between the quality of ads served on different sites. Slashdot and Linkedin advertisers aren't too bad; Myspace advertiser quality is very low. Remember that Slashdot article about the people who will click on anything? That's the Myspace crowd.
My computer is fine, my connection is fine, but when a pop-over ad appears on some site that Slashdot directs me to that covers up all the text I'm trying to read, and stalls my machine for a few seconds while it opens and closes three times, then yes, there is noticeable slowdown. Still, you probably click on it right away, so you don't experience any of that.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
In sports, we know what's going on. We know why the pass was made, we know who made it, we can generally tell how helpful a particular "assist" was. For that matter, we know that this pass directly resulted in a score being made.
Here, it's all statistics, and we don't really have a clue. And, you don't seem to be addressing the points the GP made -- this doesn't necessarily make it "more fair" at all.
Well, first, Google wouldn't have suggested it. They'd have simply started doing it.
But ask yourself the same question -- are you ignoring the counterargument simply because you think the person is an MS-basher?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
... to run (and use) Privoxy. Blocks ads, cookies, and noxious sites. Try it on steaks, cleans nylons, small craft warnings.
And don't surf without it.
Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
I have -- I haven't actually gone and bought it right away, but I have followed banner ads when I saw something interesting.
That said, these were at least somewhat relevant/contextual, and I absolutely do block the more obnoxious ones. Anything with an animation is GONE, Flash doubly so.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Then how does it "get no monetary credit"?
How to improve advertising's image? Get rid of it wholesale. No I didn't RTFA. I don't waste my time as a rule. I do post here though. Ow. Head hurting. Cognitive dissonance pressure increasing.
You aren't alone... there are LOTS of people who would prefer a world without advertising. Sirius and XM Satellite Radio made an entire business around the idea that you would pay more to listen to music without advertising. They've got 14 or 15 Million customers paying $13 a month. And that's only a small percentage of the number of people who find value in an adless world.
Tivo and other Digital Recording devices adopt a similar concept for TV (except for during the Super Bowl, when ads ARE the main attraction).
As far as your own abilities to "research different products that are out there", how much of your research depends on passive advertising that you get because you don't even realize? Sure, products like the iPhone that come from proven technology companies get their name in the news so the ads aren't even needed... but if you were in the market for a device that did what the iPhone does, there are other options out there and it isn't easy to conduct the research because it is a complex, fluid, dynamic, ever-changing market.
The purchases that I tend to "research" aren't even advertised, though. They are specialty items that have informed customers. I got a bike last year (from Trek) and a HD camcorder two years ago (from Sony). Both cost over $1,000 and were "big" purchases for me. Both I am very happy with. Neither of them have I really seen advertised for at all.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
I remember seeing a presentation on this at a Search Engine Marketing conference in 2005. PPC bidding companies have been doing this for a long time. Microsoft has the media muscle to get the average IT dummy to start thinking about this like it's a revolutionary breakthrough that only the geniuses at Microsoft could possibly figure out.
Honestly, one add is killing the website? One ad.. perhaps not, but half a dozen ads being delivered from a server that can barely keep up? most definitely yes. I've seen it countless times. The text I want loads, the web site graphics load, but the ads are still chugging along and will eventually stop. The worst ones are the ones that don't allow the rest of the page to load until they have finished. It must be even worse for those who have a dial up connection.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Not that anyone here would actually RTFA but here is a link to it for completeness sake:
http://www.digra.org:8080/Plone/dl/db/06278.36196.pdf
I'm sure this is of course a patent pending business process?
I wish that were true. While there are some products/services whose ads drive me away from the product, I think what happens most of the time is that I forget I've seen the ad, but next time I see the product name, it seems familiar.
A couple years ago, I saw ads for SAP in the airport that communicated ZERO about what it is or does, but just claimed that great businesses use it. Recently I was told to find out about it for our business, and even though their site is extremely vague about everything, I found myself thinking, "this product is for really big and smart businesses; we probably aren't ready for it yet, but it would be neat if we were."
I remember hearing about a study where people rated one of two identical breakfast cereals as tasting better, simply because it came in a more attractive box. We are not as objective as we like to think.
It's sad to realize that many of my product preferences must have less to do with experience than advertising. We are all vulnerable.
if the ad is served via a tag (most are), the browser wont load anything after the tag until it downloads the javascript file. if the server hosting the ad is slow, it slows down the webpage with the ad on it.
ad servers are usually pretty fast, but when they slow down it's very noticeable.
Businesses already track results and are aware of synergy resulting from multiple venues allied to the same product/campaign. Knowing what works gives one a competitive advantage. Why pay Microsoft to do something that one already does. Why allow them access to results that could benefit competitors?
By not watching ads, you are stealing from the hard working website owners and operators like CmdrTaco here. I mean, due to lack of funds the poor guy has obviously had to hire brain damaged chimpanzees as editors.
;)
I keed, I keed, you guys are great, don't cancel my account please.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's none of your god damn business which ones I see. Douchebags like you prevent your more ethical colleagues from getting through to people, because we just block or ignore all ads.
But it's occurred to me that this business about measuring an ad's value by counting clicks is BS.
This is the wrong message to take from this story. The way I read it, this is a shot across the bow for web advertising. Someone do a patent search to see if there has been anything filed for methods of distinguishing different kinds of ad clicks.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
HE is an equal opportunity blocker.
ms is an UNEQUAL, opportunistic extractor.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
As a web publisher I could see how this would benefit me as I only display ad's specific to what my sites are about. The problem lies with all the spam content sites that normally draw traffic from non-spam content sites.
People click on ad's displayed on a site mainly because of how the ad is displayed; mainly though good ad placement, or relevent content. Just because it was displayed on a half dozen other sites the person may have visited dosen't mean they should receive some of the payment. The fact that a user DIDN'T click on the ad on the other sites should infact punish the publishers as their ad's are aparently not specific to their customers visitiing the sites.
TruePunk | Games
I don't think that it's fair to call it just "leverage."
You know? I agree with you. Just add an "r" and a space to leverage...
Lever RAGE.
Now, imagine being on a see-saw. You're the light end, and that 800-lb mugato-rilla on the other side is ms. When it jumps down onto the see-saw, you either fly off, or get slammed into any overhead objects. So, it's leverage becomes your.. lever RAGE... but, you're STILL leveraged. Just not in a way you like.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The Society finds your comments repulsive. Associating Vista with snails gives said snails a very bad name.
Contrary to your misinformed opinion, some snails are capable of very high speeds, up to 12 inches per minute (15 with a good tailwind). I think we can all agree that this is far faster than Vista.
We therefore request that you withdraw your hurtful comments.
Yours in slime,
S. Cargo
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Back when I invented spyware... What?... Back when I invented spyware, these were the exact same arguments that we used.
The client needed to know exactly which ads thier client was looking at and how they were positioned, how long the user lingered on the page, and what they clicked through, and which offers they accepted... so that we could target them with more of the same type of offers.
Our only issue was, how to get this wonderful tool that every user will want into thier hands? Why did I suggest the same avenue that viruses and other exploits use? two reasons: One, I figured there had to some useful purposes these pointless 'turn off your computer after typing a funny message to the screen' viruses could be put to.
Two: Becuase we didn't have the power of microsoft to shove it down everyones throat.
I've spent a long time regretting my suggestion so long ago - My only solace is that maybe someone somewhere else suggested it first, and the implementation of it was well along before I opened my mouth. Please don't let me be the guy that invented spyware... Also - please let me avoid having it downloaded to my computer via windows update.
subtract?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The best example I can give you is me buying a 500$ magnetic field sensor. I've been looking for it and was stocked in very little places, and was quite expensive there. I'm really glad I saw that ad.
This concept came to Microsoft via their Aquantive aquisition. The idea was put forth on the web and in whitepapers prior to the acquisition -- it's just getting more press now because MSN is the #2 site for display ads.
The MS Ads metrics include just seeing the Ad, not only clicking it. So, a shared computer can show 10 people a product they couldn't care less about. Then, an 11th person decides to click it. You, the advertiser, have now paid for 11 ad-placements for one customer. How efficient is that?
Advertising Agents *never* want the advertiser to get accurate readings. They make money on how many ad-placements you pay for. They want to *look* like the metrics mean something.
At first I thought I'd misspelled it--the correction would be welcome, but I was looking for the error.
Then I read down the rest of the post, and I burst out laughing. Thank you! I wish I had mod points to give you.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Thanks! i hope you didn't get into trouble at work or home.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I trust Google not to do stupid things with the data collected via ads but Microsoft? The least trustworthy company on the planet except for Halliburton.
HTTP/1.1 400
Also, not all operating systems are created equal (sic).
I'm sorry, I thought your original post said "banner ad" not "pop-over" ad.
As for the other issues discussed below, I understand the ads CAN be the bottle neck, but as mentioned by another user, they are on very fast servers and hardly are the limiting factor with a website. More often than not it's the image server that i constantly see waiting for a response from the server. In my experience that is the slowest thing to load.
You got it! Familiarity is the key. Maybe the web banner doesn't directly initiate the sale, but it does help create familiarity. Take one of Slashdot's banner ads for Baracuda networking equipment. Prior to being a Slashdotter, I was not aware of this company. But thanks to their ads on Slashdot, I know the exist and I know that they make routers, etc. Being just a Slashdot ad, I don't pay too much attention to it. However, I keep seeing ad posters in airports for this company. That catches my eye. Since so many web ads are just junk, you don't pay much attention them, but now I have "corroborating evidence" that this company is legit and at least are big enough to have a decent ad budget. Now I am certainly not in the market for a router, but if I were, prior to seeing these ads, I would not have even considered Baracuda. In fact, I would not have heard of them at all. Now that I have some familiarity, I would probably take the next step of researching the company and its products in more detail. This may or may not lead to a sale, but it certainly put me on the right track. As the commentary here today suggests, we don't really know much about how big a role various ads play, but at least Microsoft is making an effort to understand it. That's a benefit to all of us. For all we know, they could determine that web ads are completely useless and the industry of littering web pages with more ads than content may come to an end (finally!).
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
I probably said Banner Ad, but what I really mean with all this is "high-filesize internet advertising of any damn kind". The banners are getting worse, though, when they need to load sounds and animations and fake ads for girls in my town (which, strangely, look JUST LIKE girls in OTHER towns, and it's always the same girls! She's been single for three years!)
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Take ads such as Diesel's: It's all in the branding, and they couldn't give a flying (expletive) if you visit their website; clients who do so only represent an infitismal persentage of their client base.
So, how to calculate "what and who makes a sale", and how to distribute the revenues fairly? Who placed the ad most prominently on their webpage (and to what effect), or who rigged their site to display the add next to relevent content (and to what effect?)? How far down the "ad chain" was that last click (and how are you going to calculate that - track and/or hunt down every movement of the person who clicked on an ad?)? They would have to build a database that logs the IP of each and every person who downloads an ad participating in their "system"`; I don't welcome the idea.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
they've thought of a reason to reduce payouts for ad clicks? cuz CPC is so high c/f CPM, and CPM surely won't go up because of this 'research'
Try visiting more than just pr0n sites...
The voice of experience?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
So we need a Tivo for ads!
Advertisement is so 2006, I don't even know how it looks like anymore. Bill you should try AdBlock Plus.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
they don't need to charge anything.
You're making the fallacious link that just because development of this new item cost, it MUST be charged for. That link does not exist.
On a very material level, the profit of the last umpty versions of Windows managed enough profit to pay handsomely each employee and STILL have money left over. That money extra was to pay for future development. You can tell this is the truth because why would you require a monopoly of copyright beyond the level at which the overall balance was zero? Why does copyright last a fixed (and unfortunately expanding) term? So that the revenues of past works can ensure they can make future works.
The extent of copyright is so that the future work does not necessarily have to be paid for, the grant of right is the payment.
If the production of the work is sold at the market marginal cost (if copyright is merely taken as you'll have to do the same original work) then there is no extra profit to cover future work as free. Copyright should be there so that someone can bypass the creative step and that is all. It shouldn't allow monopoly rent because that isn't ensuring that all players in the creation and distribution have to pay the creative step. It's gouging customers who have no alternative.
(I must admit to not knowing what the ROI acronym stands for. Maybe that makes the article make sense.)
Some users simply don't click on ads. If I see something that I'm interested in, I'll tend to open a new tab, and then type in the domain name of the company in question, then I go searching for the product in question. And it's competitors. It's something to do with distrusting advertisers only a little less than I distrust lawyers. come the glorious day, they'd probably be lined up with the politicians for their turn in front of the machine guns.
Obviously, I block adverts as fast as I can be bothered to configure a new filter for a new advert. Including those that appear on SlashDot.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
This appears to me to be their first steps at integrating advertisement tracking into the operating system. How better to properly track what ads people seen in order to properly compensate clients? This is an area where Google can't compete, but Microsoft can since they own the OS. Sure it won't work under OS X or Linux or FreeBSD, but when sites require a "compatible" browser that does "proper" ad view tracking (using their parented technology) to even view the site, you'll have to use IE to view anything. Pretty sneaky.
I don't know, but it works for me.
In sports, we know what's going on. We know why the pass was made, we know who made it, we can generally tell how helpful a particular "assist" was. For that matter, we know that this pass directly resulted in a score being made.
Ads can be tagged for their scope. The defined scope(s) can be used to determine if an "assist" is being made. Digital music players to iPod to sale, we have an assist. Printers to iPod to sale, no assist.