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."
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
It's these guys: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/2037223
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
How on earth did you manage to misspell "ads" three times in a single post (twice with an extra 'd', and once with two extra 'd's)?
I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people who use the Internet for porn do not pay for it. It's not exactly hard to come by.
Yeah, google's text ads are perfectly reasonable, and those flash-based ones are atrocities. What's kind of interesting is how people pretty much block them out subconsciously after a while, especially if they become used to the site after visiting it numerous times. I guess that's why web ad companies suggest people move them around and try to make them look as much like actual content as possible.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
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?
how would this be implemented?
Some sort of spyware would be built into the OS/Sivlerlight/whatever - it would be a "selling point" to get vendors to require the end user to accept such a thing in order to use the website.
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.
Yeah, I agree that packaging matters. So much so, in fact, that knockoff brands tend to use packing similar to the brand they are imitating. I would say a real renegade would buy his breakfast in the bag instead of the box that the overpriced General Mills or Post stuff comes in. That said, I like Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios because of its taste and it usually has a more reasonable price than most other stuff (about $0.25 per bowl of cereal). And everytime I buy knockoff brand Cheerios, I am disappointed on taste.
And if you can find the marketing pro that realized you can dress up $0.20 of ground coffee beans and a $0.02 cardboard or Styrofoam cup and charge $2.00 for it, let me know. And that's part of the problem... consumers don't think of the raw materials that are used to make the products they buy. There are tons of things where markups make doing-it-yourself a better option. Take software for instance, it costs $0 to copy and Microsoft charges $800 for Windows Vista Ultimate without batting an eye.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
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.
To spell it out...every time anything on slashdot mentions ads, the first 100 or so posts are people commenting on how they haven't seen ads in years. They make these comments like the signal to noise ratio needed to satisfy their massive intellect needs to approach 100%. Then of course they proceed to fill up all the comments with the noise of one person saying "Adblock..." and 99 saying, "me too".
- I don't care that you use AdBlock. If it's an ask slashdot about how to block ads, by all means post in response to that.
- I also don't care about all of you that don't even have a tv but must comment on every tv story.
- Nor do I care that Go is deeper than chess unless we're already discussing both of them (not just one).
t
I can't even do this anymore. Even before AdBlock ubiquitous ads (noise) caused my brain to automatically filter the header of websites, the same with the 2 minute blocks between television shows. With AdBlock the topic is invalidated of course, since I never deal with online ads. But with television sometimes my family/friends comment on an ad that was just on, and I have no awareness of what the hell they are talking about. If you were a young ape in the forest you couldn't survive being aware of every useless detail (noise), thus you filter them out unless they are actually useful.
I'm just getting sick of how ubiquitous they are now, thanks to the increase in advertising I pretty much stopped watching TV and going to sporting events, since the actual events have pretty much turned into a mere advertisement for the advertisements. The event is only a way to get you to see ads, and thus has as much content as the ads themselves, none.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Preach it brother. I haven't watched TV in years. I did manage to catch a bit at my gf's parents house the other day, and it was shocking to see how much were actually ads. I completely agree with lack of content. I often wonder how many others think like me, and I have concluded, that not many, because otherwise the high cost of pitching these ad's would bankrupt the parent companies.
My friends have countered with the argument, that even though I'm avoiding these products, others are not, ergo the marketplace only offers products that have been advertised. In this way, it is impossible for me to purchase a product that has not been aggressively marketed, otherwise it wouldn't be in the store.
I counter back, that I just spend a bit more time, avoiding the products that offend me the most, and resign myself in a small part to purchasing whatever toothpaste or detergent I do go with.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?