Slashdot Mirror
P&G Cuts More Than $100 Million In 'Largely Ineffective' Digital Ads (wsj.com)
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.
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.
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.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
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.
Your digital ads might work better. STOP SHOVING THEM IN OUR FACE! Make your ads static, like in a newspaper, magazine, etc. When I'm reading an article and start to scroll down, and then all of a sudden some stupid ad starts blaring in my face, and I have to scroll up to shut the #(!@(^% thing off, it makes me NOT to want to do business with that company. When people have to install ad blockers to at least enjoy some content without having to worry about pop ups, pop unders, auto launching video ads (with the volume cranked to the max), then you know you have a problem. There are sights (like /.) that I whitelist because their ads are STATIC. THAT
is how web ads should be. I'm more likely to click on a static ad, than a shove-it-in-your-face
ad.
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!!!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.