Thread

1. Muhammad523 · 1790074429 · focus · HN ↗

   I think people simply ignore the banners and logos all around so its not that much of a problem

   1. xnorswap · 1790074456 · focus · HN ↗

      They clearly don't, otherwise it wouldn't generate so much advertising revenue.

      1. onion2k · 1790074844 · focus · HN ↗

         That assumes advertisers are correctly measuring the impact of their ads. They could just be wrong.

         1. xeyownt · 1790075039 · focus · HN ↗

            If you invest millions, you make sure that being wrong is a very tiny probability.

            1. rf15 · 1790075173 · focus · HN ↗

               And as a provider of advertisement surfaces you have every incentive to oversell the reach of your surfaces.
            2. gwd · 1790075192 · focus · HN ↗

               That doesn't match the behavior I've observed from large corporations.
            3. LPisGood · 1790075233 · focus · HN ↗

               VC firms batting at such a small rate.
            4. smallmancontrov · 1790075257 · focus · HN ↗

               "I am convinced that about one-half the money I spend for advertising is wasted, but I have never been able to decide which half."

               1. chrismorgan · 1790080420 · focus · HN ↗

                  I would be astonished to find a business wasting only half of its advertising spend.
            5. DaiPlusPlus · 1790076056 · focus · HN ↗

               That's the ideal, yes.

               But the problem with marketing and advertising is that it's impossible to know if a campaign will be a hit - a flop - or the butt of jokes from an entire generation (e.g. New Coke, Jaguar 2025; or it may very well just work despite all the industry naysayers like Apple's translucent plastic look from 1998 - I/we felt no-one would ever buy an overpriced and non-expandable PC that looked like a kid's toy, or a loo-seat laptop.

               ...of course, what actually happens is the strongest personalities in the C-suite eschew what their MBA course taught them about trusting the experts below them in the org chart; instead they champion their own personal pet ideas, no matter how much predictable damage they'll do to the company's share-price, because they couldn't possibly be wrong; he is the CTO, after-all; very smart!

               1. someguynamedq · 1790079896 · focus · HN ↗

                  The irony is that these "flops" are still making these brands live rent free in your head.
            6. NeutralCrane · 1790078399 · focus · HN ↗

               Absolutely not.

               Early in my career I worked for a pharmaceutical giant as a statistician. One of the things we would work on was trying to determine how much the various advertising efforts the company did actually moved the needle. Every year was the same miserable experience. The company would spend millions and millions of dollars in various advertising channels. We would attempt to determine how effective it was, but the wayin which they advertised and the way we collected data made it very difficult to generate any kind of insight at all. We would make recommendations as to how to adjust execution moving forward to ensure we could reliably determine how much value we were getting out of these campaigns, all of which would be ignored. They would massage our findings to tell whatever story they needed and would do the same thing the next year.

               The marketing division is its own organization, with their own incentives that don’t necessarily align with the broader company’s incentives. They also were heavily addicted to relying on external analytical consultants who could pump out all the slide decks and pie charts they wanted, which would inevitably show that the marketing was not only effective, but should be invested in more the following year.

               1. someguynamedq · 1790079816 · focus · HN ↗

                  Pharmaceuticals is an extremely specific example here. Anyone can buy a Coke.
         2. xnorswap · 1790075345 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes, it could be a mass-delusion drive ad-spend, but I think you're vastly underestimating how much these logos actually go in to "brand recognition".

            Next time you walk into your local electronics retailer and look at TVs, you might see a Samsung, LG, HiSense.

            Chances are, if not for massive amounts spent on advertising sports, you'd overlook some of these brands in favour of the ones you recognise.

            It won't be a conscious, "I saw this during the north London derby so I'll buy it", but subconscious name recognition will have a huge impact on willingness to buy.

            1. mitxela · 1790076361 · focus · HN ↗

               Right, you won't buy a GHTESKJVFII even if it happens to be the best product

               1. amanaplanacanal · 1790077309 · focus · HN ↗

                  Half the products on Amazon have names like that.

                  1. iamacyborg · 1790079395 · focus · HN ↗

                     And you’re mostly only seeing them because they’re paying Amazon to be promoted in listings.

                     1. [deleted] · 1790080912 · focus · HN ↗

                        [deleted]

                  2. mitxela · 1790083445 · focus · HN ↗

                     One of them could actually be the best product, and you wouldn't even know.
      2. mrweasel · 1790075161 · focus · HN ↗

         The problem is that you have no idea if those ads are working, not really.

         Do I go to McDonalds because I saw an ad, or because it 3 minutes away and the kid wants nuggets? Do I shop at my local supermarket because they buy every third ad on YouTube, or because it's the closest? There are a ton of details that influence our daily choices, and I'm not suggesting that ads aren't one of them, but I'm starting to doubt that it's the defining one. When I look at what I buy it's: availability, cost, and specification. There's not a hold lot advertising can do about any of those three.

         If we could truly measure which ads works and which doesn't the entire ad based economy would crash over night.

         1. devsda · 1790076803 · focus · HN ↗

            Ads don't have to be the primary deciding factor but it does make the rest of the process in the sales pipeline easy.

            Whether we realize or not subconsciously our minds will associate the product and ad. When that association is reinforced by the salesman, a strategic placement on the shelf, or discount offers it is easier to convert it to sale.

         2. someguynamedq · 1790079734 · focus · HN ↗

            This is an entire industry. It's profitable. It works. The ad based economy exists because they do truly measure which ads work and know exactly how much money it makes them.

            1. kibwen · 1790084613 · focus · HN ↗

               "They" being the companies that sell advertisements and the marketing departments whose budgets are contingent on the fiction that advertisements create value, yes.
      3. DaiPlusPlus · 1790075559 · focus · HN ↗

         On the contrary: it's because people ignore them so much that motivates those very same brands to constantly push harder, and more obnoxiously, each time major sporting events are on.

         Like, what-on-earth was Visa thinking when their sponsorship of the Olympics had all the food-vendors and merch sellers boasting how they were "Proud" to decline payments from customers unless they're using Visa-networked cards[1] - which demonstrates they just can't exercise restraint.

         [1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sportsbusinessjournal.com&#x2F;Journal&#x2F;Issues&#x2F;2012&#x2F;07&#x2F;23&#x2F;In-Depth&#x2F;Visa-Olympics&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sportsbusinessjournal.com&#x2F;Journal&#x2F;Issues&#x2F;2012&#x2F;07... - Visa&#x27;s official slogan really was “We are proud to accept only Visa.”

         1. someguynamedq · 1790079555 · focus · HN ↗

            You think they advertise more because it&#x27;s not profitable?
         2. account42 · 1790090698 · focus · HN ↗

            They need to up the ads because their competition is also advertising at their previous level.
      4. inexcf · 1790077764 · focus · HN ↗

         And homeopathy works because people pay for it.

         1. someguynamedq · 1790079968 · focus · HN ↗

            Homeopathy works as a business because of marketing :)

            1. inexcf · 1790080430 · focus · HN ↗

               I doubt it is brand recognition and more an abstract kind of marketing you mean. Esoteric word of mouth.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.