There’s a theory that targeted ads are severely less effective than assumed amongst advertisers, and that traditional “spray and pray” advertisement is just as effective, but a whole lot cheaper. Essentially, targeted ads frequently target people who are already aware of the product, have already decided to buy it, or have already bought it.
So, basically, company’s are overpaying for ads, and if they ever stop, the advertisement based internet is in trouble.
Yes, but we need to be aware that it would get worse temporarily, and a lot of services we’re used to be being free would no longer be free. For example, Youtube would probably become a paid service.
Hot take- The internet never really should’ve been free. The real world almost never gives you anything for free. You don’t get free food, free gas, free haircuts. Paying would not only lock in a sane model but people would be more discriminate when they have to pay as well. They’d demand better.
A different benefit might be we’re on our phones and such less and actually touch grass.
There’s a theory? Like someone though about it in the shower or "studies have proven this to X% for y and z product categories?
Because if it was the case, billions of dollars could be made/saved. People in marketing might be evil, but they are not stupid, all ads are data driven.
LLMs are cutting edge tech, quickly changing, sold at a loss, and despite what everyone on lemmy likes to think, pretty useful. And most companies are either waiting or just testing the waters (if you look past the headline of Microsoft, oracle, Nvidia and openai passing 100B dollar in a circle).
Not going to lie, marketing is one of those things that’s really hard to track. And or, a good marketing team is going to pull stats that mean nothing but sound impactful out of their ass.
I wouldn’t be shocked if, on average, companies could have a fraction of their marketing, however, the c-suite types, can take marketing mumbo jumbo and sell it to investors. A snake eating itself.
Yeah, you’re not wrong I suppose. I have a sister in marketing and the budget does need to be bigger in that case, and like all companies, they want to squeeze where they can. With something as intangible as marketing, I can see where they’d be the first to get hit.
Though, my own, limited, experience with the marketing industry, it’s all about recognition, click through, and SEO, so, I see a world where it’s not particularly hard to cherry pick data and justify your existence.
Probably a little of both. At the end of the day, fuck ads. lol.
There’s a theory that targeted ads are severely less effective than assumed amongst advertisers, and that traditional “spray and pray” advertisement is just as effective, but a whole lot cheaper. Essentially, targeted ads frequently target people who are already aware of the product, have already decided to buy it, or have already bought it. So, basically, company’s are overpaying for ads, and if they ever stop, the advertisement based internet is in trouble.
That’s a good thing.
Yes, but we need to be aware that it would get worse temporarily, and a lot of services we’re used to be being free would no longer be free. For example, Youtube would probably become a paid service.
Hot take- The internet never really should’ve been free. The real world almost never gives you anything for free. You don’t get free food, free gas, free haircuts. Paying would not only lock in a sane model but people would be more discriminate when they have to pay as well. They’d demand better.
A different benefit might be we’re on our phones and such less and actually touch grass.
Great. Less addictions and data milking.
There’s a theory? Like someone though about it in the shower or "studies have proven this to X% for y and z product categories?
Because if it was the case, billions of dollars could be made/saved. People in marketing might be evil, but they are not stupid, all ads are data driven.
Source: trust me
Companies are being scammed when advertising companies are brought on. Especially if they are paying extra for targeted ads.
Yes, companies are famously willing to pay extra without further questions or testing the outcomes.
Case in point : LLM.
Companies aren’t these ultra efficient machine that works with cutting edge tech.
The vast majority of companies hold themselves together with a few excel sheets with a terrible backup solution.
Companies will absolutely pay for garbage wrapped in gold paper and Google and other advertising companies are making bank on it.
LLMs are cutting edge tech, quickly changing, sold at a loss, and despite what everyone on lemmy likes to think, pretty useful. And most companies are either waiting or just testing the waters (if you look past the headline of Microsoft, oracle, Nvidia and openai passing 100B dollar in a circle).
Marketing has been around for centuries.
Not going to lie, marketing is one of those things that’s really hard to track. And or, a good marketing team is going to pull stats that mean nothing but sound impactful out of their ass.
I wouldn’t be shocked if, on average, companies could have a fraction of their marketing, however, the c-suite types, can take marketing mumbo jumbo and sell it to investors. A snake eating itself.
I would be very shocked, there have been studies on the effectiveness in general and every campaign needs to show ROI, in particular.
C suite types would love to cut all the marketing budget to give themselves a fatter bonus, they know it can’t be done without sales plummeting.
Yeah, you’re not wrong I suppose. I have a sister in marketing and the budget does need to be bigger in that case, and like all companies, they want to squeeze where they can. With something as intangible as marketing, I can see where they’d be the first to get hit.
Though, my own, limited, experience with the marketing industry, it’s all about recognition, click through, and SEO, so, I see a world where it’s not particularly hard to cherry pick data and justify your existence.
Probably a little of both. At the end of the day, fuck ads. lol.