undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdangrossman4y ago0 comments

> When P&G turned off $200 million of their digital ad spending, they saw NO CHANGE in business outcomes. When Chase reduced their programmatic reach from 400,000 sites showing its ads to 5,000 sites (a 99% decrease), they saw NO CHANGE in business outcomes. When Uber turned off $120 million of their digital ad spending meant to drive more app installs, they saw NO CHANGE in the rate of app installs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/02/when-bi...

0 comments

aerosmile4y ago

That was an incredibly misleading article. If you check the links, you find the following:

1. P&G didn't turn off that spend, it shifted it to other marketing platforms.

2. Chase didn't change its marketing spend, it just concentrated it from 400k sites to 5k sites.

3. Uber found out that their agency was committing fraud and AFAIK the case is still being litigated.

I hate being that guy, but check the links. Those reporters really must have an agenda or something (or are just struggling to get the clicks, so they need to make a story out of nothing).

croes4y ago

To 1. "P&G’s $200 million digital cut were reinvested into areas with “media reach” including television, audio and ecommerce" So they awitched to other platforms with mostly no back channel and no user tracking. So the whole tracking seems to be pointless

disgruntledphd24y ago

Like, this is probably true for advertisers who have a well known brand. One would expect incrementality to be lower, because everyone's already heard of the brand.

However, if you are a new entrant/small business this is not the case, because nobody has ever heard of you.

As an example, look at TikTok. They spent insane amounts of money on FB ads to get as many installs as possible, but I'd suspect that they don't do this anymore because they've got enough brand equity that it doesn't make as much financial sense.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse