Those ads on the rest of the page, and the sad part about all of this, remind me of what Steve Jobs said about network TV:
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
The kids try to find the "heart of Wallmart" so they can destroy it (being the evil mom-and-pop store demolisher that it is). When they finally locate the mythical Heart of Wallmart, it turns out it just a mirror. In other words, the problem is not Wallmart (or Google, or whatever), it is us.
On another note, games (in general) are not so bad (although the ones they were advertising probably were). Even the games many people might view as mindless (such as your average FPS) are actually deeply embedded with strategy. I actually learned a lot from games - not just strategy or spacial intelligence or hand eye coordination, but many of the same things I would have learned if I picked up a science fiction or fantasy book. Children today are glued to screens, and I think the only cure may be to embrace this and find a better way to use games as educational tools.
The problem is actually a mutually reinforcing feedback cycle between culture and corporation that gives rise to addictive superstimuli. But I suppose "the problem is us" is an equally useful observation.
> Scanning down underneath the diagram, I saw “Play Games on Google+” along with a lot of small text. I kept scanning, thinking that the column of text had something to do with playing games.
Funny, I had the exact opposite reaction. I am so used to skipping over ads with my eyes that I literally didn't even notice there was an ad there; I read the article about dinosaurs, and when I read the above sentence, I had to go back up to the screenshot and verify that there was indeed a Google+ ad there, that I'd totally failed to see.
I'm like you in that I skipped over it. However, physorg needs to take some of the heat here because they pick the background, fonts, and colors for the ad insert (not the bolding). So they consciously choose to make their ads look like copy and that is unethical.
I applaud this fantastically succinct point: "Some foods taste good but kill you. Some drugs make you feel good but rot your brain. And some ads lead the curious away from knowledge."
I do think, however, that it's incredibly difficult to construct an entirely machine-learning- and auction-based ad network without these sorts of problems popping up. Especially with presumably low dinosaur-related ad inventory to choose from. (Perhaps dinosaurs -> kids -> games isn't a far leap in terms of correlation?)
Based on physorg's deceptive ad placement, text styling, and terrible anti-aging ad selection for the bottom, I would argue that our collective sadness is better directed at them than at Google.
This viewpoint as raganwald expressed it is too oversimplifying for my tastes.
It's pretty .. well, wrong.. to say that all Google engineers are working on is putting ads on web pages. Similarly it's not true that a whole generation of people are working on ads. Google is working on a tremendous number of things -- as is the rest of this industry. It boggles the mind.
I do; however, agree with the generalization of his point (and it's not a unique or new one) that what the technology industry has produced in the first 10 years of the 21st century is mostly a letdown compared to what got done in the last 10 years of the 20th century.
The first dot-com bubble left us with the worldwide infrastructure that powers the Internet today. What will this social-networking bubble leave us with when it pops?
Hopefully strong AI and the best possible tools for dealing with petabytes of data -- but this is likely just wishful thinking on my part.
Yeah I think in many cases its all a matter of perspective. You can look at any Google product, analyze it long enough and then understand how it will lead to a stronger advertising business model for them. On the other hand you can look at it and say that is potentially exciting technology for reasons that have nothing to do with advertising.
Probably most of the engineers at Google don't think of themselves as working in advertising and probably shouldn't but Id say almost indisputedly their paycheck is mostly coming from advertising and people clicking on mindless ads.
I think the main problem is how do you solve and build business around interesting problems that don't have the ability to be monetized through click advertising which most of the internet seems to be funded by.
Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases.
Things that tend to make inventory worth more money:
1) Better matching algorithms. This is, fundamentally, why Google is rich beyond the dreams of mortal men.
2) For contextual ads, being matched against content which suggests immediate purchasing intent for something which has a high customer LTV, high transaction value, and/or high margins.
3) Failing that, for brand ads, characteristics of the inventory suggest a "desirable" person at the keyboard. Ideally, you're a rich white American, male or female depending on which brand is trying to reach you, and this is one of the very few ads you will see today.
4) Within this particular session, this is the first ad you've seen.
5) You're American, Canadian, British, northern European, gap here German, Japanese, big gap other first world nation, titanic gulf anyone else.
6) The page the ad appearing on is itself of high social esteem such that the ad will have the halo effect.
Inventory which matches the above descriptions can be sold to advertisers using dedicated sales representatives. Everything else is remnant inventory -- literally, that which remains after our ad sales guys had as many steak-and-booze meetings with the marketing execs at Audi as they can possibly have.
Options for remnant inventory are: a) backfill ad channels like AdWords, which makes some remnant inventory almost as valuable as brandable inventory (e.g. if I write a blog post about credit cards and you happen to read it you're very nearly as useful as someone reading a post on the NYT about credit cards), b) house ads, and c) backfill from ad networks, such as Google house ads. (House ads are, e.g., "We couldn't sell a commercial for our TV channel so instead we'll show a commercial for another show on that channel or another business affiliated with ourselves.")
So, why is your page view remnant inventory?
1) Because generic Internet news sites generate a metric truckload of page views.
2) Because your user behavior was, sorry to say, probably not seeing that ad as the first thing you saw today.
3) Because algorithmically you don't look like a rich white American.
4) Because there are very poor transactional options for monetizing someone if all you know about them is "Possibly interested in dinosaurs," so direct response marketers are unlikely to bid on that site.
5) Because physorg.com does not have a sophisticated ad sales operation which routinely has steak dinners with ad buyers at Proctor & Gamble or any other large brand advertisers.
OK, so you're remnant inventory. Why are you seeing Google+ game ads?
1) Because Google has virtually infinite funny-money to buy ads on Google AdSense at low, low prices because they're crappy backfill remnant inventory that costs them CPMs below $1.
2) Because Google thinks promoting Google+ is their overarching strategic priority right now (they're wrong) and ...
3) ... because Google thinks that engagement on social networks is in large degree driven by games (they're right)
Is remnant inventory necessarily a bad thing?
No, because remnant inventory will inevitably be generated by attempting to monetize (with ads) any website which can't afford a direct steak-and-drinks ad sales force who can charge stupid amounts of money to brand advertisers. If you perceive any value at all out of physorg.com, you should be happy that Google is underwriting it out of their massive pile of money that they get out of controlling navigation and advertising on the Internet.
There exist non-advertising methods by which you could subsidize the creation of content which you like. Many of them involve paying non-trivial amounts of money, or praying that your interests happen to align with the interests of someone who is willing to subsidize your own consumption.
Remnant inventory also enables the creation of actual value, though you're not seeing it when you see diet pill scams. For example, almost all of Bingo Card Creator's substantial advertising budget is spent on remnant inventory at 3 to 8 cents a click, and while the websites that $15k+ a year goes to are not ones you'd really love your mother to be spending time on, selling BCC to the teachers who happen to be on them does at least help children learn to read and underwrite my quirky online pursuits like writing excessively long comments.
Remnant inventory is also virtually synonymous with Google, which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive.
This is very informative and you make many cogent observations. However, you don't even remotely address the point of the article, which, as far as I understand it, is that something is fundamentally wrong if a child wants to learn about dinosaurs and he/she is lured away with addictive games. Even more so if this is considered the pinnacle of our combined capabilities and at the same time a hint of the future into which we are heading.
I don't think anyone disagree with the mechanics Patrick.
It's more whether it's tricking people to click rather than informing them.
Same way I felt tricked when I gave dustin curtis a kudos (vote up on his site) because he triggers it on roll over rather than a click.
I seem to remember you doing something along those lines on that teacher site. and personally I don't mind these things, it's after all just bits and bytes, but I can't help feeling there is a hidden agenda in your post.
Surely you can see that the aim of the site is not reflected in the way they try to make their money.
Thanks, very interesting and informative comment on how the ad business works. In my head I'm hearing Frank Zappa sing "I am the slime from the video" and Mick Jagger sing "Satisfaction".
It shouldn't sadden us though. We have to protect our children from this crap, the best way is to not let them see it until they are old enough and then to teach then how to distinguish between information and bullshit from someone selling crap.
We can only go so far in asking others to protect our children and our elders, we have to step up to the plate also.
We still haven't figured out how to turn the tables on this and monetize our attention, it is extremely valuable, more so than we think.
To your definition of inventory: "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against", Google does not sell an ad display, they predominantly sell clicks on ads and therefore Google has a key incentive to display ads that get more clicks per display, hence the importance of CTR (click-through-rate) because they will get more revenue for the same page views. I am sure you know that, but I think it's worth mentioning. So I would define inventory as "a page view plus a slot available on that page which Google can use to maximise revenue".
Patrick, thank you for your well-thought-out response. I appreciate your longer posts because you tease out things I hadn't thought of. From now on, I dub you the Dennis Miller of HN (apologies to those who don't get the reference). I think I have to re-read your posts 2-3 times to fully understand them.
"Because physorg.com does not have a sophisticated ad sales operation which routinely has steak dinners with ad buyers at Proctor & Gamble or any other large brand advertisers."
This is an exaggeration of how this process works. Most ad sales for publishers runs through an RFP process that is managed mostly by agencies, not the brands. There are a ton of brands looking spend money in this way, but ultimately you have to have someone that is good at closing, as well as maximizing the value of your inventory.
This person, of course, is very difficult to find for a publisher of any size.
My point however, I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the online ad sales business is a bunch of modern day Don Draper types... it's much, much less interesting.
Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.
An important addition to your list of items that makes inventory more valuable:
2B) Purchasing intent for a commodity item where the inventory seller can extract a high percentage of the profit.
Apple isn't going to bid up the price of an ad that erodes their profit too much because, at the end of the day, they're the only source of iPhones.
Your local florist will compete against the guy across the street to buy that add even if nearly all the profit goes away because he can't easily differentiate his product.
3 months ago I'd say you're mad for sawing the branch you sit on, taking bread away from content providers whose content you consume. I have content sites myself that rely on ads, I believed in this but my internet experience got increasingly frustrating within last year for some reason - Flash popover or whatever you call them which you can't close, disturbing images of old women tearing their skin as in this article, google ads sneaked into content or navigation in hopes of me mistakingly clicking them.
I've tried readability next, clicking "read now" in my chrome extension on every interesting article..but I'm now with Adblock, at least 3 years later than all my techie friends.
I'll silently consume my purified internet now, thanks.
I'm actually looking forward to the day when micro-transactions become easy and friction-less and we move onto paywalls. I'd love to support sites with content by paying $0.02 per article.
I hate seeing ads, and I hate my websites relying on ads for revenue. My parents have many times clicked on ads accidentally thinking it was the content they want. The last thing I need to is to clear out their laptop from endless toolbars and viruses so I've installed ad blocker on all of our computers.
It's gotten out of control. Even legit websites have started taking on questionable ad inventory. The kind that has a download button and tries to trick you. The kind that looks like thumbnails for the software that you're trying to read about. Or those annoying video ads that play automatically.
I'm actually looking forward to the day when I can say "Goodbye and good riddance, advertising killed itself."
I get the authors point, and yes... it is indeed sad that "play games" are the most profitable types of ads. And stupid weight loss ones, and look younger, and hot women in my area.
It might be because those specific industries see the most value in online ads, since they can tie a click to a sale end-to-end and can justify spending $1 to make $1.01.
Large multi-nationals who dominate TV advertising (Beer companies, car companies, restaurants, groceries, consumer products, things you have to go to a store to buy) have a harder time spending that $1 since it's a lot harder to track.
Many ads are garbage for the soul. You know, the sort that imply that you should have this lifestyle, or need to look a certain way. I respect users too much to subject them to it. I'll probably never become rich, but, at least I have my integrity.
Do you remember the days when they had "punch the monkey" ads? This is progress in plain advertising. Also, it's the responsibility of the website owner to be smart. He/she could have spent the effort in finding dinosaur book publishers, but apparently they took the lazy route. As well, the web designer didn't think the ad aspect through -- it's an "oops" on their part. It's not greed, it's poor execution.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that AdWords can target users and offer them ads based on what they think they might want. They're not always contextual.
This is a very interesting point, thank you. So here’s a thought experiment: I look at this article about dinosaurs, and Google shows me an ad about mountain bike holidays.
Great timing, Spring is looming and I am making plans for Summer (Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel.) It’s late afternoon, when I historically am distractible (witness reading about dinosaurs during my work day. And I ride quite a bit (easy to figure out when you’re Google).
I might be quite likely to click an ad for Sacred Rides (Free plug for Mike’s business!). But I would still feel sad that at the moment when I was reading something educational, I was lured away to think about something else.
I don’t know if Google can come up with a way to make quadrillions of dollars and to keep me from being sad. Maybe my feelings are simply a cost of doing business, or maybe what I want is impossible. But I think my sadness is independent of the attraction the ad holds for me personally. My issue is with the relationship between the ad and the content.
Maybe google knows that you are personally interested in social games? Or perhaps they're just trying to reach people who are on the internet right now.
Anyway, point is, the page isn't the only signal used for ad targeting; you (and your search history) are another, as is the current time. As well as a variety of other things, I'm sure (I have no direct knowledge of google's ad targeting).
I visited the page myself, and got an ad for the galaxy nexus.
I do agree that the placement of the ad, which makes it look like part of the content, is pretty crummy. As are the ads about e-cigarettes and penny stocks and car insurance.
Why blame google? The problems here are: 1) the publisher has chosen to embed ad tags within editorial content; 2) the editorial content is so worthless that google can only show a house ad.
I think it's important to qualify this statement. Worthless to who? Google's ad bots? Perhaps. There's no obvious ad category that relates to dinosaurs.
But just from the snippet the OP included in his screenshot, it is clear the content is not mindless drivel and is actually worth reading (to some people).
"We take a generation of incredibly smart people who have been rigorously trained to deliver amazing code, running on a massive computing engine, and when confronted with a human being trying to learn something, they try to distract him with games."
The same can be said for Wall Street in the past 2 decades. Generations of top graduates have gone not to medicine, not to law, not to real business, but to Wall St. where they create leveraged financial products and led the economy to the 2008-9 Financial Collapse.
When I see misplaced advertising like this, I just remember that it's not Google's fault; they didn't consciously make the decision that dinosaurs are childish/recreational fantasies that should be associated with gaming. It's the fault of dinosaur's representation today across the entire internet. Google's bots picked up that correlation mechanically, so while it's unfortunate that they propagate stereotypes like this further, it's not the root cause.
[+] [-] shashashasha|14 years ago|reply
"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=36783
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|14 years ago|reply
[http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154597/find-the-heart]
The kids try to find the "heart of Wallmart" so they can destroy it (being the evil mom-and-pop store demolisher that it is). When they finally locate the mythical Heart of Wallmart, it turns out it just a mirror. In other words, the problem is not Wallmart (or Google, or whatever), it is us.
On another note, games (in general) are not so bad (although the ones they were advertising probably were). Even the games many people might view as mindless (such as your average FPS) are actually deeply embedded with strategy. I actually learned a lot from games - not just strategy or spacial intelligence or hand eye coordination, but many of the same things I would have learned if I picked up a science fiction or fantasy book. Children today are glued to screens, and I think the only cure may be to embrace this and find a better way to use games as educational tools.
[+] [-] yew|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhousel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radarsat1|14 years ago|reply
Funny, I had the exact opposite reaction. I am so used to skipping over ads with my eyes that I literally didn't even notice there was an ad there; I read the article about dinosaurs, and when I read the above sentence, I had to go back up to the screenshot and verify that there was indeed a Google+ ad there, that I'd totally failed to see.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staringispolite|14 years ago|reply
I do think, however, that it's incredibly difficult to construct an entirely machine-learning- and auction-based ad network without these sorts of problems popping up. Especially with presumably low dinosaur-related ad inventory to choose from. (Perhaps dinosaurs -> kids -> games isn't a far leap in terms of correlation?)
Based on physorg's deceptive ad placement, text styling, and terrible anti-aging ad selection for the bottom, I would argue that our collective sadness is better directed at them than at Google.
[+] [-] rbarooah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rryan|14 years ago|reply
It's pretty .. well, wrong.. to say that all Google engineers are working on is putting ads on web pages. Similarly it's not true that a whole generation of people are working on ads. Google is working on a tremendous number of things -- as is the rest of this industry. It boggles the mind.
I do; however, agree with the generalization of his point (and it's not a unique or new one) that what the technology industry has produced in the first 10 years of the 21st century is mostly a letdown compared to what got done in the last 10 years of the 20th century.
The first dot-com bubble left us with the worldwide infrastructure that powers the Internet today. What will this social-networking bubble leave us with when it pops?
Hopefully strong AI and the best possible tools for dealing with petabytes of data -- but this is likely just wishful thinking on my part.
[+] [-] moocow01|14 years ago|reply
Probably most of the engineers at Google don't think of themselves as working in advertising and probably shouldn't but Id say almost indisputedly their paycheck is mostly coming from advertising and people clicking on mindless ads.
I think the main problem is how do you solve and build business around interesting problems that don't have the ability to be monetized through click advertising which most of the internet seems to be funded by.
[+] [-] sskates|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patio11|14 years ago|reply
Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases.
Things that tend to make inventory worth more money:
1) Better matching algorithms. This is, fundamentally, why Google is rich beyond the dreams of mortal men.
2) For contextual ads, being matched against content which suggests immediate purchasing intent for something which has a high customer LTV, high transaction value, and/or high margins.
3) Failing that, for brand ads, characteristics of the inventory suggest a "desirable" person at the keyboard. Ideally, you're a rich white American, male or female depending on which brand is trying to reach you, and this is one of the very few ads you will see today.
4) Within this particular session, this is the first ad you've seen.
5) You're American, Canadian, British, northern European, gap here German, Japanese, big gap other first world nation, titanic gulf anyone else.
6) The page the ad appearing on is itself of high social esteem such that the ad will have the halo effect.
Inventory which matches the above descriptions can be sold to advertisers using dedicated sales representatives. Everything else is remnant inventory -- literally, that which remains after our ad sales guys had as many steak-and-booze meetings with the marketing execs at Audi as they can possibly have.
Options for remnant inventory are: a) backfill ad channels like AdWords, which makes some remnant inventory almost as valuable as brandable inventory (e.g. if I write a blog post about credit cards and you happen to read it you're very nearly as useful as someone reading a post on the NYT about credit cards), b) house ads, and c) backfill from ad networks, such as Google house ads. (House ads are, e.g., "We couldn't sell a commercial for our TV channel so instead we'll show a commercial for another show on that channel or another business affiliated with ourselves.")
So, why is your page view remnant inventory?
1) Because generic Internet news sites generate a metric truckload of page views.
2) Because your user behavior was, sorry to say, probably not seeing that ad as the first thing you saw today.
3) Because algorithmically you don't look like a rich white American.
4) Because there are very poor transactional options for monetizing someone if all you know about them is "Possibly interested in dinosaurs," so direct response marketers are unlikely to bid on that site.
5) Because physorg.com does not have a sophisticated ad sales operation which routinely has steak dinners with ad buyers at Proctor & Gamble or any other large brand advertisers.
OK, so you're remnant inventory. Why are you seeing Google+ game ads?
1) Because Google has virtually infinite funny-money to buy ads on Google AdSense at low, low prices because they're crappy backfill remnant inventory that costs them CPMs below $1.
2) Because Google thinks promoting Google+ is their overarching strategic priority right now (they're wrong) and ...
3) ... because Google thinks that engagement on social networks is in large degree driven by games (they're right)
Is remnant inventory necessarily a bad thing?
No, because remnant inventory will inevitably be generated by attempting to monetize (with ads) any website which can't afford a direct steak-and-drinks ad sales force who can charge stupid amounts of money to brand advertisers. If you perceive any value at all out of physorg.com, you should be happy that Google is underwriting it out of their massive pile of money that they get out of controlling navigation and advertising on the Internet.
There exist non-advertising methods by which you could subsidize the creation of content which you like. Many of them involve paying non-trivial amounts of money, or praying that your interests happen to align with the interests of someone who is willing to subsidize your own consumption.
Remnant inventory also enables the creation of actual value, though you're not seeing it when you see diet pill scams. For example, almost all of Bingo Card Creator's substantial advertising budget is spent on remnant inventory at 3 to 8 cents a click, and while the websites that $15k+ a year goes to are not ones you'd really love your mother to be spending time on, selling BCC to the teachers who happen to be on them does at least help children learn to read and underwrite my quirky online pursuits like writing excessively long comments.
Remnant inventory is also virtually synonymous with Google, which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive.
[+] [-] lkozma|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThomPete|14 years ago|reply
It's more whether it's tricking people to click rather than informing them.
Same way I felt tricked when I gave dustin curtis a kudos (vote up on his site) because he triggers it on roll over rather than a click.
I seem to remember you doing something along those lines on that teacher site. and personally I don't mind these things, it's after all just bits and bytes, but I can't help feeling there is a hidden agenda in your post.
Surely you can see that the aim of the site is not reflected in the way they try to make their money.
[+] [-] bitdiddle|14 years ago|reply
It shouldn't sadden us though. We have to protect our children from this crap, the best way is to not let them see it until they are old enough and then to teach then how to distinguish between information and bullshit from someone selling crap.
We can only go so far in asking others to protect our children and our elders, we have to step up to the plate also.
We still haven't figured out how to turn the tables on this and monetize our attention, it is extremely valuable, more so than we think.
[+] [-] bhousel|14 years ago|reply
really, how?
...which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising...
what?
...which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive.
wat? Do you really believe this?
[+] [-] awt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tucson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpher|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] look_lookatme|14 years ago|reply
This is an exaggeration of how this process works. Most ad sales for publishers runs through an RFP process that is managed mostly by agencies, not the brands. There are a ton of brands looking spend money in this way, but ultimately you have to have someone that is good at closing, as well as maximizing the value of your inventory.
This person, of course, is very difficult to find for a publisher of any size.
My point however, I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the online ad sales business is a bunch of modern day Don Draper types... it's much, much less interesting.
[+] [-] jasondrowley|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlogan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harryh|14 years ago|reply
2B) Purchasing intent for a commodity item where the inventory seller can extract a high percentage of the profit.
Apple isn't going to bid up the price of an ad that erodes their profit too much because, at the end of the day, they're the only source of iPhones.
Your local florist will compete against the guy across the street to buy that add even if nearly all the profit goes away because he can't easily differentiate his product.
[+] [-] thmzlt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] insickness|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karolist|14 years ago|reply
I've tried readability next, clicking "read now" in my chrome extension on every interesting article..but I'm now with Adblock, at least 3 years later than all my techie friends.
I'll silently consume my purified internet now, thanks.
[+] [-] jwwest|14 years ago|reply
- Are you chasing the hockey stick, making a free product? You're getting paid to create an ad base that will focus on ads.
- Are you a content provider? A blog? You're getting paid for page hits to generate ad revenue.
- Perhaps you're a recommendation engine that makes money on Amazon referrals. Ditto.
[+] [-] ChrisNorstrom|14 years ago|reply
I hate seeing ads, and I hate my websites relying on ads for revenue. My parents have many times clicked on ads accidentally thinking it was the content they want. The last thing I need to is to clear out their laptop from endless toolbars and viruses so I've installed ad blocker on all of our computers.
It's gotten out of control. Even legit websites have started taking on questionable ad inventory. The kind that has a download button and tries to trick you. The kind that looks like thumbnails for the software that you're trying to read about. Or those annoying video ads that play automatically.
I'm actually looking forward to the day when I can say "Goodbye and good riddance, advertising killed itself."
[+] [-] redwood|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laconian|14 years ago|reply
I don't get mad at Toyota when an inattentive Prius driver nearly sideswipes me in traffic.
[+] [-] jakepoz|14 years ago|reply
http://jakepoz.com/why_do_google_ads_point_to_adware.html
[+] [-] unreal37|14 years ago|reply
It might be because those specific industries see the most value in online ads, since they can tie a click to a sale end-to-end and can justify spending $1 to make $1.01.
Large multi-nationals who dominate TV advertising (Beer companies, car companies, restaurants, groceries, consumer products, things you have to go to a store to buy) have a harder time spending that $1 since it's a lot harder to track.
[+] [-] nobody_nowhere|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickmb|14 years ago|reply
If any company tries to sell me something via advertisements, I walk away. It's anti-communication that assumes I'm an idiot.
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|14 years ago|reply
Many ads are garbage for the soul. You know, the sort that imply that you should have this lifestyle, or need to look a certain way. I respect users too much to subject them to it. I'll probably never become rich, but, at least I have my integrity.
[+] [-] zeepickler|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshrice|14 years ago|reply
Do you like to play games Reg?
[+] [-] raganwald|14 years ago|reply
Great timing, Spring is looming and I am making plans for Summer (Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel.) It’s late afternoon, when I historically am distractible (witness reading about dinosaurs during my work day. And I ride quite a bit (easy to figure out when you’re Google).
I might be quite likely to click an ad for Sacred Rides (Free plug for Mike’s business!). But I would still feel sad that at the moment when I was reading something educational, I was lured away to think about something else.
I don’t know if Google can come up with a way to make quadrillions of dollars and to keep me from being sad. Maybe my feelings are simply a cost of doing business, or maybe what I want is impossible. But I think my sadness is independent of the attraction the ad holds for me personally. My issue is with the relationship between the ad and the content.
[+] [-] surrealize|14 years ago|reply
Anyway, point is, the page isn't the only signal used for ad targeting; you (and your search history) are another, as is the current time. As well as a variety of other things, I'm sure (I have no direct knowledge of google's ad targeting).
I visited the page myself, and got an ad for the galaxy nexus.
I do agree that the placement of the ad, which makes it look like part of the content, is pretty crummy. As are the ads about e-cigarettes and penny stocks and car insurance.
[+] [-] justincormack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nobody_nowhere|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkudeshi|14 years ago|reply
I think it's important to qualify this statement. Worthless to who? Google's ad bots? Perhaps. There's no obvious ad category that relates to dinosaurs.
But just from the snippet the OP included in his screenshot, it is clear the content is not mindless drivel and is actually worth reading (to some people).
[+] [-] gkanai|14 years ago|reply
The same can be said for Wall Street in the past 2 decades. Generations of top graduates have gone not to medicine, not to law, not to real business, but to Wall St. where they create leveraged financial products and led the economy to the 2008-9 Financial Collapse.
[+] [-] geoffhill|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbarooah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SLuijk|14 years ago|reply