[HN Gopher] Digital Advertising in 2022
___________________________________________________________________
Digital Advertising in 2022
Author : feross
Score : 56 points
Date : 2022-02-08 14:17 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| jsnell wrote:
| This is not thinking big enough. I fully expect Apple to add
| propietary client-side ad targeting into Safari, use that to
| power their own web display ads network, and not grant
| competitors any access to it. All of this will be justified by
| claiming it'll improve privacy, security and battery consumption,
| of course.
| franczesko wrote:
| Once that happens, website owners will have to pay Apple a 30%
| commission from traffic coming from the Safari browser. If you
| think the idea is ridiculous, it's pretty much happening with
| apps on iOS right now.
| fumar wrote:
| My Gell-Mann Amnesia effect tingles reading this post. I've spent
| my entire career in adtech. I have a few notes below. Outside of
| those, Stratechery skews FB positive, and it makes it hard to
| take his commentary at face value.
|
| 1. He argues that FB is able to succeed with something like Reels
| which are better than search at driving consumer behavior. This
| is not how marketers view the ad ecosystem. Early on the article
| he claims that the marketing funnel is compressed down to a
| single impression in some cases. That is where fortune 100
| advertisers would disagree. They use multi-touch attribution to
| understand the value of each impression. In addition to
| incrementality tests to validate the change in consumer behavior
| from ad exposures. I see this as a major jump in logic to defend
| FB's business.
|
| > ... far more important form of advertising than search ads:
| yes, there are scenarios where a firm can surface something that
| fits exactly what you are searching for, but oftentimes search
| ads feel like a rake on organic results that would have given you
| what you were looking for anyways.
|
| 2. He goes onto an anti-Apple take regarding Apple's own data
| collection policies. He loses the plot on why
| AppTrackingTransparency exists. It prohibits apps to collect user
| data and link that data to 3rd party sources without user consent
| (opt-in). App developers can continue to user their 1P data
| within their properties. That is the bare minimum amount of data
| restrictions our daily smartphones should have. This is a
| generally a good thing. FB can continue to monetize itself using
| a breathtaking large amount of data from both opt-in users and
| opt-out users while respecting ATT policies. Why did FB fail to
| ready its ad products years in advance? Apple provided plenty of
| notice. FB could've easily bucket tested each one of its
| solutions with limited data and prepared accordingly with modeled
| or panel based approaches. I see this as a FB failure or a
| coordinated approach to play victim. Either way, keeping data in
| silos is better than sharing data from users across data players
| which consumers know nothing about. In this respect, Google's
| approach to Privacy Sandbox at least grants it air cover when it
| comes to consumer trends. FB has chosen to do nothing and they
| are out of ideas.
|
| Lastly, from I've gathered Apple struggles with its own ad
| business because of ATT.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| The 'collapsed funnel' direct response ads are a pretty big
| market even if not the Coke & Pepsi's of the world. To the tune
| of a good chunk of 10BB..
|
| The article - which I think is on point I agree with almost
| everything they wrote - mentions online only brands which are a
| great example.
|
| I don't think a lot of these brands could have been created or
| grown without effective DR digital ads and FB was the best by
| far at roas.
|
| I get tons of ads for expensive athletic shorts (which are
| total gay bait eye candy so that's probably why I get them
| despite not buying any except patagonia lol).
|
| I see the 'Ten Thousand' brand at the gym all the time so
| people really do buy from instagram ads and IG shop. I just
| googled 'athletic short' and they were the top sponsored
| results there too, goes straight to a purchase page. I have not
| seen them on youtube doing branding videos though.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| I see two practical ways out for facebook:
|
| 1. Many advertisers will revert back to using pixels instead. I
| wonder if you can even redirect people from an app post signup to
| a website with a pixel and track them that way? (or do the Apple
| ToSs not allow that?)
|
| 2. Alternatively Facebook need to build a tool where you can
| create your entire apps signups process inside facebook, so all
| tracking still takes place inside the facebook app, which post
| signup redirects via a magic link to the targeted app? So you'd
| basically have something like Facebook leads but built for actual
| signups.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| #1 on pixels. No. Especially if Chrome finally roles out the
| restrictions they keep pushing back.
|
| A workaround right now is FB allows you to upload 'offline
| conversions' but you can just upload your own digital
| conversion data...
|
| And you can always just use unique links to track actual
| purchases/donations direct from ads.
|
| But even the offline conversion doesn't work for a key part of
| my business, which was raising money for politics & non profits
| from FB ads. FB doesn't seem to optimize on the offline
| conversion data as well as it used to pixel data even though it
| says the match rate is high.
|
| #2 could possibly exist in a wechat type of way. I like the
| idea!
|
| FB actually used to have a ton of use of those in fb browser
| games. Like that farm click game. They are trying to do
| something like this with messenger, payments, instagram store,
| marketplace. But they still own all that.
|
| I would love to see if they could further open up messenger to
| more immersive 3p apps.
|
| Or like steam have a platform to built apps within messenger.
|
| But isn't that the vision of Meta too?
|
| I wish we could take donations for political campaigns via FB's
| processing but it's not allowed
| echelon wrote:
| Option 3: Regulatory pressure forces Apple to give up the app
| store monopoly, which gates 50+% of personal computing that
| Americans do behind a taxation straitjacket.
|
| I'm no fan of Meta, but Apple wields too much power over every
| single industry. Just today it became clear they're gunning for
| the payments industry... Good god. Movie studio, car, 50+% of
| American computing. Standard Oil and then some.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Much of those are free apps, and fewer than half of iPhone
| users use the App Store.
| fumar wrote:
| How is the App Store a monopoly? It is a service only on iOS
| and MacOS devices which are not the majority of hardware sold
| globally.
| hansel_der wrote:
| > which are not the majority of hardware sold globally.
|
| they are a majority in individual countries thou, which is
| the context that consumer protection agencies usually care
| about.
| fumar wrote:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-
| held... 52% that is on the cusp, but sure in the US they
| have technically the majority. If I manufacture the best
| X device, should I be limited because its better than the
| rest? This isn't like oil right? Oil is a derived from
| earth and you can control it by owning more land and
| supply. The next IT device could come from anywhere in
| the world and any manufacturer.
| typest wrote:
| Your second suggestion is not possible. iOS Apps must be
| installed through the App Store. Hence, Ben's point in the
| article that Apple has ultimate control over this process.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Option 3: Facebook builds its own online store.
| antihero wrote:
| Which would require people to jailbreak the phone?
| kristintynski wrote:
| Speaking as an agency owner, I've seen a massive shift of
| marketing budgets away from advertising and into content
| marketing. Adding value through content has always been the most
| predictable, sustainable way to build inbound customer
| acquisition.
|
| Businesses are now realizing the ROI of paid channels continues
| to diminish (if it was ever really there at all given how fake
| many of the reported metrics seem to be). Instead they are
| finally understanding that their role isnt to shove marketing
| messages down peoples throats, but instead to earn their
| attention via the value their content can add to existing needs.
|
| Content + PR will become the defacto way most companies market
| themselves, where PR is just multi-channel distribution of the
| content being created by the brand.
| cm2012 wrote:
| For many B2B companies its a mix - promoting gated content
| through paid ads is the most ROI efficient way to make ads work
| at scale.
|
| Source: Own a fast growing B2B ads agency.
| kristintynski wrote:
| Content distribution through paid channels can definitely
| work well, especially if what you are running ads on are
| earned media placements talking about you/your content. Gated
| content can work exceptionally well if it is valuable enough,
| and not just an obvious attempt to grab contact info.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| This is a net positive for advertising agencies which will
| gradually be unable to "prove" their ROI. Going back to the old
| days of spots and Nielsen ratings.
| YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote:
| Thats the wrong fallacy advertising agencies know that online
| advertising numbers are bullshit but the marketing people on
| client side really like big numbers to impress their bosses.
| ohazi wrote:
| So meaningful search results are going to get even worse. Ugh.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| Yes. "Content marketing" is also called "paid shilling". Not
| a win for the consumer or for ethics.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Think of them as contextual advertisement, instead of
| tracking one.
|
| In other words, digital advertisement is moving into a shitty
| badly designed copy of the form it had at the time it used to
| bring exceptional ROI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-08 23:01 UTC)