Skip to content

Elsewhere

A new theory:

Now, we can think it does, we can say it does and be logical as we do so. Twitter gains revenue from advertising, so, we only want to advertise to people, not pieces of software, how many of the people looking at Twitter feeds are humans and how many a bit of code matters. After all, only humans have wallets, software doesn’t – why advertise to those who will never buy anything?

But this is to make a mistake about how advertising is priced. There is no regulation, no rule, that says that an ad costs $1 per person. Or even, closer to reality, $1 per 1,000 people (per mille, the usual measurement of online advertising).
….
Advertisers – despite some of the ads we see – are not idiots. They do not bid to show ads to some number of people. At least, not after the first couple of times they don’t. They bid based upon the results from having advertised to some number of people. At which point all of the problems about ‘bot accounts fall out of the numbers.

12 thoughts on “Elsewhere”

  1. The adverts on my telly still run when the set is switched off. *

    * Or at least I think they do. This is a bit like the light in the fridge

  2. True for search advertising (Google, Bing, etc.) at least. But social media advertisers do also look at “engagement” metrics, which include likes, and agencies retardedly make decisions to boycott platforms based on “backlash” (a couple 10 year olds sharing a hashtag).

    One good thing that Google has long done to downscore scam landing pages is incorporate bounce rate into their overall quality scores. If users tend to spend 2 seconds on a site and then click the back button, it’s a shitty search result. Similarly, there should be a lower weight for likes from users with little or no engagement or followers. When the advertisers look at their likes, Twitter could give them the valid number of likes, just as Google subtracts our invalid cost and clicks per campaign at the end of every month.

    It’s just that Twitter (surprise) is caught up in the rat race and is willing to lie to customers to keep up their strenuous pace of growth. That’s what Elon has begun to reveal about social media altogether.

  3. An appropriate quote comes from the very successful US merchant John Wanamaker (1838-1922):

    “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half”

  4. With particular reference to Google search results, most of the people I know* aren’t the least bit tech savvy. They seem to believe the internet happens on Google. So the standard way of getting to a site is to enter the name into Google’s search box. None of them have a clue about top level domains (.com, .org, .info, etc) So that’ll usually get left out or can get wrongly entered. A site I run has had people looking at a Romanian plant shop & a Norwegian/Irish rock band. Add the modern inability to spell & fat-finger-fails adds more confusion. Sure, frequently visited sites should come in top of the search results. But they’re not the one’s needing the advertising. Bounce rate? Depends on how long it takes them to realise they’re on the wrong site, surely? With some of them that could be some time.

    *This isn’t just selecting from the proliferation of Latins I know here. Lots of people in the UK are no better. They’re using a phone. Most of them don’t know there’s a web browser on it or even what one is.

  5. ” A site I run has had people looking at a Romanian plant shop & a Norwegian/Irish rock band.”

    My mind is now racing to try and guess what name could fit a garden centre, a rock band and some sort of endeavour involving ladies of the night……..bushtrimmers.com?

  6. so after all this techie data driven online ad revolution stuff we’ve come full circle. Back to “i know that half of my advertising spend is wasted. Trouble is i don’t know which half.”!

  7. Twitter, Google, spammers, etc. don’t have to worry if the recipients of the advert are bots or not. They send a few lines of text, a message and a list out at their expense and that then uses your device, phone or computer, and your bandwidth to send out billions of messages at a click of the button. 99.99% of it is ignored anyway, by bots or real people, and the 0.01% that respond make it worthwhile. They must or they wouldn’t waste their time advertising that way.

  8. One thing that it has proved, though. The Irish are undoubtedly the thickest people in the English speaking world. The site’s an advertising platform. There a considerable piece of spiel visitors are recommended to read, to that effect. There is however a site admin contact number. Which receives any number of calls & messages. Most of them in the early hours of the morning. Almost all from fones with an Irish country code prefix.
    The downside of coming up as a search result on Google. Anyone know how to stop that happening?

  9. The downside of coming up as a search result on Google. Anyone know how to stop that happening?

    Try some (invisible?) text questioning Biden’s election and slagging trans toss.

  10. ”A site I run has had people looking at a Romanian plant shop & a Norwegian/Irish rock band.”

    My mind is now racing to try and guess what name could fit a garden centre, a rock band and some sort of endeavour involving ladies of the night……..bushtrimmers.com?

    Ah, now I remember!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *