I was recently in a class where we performed a case study on Google. The professor asked if anyone had ever clicked on an ad. One kid out of 60 had clicked on ad for cheap protein supplements, but hadn't bought any. Everyone else scoffed, pointed out their use of AdBlock, and cited their gullible parents as the only people they knew who might ever possibly accidentally click on an ad. Furthermore, the strong majority of our class viewed targeted ads on Facebook and Gmail as extremely creepy and unconvincing.
There are two ad models that work in my opinion:
1. Native advertising: Ads disguised as useful content. This works for changing people's perceptions, especially if its done through official or generally impartial channels, such as news outlets. People think they're getting honest information about BP's charitable acts and Coke's health benefits, but they're really being lied to. This doesn't generate any direct sales, but it can really influence consumer sentiment on different brands which can have a massive impact on sales indirectly. This method is extremely sneaky and unethical, and that's probably why it works.
2. Snapchat's new model: Opt-in, high quality ads. I liken these ads to movie trailers. They are well-crafted and curated, and you only have to watch them if you want to. This way, people who click on them are already intrigued and have committed to watching the ad, making for a more engaged and curious user base. This method is still being developed but I can see it become big in the next couple of years.
Everyone else scoffed, pointed out their use of AdBlock
If your entire class was running AdBlock, then your sample is far from representative of the general population.
There are two ad models that work in my opinion
The thing is, opinions don't matter in this game, facts do. Do you really think major brands like Coca Cola or McDonalds or Ford spend such astronomical sums of money on advertising without being pretty good at knowing what returns they get?
You might think that no-one really buys a car because of the product placement where the successful business owner drives that model in their favourite TV show, but you'd be wrong.
> You might think that no-one really buys a car because of the product placement where the successful business owner drives that model in their favourite TV show
That would be an unusual viewpoint. People love identifying with their heroes -- I don't think anyone considers that a secret.
It most certainly isn't. I think there's a bias on HackerNews to default to hating on ads, but they can be very powerful. I'm certainly biased because I do it for a living, and the evidence I can offer is certainly anecdotal but I've run ROI positive campaigns based entirely off facebook and twitter ads. In fact I've done advertising for a $1,000,000+ grossing product where 98% of downloads could be directly contributed to an ad we ran while remaining ROI positive.
I don't entirely dismiss your point though. I think the large scale buying of billions of impressions is certainly broken. Big advertising agencies have taken to just throwing tons of ops people at the problem.
I think the real shift, and the pioneering ways forward are going to be a combination of social ads that are highly segmented, and then what I call "digital experiential" This: http://sortieenmer.com/ is a good example of what I mean.
Basically, buying banner ads really efficiently aren't enough anymore. We need to be creative again and be better about segmenting our audiences to make ads relevant again.
I was recently in a class where we performed a case study on Google. The professor asked if anyone had ever clicked on an ad. One kid out of 60 had clicked on ad for cheap protein supplements, but hadn't bought any. Everyone else scoffed, pointed out their use of AdBlock, and cited their gullible parents as the only people they knew who might ever possibly accidentally click on an ad. Furthermore, the strong majority of our class viewed targeted ads on Facebook and Gmail as extremely creepy and unconvincing.
There are two ad models that work in my opinion:
1. Native advertising: Ads disguised as useful content. This works for changing people's perceptions, especially if its done through official or generally impartial channels, such as news outlets. People think they're getting honest information about BP's charitable acts and Coke's health benefits, but they're really being lied to. This doesn't generate any direct sales, but it can really influence consumer sentiment on different brands which can have a massive impact on sales indirectly. This method is extremely sneaky and unethical, and that's probably why it works.
2. Snapchat's new model: Opt-in, high quality ads. I liken these ads to movie trailers. They are well-crafted and curated, and you only have to watch them if you want to. This way, people who click on them are already intrigued and have committed to watching the ad, making for a more engaged and curious user base. This method is still being developed but I can see it become big in the next couple of years.