Remix.run Logo
dave_sid 4 hours ago

Google ads are a con. Meta ads are a con. If someone tells you you’re just not doing it right yet, they’re probably trying to sell you something.

G3nD 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are pretty much all ecommerce brands wasting their money on Meta ads? Seems hard to believe.

pbhjpbhj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Meta ads are mostly obvious fraud afaict - unregistered lotteries, jet washes that don't need power, flashlights so powerful they'll fry an egg by shining at them, household goods developed by NASA, air-conditioning/heating that doesn't need outside air and plugs direct into a socket, ...

I've reported a few to Advertising Standards in the UK, but they're not really interested in combatting Facebook/Amazon fraud.

What's hilarious is having reported an ad to Facebook, they show you that ad more because you didn't longer looking at it. Mad.

doctorpangloss 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's complicated.

SMBs can find an audience that would otherwise be impossible to reach. The thing that is advertised is so diverse it's hard to generalize, however the main thing I've noticed is SMBs live and die by the quality of their ad creatives.

For big businesses which make up the other 50% of Meta ads revenue: They are very effective in circumstances where your main offering is operational and the long term value of a customer is very large. For example it would be a very good place to advertise health insurance and TV subscriptions (which is a significant amount of the big business spend). Here I am more certain. If you didn't invent your product, and it is a beneficiary of the zeitgeist promoted by social media itself (beauty-focused, soft core brain rot), and your thing is basically fungible, you will thrive.

kibwen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why's it hard to believe? Look around you at how belligerently foolish, irrational, inefficient, dysfunctional, and confidently wrong every large organization acts. Marketing departments confidently report that their marketing campaigns work, because to report otherwise would be to have their budget slashed to zero. Ad networks confidently report that the ads you buy are effective, because to report otherwise would destroy their companies. Ads are just a tax on the consumer which result in no improvement to any product whatsoever, a pure rent-seeking middleman, an intellectual landlord, a red queen's race, a dead weight on the economy, and, of course, a trillion-dollar industry, because we live in hell.

bluegatty 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yes, they are wasting money, they know it, but caveats:

famous saying 'i'd cut my ad budget in 1/2 if i knew which 1/2 to cut'

'attribution' is the holy grail of hard thing in marketing.

so they know for sure the channel spend is iffy.

but it's hard to measure, esp. for brand and indirect campaigns.

so as a 'starting point' - it's a very 'noisy channel problem'.

the next wild idea is that ads come from a marketing budget which has $X to spend, and they have to spend it.

this is where the ROI stuff is wildy upside down.

large companies with 'market power' have a lot of surplus. they put that towards relatively lucreative marketing. the $ must be spent.

the cmo makes a budget, allocates, the managers follow the campaign, front line staffers spend. they try to get the best results they can.

there is often an unbelievable lack of true roi concern in all of that.

sometimes it's very aggressive, aka for some keywords, for sure.

but a remarkable amount of $ is spent in very unnacountable way, over what are 'grey' channels anyhow.

the marketing ops person is going home at 5pm and does not care one bit about bots. they were paid to spend it, they did. Facebook is paid to 'show a chart of view' ... they did that. 'everyone is happy'.

im not saying the whole system works that way, but much of it does.

the wild part is - there is so much 'dumb big money' in ads, it makes the whole thing very inneficient.

companies like P&G have 'distribution monopolies' on so many packaged goods, they have to keep up brand awareness.

It's why so many commercials are for commodity products like home stuff - the market is huge, the market channels are locked, they pay $$$ for ads for 'toothpaste' - the least novel and least productive kind of thing imaginable.

so 'Colgate' costs $5 at the store, it costs 50 cents to manufacture - that $4.50 gross margin is stuffed into a system of relative inneficiency up and down the economy. much of it in 'nearly useless ads'.

it's a deep market inefficiency people dont want to recognized because people assume private capital is inherently efficient and that a dollar spent = GDP = value and that's it.

our lives could materially be improved if we banned ads for a lot of things - feels like 'socialism' but really it'd just be about a kind of 'regulated market efficiency'.

G3nD 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So the gigantic incumbents with retail distribution being inefficient makes sense to me. What about the long tail of D2C brands that live on Meta ads? AFAIK, they live and die by their ROAS. I would have to believe that these companies just don't really exist to buy that Meta ads are a "con".

bluegatty 2 hours ago | parent [-]

the roi is better at smaller corps that pay attention, but you would still be surprised.

and where it is more efficient its where there is better attribution models aka direct sales.

note: there are certain kinds of products that are 100% 'click driven sales'. they zero brand awareness, they want to sell you that 'fleece hoodie' on the spot. those guys have their funnel math down solid.

but startups and other companies ... not the same.

well funded startups burn $ thinking it's productive - and hugely: buying fake customers, or, spending $2 to get $1 in revenue to either pad the books, show investors, make themselves feel good or 'strategic'. FYI 'strategic' is often rational. those are big pools of money.

but usually campaigns are mixed and attribution is hard, even for smaller companies.

the tighter the budget, the more 'direct purchase', the more 'nominally efficient' it is.

also note - most ad $ is big companies who ironically spend a smaller share of their revenue on ads <- this is the power of scale.

G3nD 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

That does make sense, thanks

miohtama an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Guess why we are getting “age verification” everywhere, lobbied by Meta.

It is not to protect the children.

nostrademons 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It works great if your goal is to pump up your install & conversion numbers so you can raise the next round of VC at 3x valuation. After a couple rounds of this, your VCs, in turn, can then use the valuation increase to tell their GPs that the value of their fund has increased by 10x. The GPs can use your reported valuation increase to report that they earned a 11.6% real return on the fund this year (13% nominal, using the reported CPI of 2.4%, which of course is nowhere near the actual increase in life's necessities but does show that you can get TVs cheap), and that therefore they beat their benchmark and should get their full bonus. Then the pension funds that invest in them can tell the state that everything is fine and of course every retiree will get everything due to them.

It's bullshit all the way down. The most valuable bullshit is the numbers that you can sell to someone else who is looking for bullshit. They're not lying; they are merely reporting what they are being told, and you can't fault them for trusting their ad networks / investees / LPs / LPs / pension plans.

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>the reported CPI of 2.4%, which of course is nowhere near the actual increase in life's necessities but does show that you can get TVs cheap

I went through the CPI basket[1] and vaguely looked for categories "life's necessities" and came up with "Food and beverages", "Shelter", "Fuels and utilities", "Transportation", "Medical care", "Education and communication". Those categories alone make up 85.3% of the basket, and I didn't even bother going into detailed categories to look for other essentials. "Televisions" on the other hand makes up 0.1%. I'm sure there's more non-essentials on there, but 85% of the CPI basket being non-essentials seems... pretty reasonable? If anything, it's weighted more towards essentials than typical consumer spending patterns.

mitxela an hour ago | parent [-]

What did gas cost a year ago and what does it cost now?

gruez an hour ago | parent [-]

And...? The CPI is a weighted basket. Gas costing 2x (or whatever) doesn't mean CPI is 2x. Is that hard of a concept to grasp?

dakolli 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Probably the most succinct description of this phenomenon I've seen in a long time.

cube00 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Add Reddit Ads to that, all the alleged clicks not one comment or conversion.

I get my app is probably bad but you'd expect at least one comment out of 100 "clicks" to say something.

emdash an hour ago | parent [-]

I have a theory that there are far fewer genuine users on Reddit at this point than you'd expect.

raincom 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If one runs a small business, one has to pay Google/Meta; otherwise, their businesses will be bottom of the search. It is a tax now.

dam_jackalopes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eh, I think you're correct in most cases but they work relatively well for our property leasing office. There's a convergence of factors at work there though; small number of high priced products being offered to a relatively small number of people in a certain geo location.

SoftTalker 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not limited to ads.

heap_perms 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this is the only correct response.

dzohrob 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

idk, i’ve spent six figures on meta ads in the last few months and gotten tons of real users for my app. how is that a con?

wyre 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How has been the return? 6 figs is a lot if your users aren't earning you that money back.

jay_kyburz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I dabbled with this 10-15 years ago.

I always ignore all numbers on the dashboard. All I care about is how much I paid, and how much revenue went up in following weeks.

I never could quite get that number positive.

cube00 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah yes, the "you're not spending enough" excuse, Reddit loves to use that one me.

jLaForest 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This was also my experience wasting $1500 on Google ads

reddalo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The main problem with Google Ads is that Google tries to squeeze money out of you in all possible ways.

I think the only sane way tu run a Google Ads campaign is to:

- only enable Google Search ads (i.e. disable all third-party publishers -- this may be a bit extreme but it's good if you're advertisting a niche product that people are actually searching for)

- only use "exact match" keywords ("broad match" is so broad that Google will show your ads in completely unrelevant SERPs)

- disable AI Max

- disable all automations

- reject any of their "optimization" tips

- set a max CPC even if they say it's bad for you

In other words, reject everything they suggest you to do. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe this only works for my use case, but that's how I've been using Google Ads succesfully without wasting money.

myth2018 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Also: run experiments to find an "optimal" budget with the right size for your target audience. If you, e.g., set a too restrictive geographic rule, but also set a budget higher than what they manage to burn showing your ads at the area you defined, they will override the rules you set up to guarantee 100% of your money will be burnt.

cube00 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> only enable Google Search ads

Except then they just don't run your ads unless you're willing to pay silly amounts like $3 per click for bot traffic.