News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results. Parent comment

Re:Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same r... by biot on Thursday March 30, 2017 @04:54AM (#13993864)
When a major sports apparel company sponsors a famous athlete to wear their gear on televised events, they are getting no activity beyond an impression. Doesn't mean the sporting event is trash. It's up to the advertiser to determine whether or not those impressions have value.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same r... by roganp on Thursday March 30, 2017 @07:51AM (#13994555)
Isn't that the thrust of the article though? They narrowed their ad spend to whitelisted sites and have not seen a drop in sales. If the major sports apparel company stopped paying for endorsements and saw no drop in sales, you might be tempted to conclude that those endorsements are not good investments.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same r... by mikelward on Thursday March 30, 2017 @10:07AM (#13995431)
I think the analogy is:

A company moved endorsement money from lots of lesser-known teams to a few better-known teams and their sales stayed the same.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same r... by panzagl on Thursday March 30, 2017 @10:59AM (#13995933)
Seems like it would be a pretty long term effect though, so the drop off might not be apparent yet.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same r... by Mikushi on Thursday March 30, 2017 @08:37AM (#13994800)
The ever elusive brand exposure. Another scam of the ad industry.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same r... by seppin on Thursday March 30, 2017 @09:41AM (#13995220)
it makes sense for a select few, airlines and perhaps an entry country and their tourism industry. that's about it
[ Parent | on HN ]