Re:Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their...
by jedberg on Sunday January 03, 2021 @05:20PM
(#25625776)
Did you read the transcript the for episode and the associated links and notes?
They back up their claims with studies of their own as well as metanalysis.
Re:Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their...
by Reebz on Sunday January 03, 2021 @08:56PM
(#25627195)
I did, and I think there's a lot of p-hacking going on. Leading with TV advertising is disingenuous at best.
The ebay example twists the concept of user acquisition (new customers) and purchases (new or old customers). It is a common tactic to buy advertisements defensively, for example, if you're a product manager, and have determined that some of your user base are more transactional rather than frequent.
Another pet peeve I have is how they conflate direct response advertising and marketing.
Re:Uber discovered they’d been defrauded out of 2/3 of their...
by mlthoughts2018 on Sunday January 03, 2021 @09:43PM
(#25627454)
It would seem their backing research and metastudy totally missed the boat and ignored well-known academic experts on the matter.
I definitely trust the academic studies over an entertainment podcast.
Positive lift in the range of 0-20% is very common, and many statistical aspects of causal inference on ad impacts are well understood.
Negative lift and flat campaigns are real phenomena too, and it does deserve more widespread publicity that negative lift happens in an appreciable number of campaigns, but that doesn’t take away from the overwhelming evidence that digital advertising works and that the mechanics of positive lift are well studied.
Here are two of the foundational papers in this area:
- https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/gordon_b/files/...
- https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/media/sites/media/files/Garret...
Particularly Figure 1 (page 26) in the second link. That figure alone utterly refutes any nonsense claim that digital advertising doesn’t have provably positive ROI.