The Internet Made Me Sad Today

http://raganwald.posterous.com/the-internet-made-me-sad-today

by llambda • 14 years ago

274 178 14 years ago

raganwald.posterous.com

agscala3• 14 years ago

I'm very interested in the point made regarding interactive children's education. High schools across the country seem to think that giving students iPads to use as text books is a good idea. I think that if I was in high school and I had an iPad, I'd be surfing the web the entire time I was in class. I'm certain that's what the next generation will be doing if high schools do indeed end up going that route.

heynk• 14 years ago

And then some entrepreneur will realize this problem, and sell a solution that prevents students from surfing the web while in class.

I never got all the fuss about digitizing education, because it seems like the biggest downside is 'distractions.' Even if there is no way to prevent distractions, are digital textbooks not worth the improvement in costs, accessibility, and breadth (and type) of information?

agscala3• 14 years ago

It's hard to estimate the power of distraction for students. Having interactive textbooks would be really awesome, but what does it matter if kids are just playing Angry Birds instead? Also the cost benefits aren't really all that great. Schools typically reuse textbooks and iPads are very expensive and are more prone to damage.

insickness• 14 years ago

So that's what a page looks like without Adblock. Interesting.

karolist• 14 years ago

3 months ago I'd say you're mad for sawing the branch you sit on, taking bread away from content providers whose content you consume. I have content sites myself that rely on ads, I believed in this but my internet experience got increasingly frustrating within last year for some reason - Flash popover or whatever you call them which you can't close, disturbing images of old women tearing their skin as in this article, google ads sneaked into content or navigation in hopes of me mistakingly clicking them.

I've tried readability next, clicking "read now" in my chrome extension on every interesting article..but I'm now with Adblock, at least 3 years later than all my techie friends.

I'll silently consume my purified internet now, thanks.

radarsat1• 14 years ago

> Scanning down underneath the diagram, I saw “Play Games on Google+” along with a lot of small text. I kept scanning, thinking that the column of text had something to do with playing games.

Funny, I had the exact opposite reaction. I am so used to skipping over ads with my eyes that I literally didn't even notice there was an ad there; I read the article about dinosaurs, and when I read the above sentence, I had to go back up to the screenshot and verify that there was indeed a Google+ ad there, that I'd totally failed to see.

ChuckMcM2• 14 years ago

I'm like you in that I skipped over it. However, physorg needs to take some of the heat here because they pick the background, fonts, and colors for the ad insert (not the bolding). So they consciously choose to make their ads look like copy and that is unethical.

mrleinad2• 14 years ago

Install AdBlock Plus. Solved. Not that big of a deal, huh?

raganwald5• 14 years ago

I see that I somehow have made the entirely wrong point. I didn’t say that it’s sad that I have to wade through ads. As it happens, I have this “reader” thingie in Safari, which solves the ad problem and the readability problem in one click or keypress.

The thing I was trying to say that makes me sad is that there is a generation of smart people toiling away with the power of what may be the world’s biggest computing infrastructure, all to put those ads on the page.

I am lamenting the waste of people and resources, not the waste of my time.

sharkbot• 14 years ago

It's the tragedy of the commons, writ large. "What's wrong with just showing one gaming ad to a precocious dinosaur-loving kid, she'll be able to concentrate on her studies later. Oh, maybe one more ad, maybe one more, maybe one more..."

kzrdude• 14 years ago

Your point was pretty clear. It would be interesting to see a more diverse and direct and relevant advertising world, exactly like you say, present actual dinosaur book or dvd discount offers or similar.

What we see really is sad, it's advertising "Games". Not a game, not something wonderful, but the general timewasting activity of any game, when it could be specific and direct and relevant.

mrleinad2• 14 years ago

So.. you're sad because of the Ad industry, when there's A LOT more money in the military industry being thrown away? I mean, if you want to be sad about something, choose your argument subject more carefully..

MattGrommes• 14 years ago

I don't know how exactly people got the wrong idea from your article, it's certainly not on you. I definitely understood the extension of the "I see the greatest minds of my generation showing ads" idea from a few months ago. Do you think it's a fad? I hope it is. I'd love to see more people trying their hand at making things worth paying for. It's flip but any more I get this Kanye West lyric stuck in my head reading about startups: "Do anybody make real shit anymore?"

bmj• 14 years ago

Yeah, except that I'm fairly sure that a large percentage of web users don't even know their browser might support plugins, let alone that AdBlock exists.

alexbell• 14 years ago

Exactly. And those same users are the most likely to not be able to distinguish a targeted ad from actual content. You can say "this isn't a problem because it doesn't affect me". It's still a deceptive, slimey business practice that effectively tricks a certain percentage of people. But that's what makes a buck.

I'm not necessarily blaming any one company, profit would have inevitably led to this. I just agree with the author that this IS sad.

ericdykstra• 14 years ago

So who is the author blaming? He's not blaming the end user (the one that makes those ads worth the most to both google and content sites). - Is he blaming Google for maximizing ad revenue for the content site? - Is he blaming the content sites for wanting to maximize their own revenue on page views? (or, perhaps, for being too lazy to sell ads themselves?) - Is he blaming the people who spend the money to get their scammy ads to show up on these sites?

buddy_nuggs• 14 years ago

Based on my reading of the article and raganwald's comment below, my understanding is he's blaming talented employees or entrepreneurs who choose to use their skills to create low-value (in societal terms, not monetary) products and services. And it seems he's not so much blaming as bemoaning.

The post struck a chord with me because I am evaluating several employment offers. The one that gives me the opportunity to work with the coolest technologies and receive the highest compensation would leave me feeling the ickiest at some level (it involves mobile ad analytics).

Drbble6• 14 years ago

Without mobile ad analytics, prices are inefficient and therefore ads are biased to the most profitable buyers, not the highest quality.

Do you have any reason to suspect that quality is more profitable?

ig12• 14 years ago

What's the alternative ?

Having content locked behind a pay-wall so even less people can access it ?

Running ads which are more relevant but don't generate enough revenue to make the site viable in the long term ?

Not having the content at all ?

raganwald5• 14 years ago

How do you feel about the fact that certain farmers will starve if they can’t grow coca or poppies as a cash crop?

nobody_nowhere3• 14 years ago

The problem with that analogy is that 90%+ of the farmers are growing coca or poppies today. Without a viable alternative "crop" or payment mechanism on the open web, I think the net effect will be to drive all of the content which advertising is paying for today into walled gardens, like a Physorg "app".

AznHisoka• 14 years ago

Hmm.. good point. You know this is a problem too in general. So many useless jobs and useless industries, serving little value to society, yet they are needed because they provide a living for so many people.

This is a result of too many humans on Earth. So many people are just not needed on this Earth. So we have to come up with surrogate occupations

zem• 14 years ago

are you seriously invoking the war on drugs to support your point?

ig12• 14 years ago

I'm glad that they can grow crops that mean they're able to afford to feed their families. I'm pretty sure they are as well.

sixQuarks• 14 years ago

From my own experience, it seems that Google tests different contextual content from time to time. They have an algorithm that is supposed to automatically adjust and optimize the ads that get the most click throughs. Perhaps gaming related content works well on that site for some weird reason.

The "sad" part, if anything, is that the publisher decided to place the ad there. In my opinion, that is too misleading.

geoffhill• 14 years ago

When I see misplaced advertising like this, I just remember that it's not Google's fault; they didn't consciously make the decision that dinosaurs are childish/recreational fantasies that should be associated with gaming. It's the fault of dinosaur's representation today across the entire internet. Google's bots picked up that correlation mechanically, so while it's unfortunate that they propagate stereotypes like this further, it's not the root cause.

SLuijk• 14 years ago

If Google's algorithm goals where not monetary bassed maybe they would have a different outcome.

rbarooah15• 14 years ago

If Google perpetuates a lowest common denominator stereotype, it's their fault whether they use automation to achieve it or not.

jojopotato2• 14 years ago

The text ad is the only one served on that page by Google, if you go and look at the actual page the rest are served by AdBlade or Tribal Fusion. I feel like it's pretty misleading to complain about those ads as if they all came from the same company.

raganwald5• 14 years ago

The article is quite clear on the fact that the other ads need not be coming from Google.

jojopotato2• 14 years ago

It wasn't the impression I got from reading it, the text leading into the slideshow is:

>Between them, physorg.com and Google value money, and that’s it. > > There’s more on the same page, of course:

Which I felt kind of set the tone that they were Google related.

FWIW, I think that the aging secret, penny stock and money ads are scammy as hell and I think the internet would be better off without the bottom feeding ads that take advantage of people's ignorance or insecurities.

The Google+ ad, while poorly targeted to the content of the page, might actually be targeted towards you (I'm not sure that's possible though). In my case I get text ads for elbow tendonitis, probably because I've done searches for "wrist pain" and I've ended up on medical related websites recently. That and the hints they pass to adsense are:

google_hints = "animals elbow muscles";

The combination of those came up with that ad.

swah2• 14 years ago

I'm all for that mechanism that would distribute a fixed amound say 5 USD amongst the websites I browsed in that month so they could run without ads.

Tossrock• 14 years ago

http://flattr.com/ ?

swah2• 14 years ago

Yes, this. I hoped this would catch on.

surrealize• 14 years ago

Maybe google knows that you are personally interested in social games? Or perhaps they're just trying to reach people who are on the internet right now.

Anyway, point is, the page isn't the only signal used for ad targeting; you (and your search history) are another, as is the current time. As well as a variety of other things, I'm sure (I have no direct knowledge of google's ad targeting).

I visited the page myself, and got an ad for the galaxy nexus.

I do agree that the placement of the ad, which makes it look like part of the content, is pretty crummy. As are the ads about e-cigarettes and penny stocks and car insurance.

justincormack• 14 years ago

I get a lot of nexus ads, but Google knows I bought one months back so it is wasted inventory...

joshrice• 14 years ago

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that AdWords can target users and offer them ads based on what they think they might want. They're not always contextual.

Do you like to play games Reg?

raganwald5• 14 years ago

This is a very interesting point, thank you. So here’s a thought experiment: I look at this article about dinosaurs, and Google shows me an ad about mountain bike holidays.

Great timing, Spring is looming and I am making plans for Summer (Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel.) It’s late afternoon, when I historically am distractible (witness reading about dinosaurs during my work day. And I ride quite a bit (easy to figure out when you’re Google).

I might be quite likely to click an ad for Sacred Rides (Free plug for Mike’s business!). But I would still feel sad that at the moment when I was reading something educational, I was lured away to think about something else.

I don’t know if Google can come up with a way to make quadrillions of dollars and to keep me from being sad. Maybe my feelings are simply a cost of doing business, or maybe what I want is impossible. But I think my sadness is independent of the attraction the ad holds for me personally. My issue is with the relationship between the ad and the content.

bhousel7• 14 years ago

I don't think there can be another way. Advertising necessarily extracts value out of your attention, while simultaneously devaluing your browsing/watching/listening/driving/etc experience. Attention is a (mostly) zero-zum game.

If Google could find a way to put subliminal advertising on the web (and those glasses would sure be a pretty badass way to go about it), maybe it wouldn't make you as sad?

akkartik2• 14 years ago

Increasingly, it seems, success requires immunity to distraction. Even as a kid.

http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html

JadeNB• 14 years ago

> Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel

Your search history, sure, but I don't think that Google can see credit-card spending ….

Cushman2• 14 years ago

Why doesn't Google offer some across-the-board AdSense subscription-- $10 a month to never see a single "Ads by Google"?

jff2• 14 years ago

"Nice browser yous gots there... would be a shame if something were to happen to it, eh? Like if some ads was to get put on the pages... 10 bucks a month, me and my boys 'take care of' that for yous". The Google Protection Racket

akkartik2• 14 years ago

To elaborate on this great point:

Say google gives you the option to pay $10/mo and not see adsense ads. Say a lot of people love that option and take advantage of it. Ad inventory goes down. Cost of ads goes up. Google looks at the price of an ad it could be showing you and goes, "why am I charging just $10?" Price of not seeing ads goes up, or even becomes its own auction.

This is how you can end up in a protection racket without meaning to.

Cushman2• 14 years ago

What makes it qualitatively different from typical subscription-or-ad-supported services?

mike-cardwell• 14 years ago

Because AdBlock is free?

agscala3• 14 years ago

My guess is the value of you seeing the ads is probably worth more to them than whatever you're willing to pay to stop seeing them.

knowknowledge• 14 years ago

That sounds a lot like a protection racket to me. "Pay us and you won't have to worry about our Ads.". I don't like the idea of paying someone to NOT do something.

seanp2k22• 14 years ago

See also: AB+ Ghostery Priv3 RequestPolicy Noscript

Combine all this and the web is almost useful again.

shoeless• 14 years ago

Using Readable (http://readable.tastefulwords.com/) it looks great: http://www.blueatlas.com/images/readable.png

Good job Readable

Full Disclosure: I have no affiliation with Readable.

nobody_nowhere3• 14 years ago

Why blame google? The problems here are: 1) the publisher has chosen to embed ad tags within editorial content; 2) the editorial content is so worthless that google can only show a house ad.

rkudeshi• 14 years ago

>the editorial content is so worthless

I think it's important to qualify this statement. Worthless to who? Google's ad bots? Perhaps. There's no obvious ad category that relates to dinosaurs.

But just from the snippet the OP included in his screenshot, it is clear the content is not mindless drivel and is actually worth reading (to some people).

Tichy2• 14 years ago

The publishers chose that he wants to show ads in combination with that content. Apparently it is worthless to ads. What solution would you propose?

I can't think of many commercial products that would benefit from dinosaur associations, except movies, toys and games...

jakepoz• 14 years ago

I think that even worse are the fake download buttons served with free software that lead users to adware:

http://jakepoz.com/why_do_google_ads_point_to_adware.html

PhuFighter• 14 years ago

Heh. That's funny. when i go to those sites, i don't even see the ads. That's why I block facebook connect, google plus, and a raft of other sites.

staringispolite3• 14 years ago

I applaud this fantastically succinct point: "Some foods taste good but kill you. Some drugs make you feel good but rot your brain. And some ads lead the curious away from knowledge."

I do think, however, that it's incredibly difficult to construct an entirely machine-learning- and auction-based ad network without these sorts of problems popping up. Especially with presumably low dinosaur-related ad inventory to choose from. (Perhaps dinosaurs -> kids -> games isn't a far leap in terms of correlation?)

Based on physorg's deceptive ad placement, text styling, and terrible anti-aging ad selection for the bottom, I would argue that our collective sadness is better directed at them than at Google.

rbarooah15• 14 years ago

Perhaps the 'machine-learning-and-auction-based-ad network' just isn't a good thing. Is this really the end-state for human civilization?

staringispolite3• 14 years ago

I think it's a good thing in that it's led to the most commercially successful search and ads company in history (which - in large part - does deliver very relevant content, and relatively lower sadness than many competitors). But it's clear there is much room to improve.

That point you're addressing was meant to illustrate one way in which it is difficult to find an ad match that doesn't induce sadness. (As opposed to defend the current approach as the "end-state")

unreal37• 14 years ago

I get the authors point, and yes... it is indeed sad that "play games" are the most profitable types of ads. And stupid weight loss ones, and look younger, and hot women in my area.

It might be because those specific industries see the most value in online ads, since they can tie a click to a sale end-to-end and can justify spending $1 to make $1.01.

Large multi-nationals who dominate TV advertising (Beer companies, car companies, restaurants, groceries, consumer products, things you have to go to a store to buy) have a harder time spending that $1 since it's a lot harder to track.

nobody_nowhere3• 14 years ago

It's likely not a profitable ad at all -- that's a google "house" ad for a google product, which means they have nothing paid to show.

bhousel7• 14 years ago

Get ready to be even more sad, as everyone on Hacker News completely misses the point of your rant.

patio114• 14 years ago

You're looking at remnant inventory.

Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases.

Things that tend to make inventory worth more money:

1) Better matching algorithms. This is, fundamentally, why Google is rich beyond the dreams of mortal men.

2) For contextual ads, being matched against content which suggests immediate purchasing intent for something which has a high customer LTV, high transaction value, and/or high margins.

3) Failing that, for brand ads, characteristics of the inventory suggest a "desirable" person at the keyboard. Ideally, you're a rich white American, male or female depending on which brand is trying to reach you, and this is one of the very few ads you will see today.

4) Within this particular session, this is the first ad you've seen.

5) You're American, Canadian, British, northern European, gap here German, Japanese, big gap other first world nation, titanic gulf anyone else.

6) The page the ad appearing on is itself of high social esteem such that the ad will have the halo effect.

Inventory which matches the above descriptions can be sold to advertisers using dedicated sales representatives. Everything else is remnant inventory -- literally, that which remains after our ad sales guys had as many steak-and-booze meetings with the marketing execs at Audi as they can possibly have.

Options for remnant inventory are: a) backfill ad channels like AdWords, which makes some remnant inventory almost as valuable as brandable inventory (e.g. if I write a blog post about credit cards and you happen to read it you're very nearly as useful as someone reading a post on the NYT about credit cards), b) house ads, and c) backfill from ad networks, such as Google house ads. (House ads are, e.g., "We couldn't sell a commercial for our TV channel so instead we'll show a commercial for another show on that channel or another business affiliated with ourselves.")

So, why is your page view remnant inventory?

1) Because generic Internet news sites generate a metric truckload of page views.

2) Because your user behavior was, sorry to say, probably not seeing that ad as the first thing you saw today.

3) Because algorithmically you don't look like a rich white American.

4) Because there are very poor transactional options for monetizing someone if all you know about them is "Possibly interested in dinosaurs," so direct response marketers are unlikely to bid on that site.

5) Because physorg.com does not have a sophisticated ad sales operation which routinely has steak dinners with ad buyers at Proctor & Gamble or any other large brand advertisers.

OK, so you're remnant inventory. Why are you seeing Google+ game ads?

1) Because Google has virtually infinite funny-money to buy ads on Google AdSense at low, low prices because they're crappy backfill remnant inventory that costs them CPMs below $1.

2) Because Google thinks promoting Google+ is their overarching strategic priority right now (they're wrong) and ...

3) ... because Google thinks that engagement on social networks is in large degree driven by games (they're right)

Is remnant inventory necessarily a bad thing?

No, because remnant inventory will inevitably be generated by attempting to monetize (with ads) any website which can't afford a direct steak-and-drinks ad sales force who can charge stupid amounts of money to brand advertisers. If you perceive any value at all out of physorg.com, you should be happy that Google is underwriting it out of their massive pile of money that they get out of controlling navigation and advertising on the Internet.

There exist non-advertising methods by which you could subsidize the creation of content which you like. Many of them involve paying non-trivial amounts of money, or praying that your interests happen to align with the interests of someone who is willing to subsidize your own consumption.

Remnant inventory also enables the creation of actual value, though you're not seeing it when you see diet pill scams. For example, almost all of Bingo Card Creator's substantial advertising budget is spent on remnant inventory at 3 to 8 cents a click, and while the websites that $15k+ a year goes to are not ones you'd really love your mother to be spending time on, selling BCC to the teachers who happen to be on them does at least help children learn to read and underwrite my quirky online pursuits like writing excessively long comments.

Remnant inventory is also virtually synonymous with Google, which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive.

thmzlt• 14 years ago

This is probably the most well written piece of text I have seen here on HN.

bhousel7• 14 years ago

I had pretty much the opposite reaction to reading it.

bhousel7• 14 years ago

Remnant inventory is also virtually synonymous with Google...

really, how?

...which a multinational advertising company which occasionally produces industrial biproducts of advertising...

what?

...which generate non-trivial amounts of value for almost every human alive.

wat? Do you really believe this?

patio114• 14 years ago

really, how?

Advertising is not traditionally sold on a self-service basis. It is traditionally sold via Big Enterprise Sales processes, caricatured above as "steak dinners between advertising sales and ad buyers at big brands." This is enormously big business: ever bus ad, every TV ad, most newspaper ads, etc that you've ever seen was sold this way.

Google is the alternative model for advertising, and (as such) is overwhelmingly remnant inventory: that which we still have to sell after the Enterprise Ad Sales is over with. Google makes 97% of their revenues -- read their annual reports for how many billions of dollars that is -- through a) creation of remnant inventory (primarily on their search engine) and b) monetization of remnant inventory (2/3 on their own properties, 1/3 all over the public Internet).

Do you really believe this?

There is a little bit of exaggeration and understatement for comedic effect -- specifically, the words "biproduct" and "non-trivial." I absolutely believe, in my heart of hearts, that Google is primarily an advertising company which makes excellent use of technology, not a technology company which makes good use of advertising. That is easily the most controversial opinion about our industry that I have. I also think that Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history. I respect that you may think differently about either or both of these points.

jasondrowley2• 14 years ago

I like to think of the information I consume online as more than "inventory".

patio114• 14 years ago

The information is not the inventory, because this particular information is not available for sale in a rivalrous fashion. Your attention is the inventory. (This is sometimes phrased sardonically as "If you're not paying for it, you are the product.")

lkozma3• 14 years ago

This is very informative and you make many cogent observations. However, you don't even remotely address the point of the article, which, as far as I understand it, is that something is fundamentally wrong if a child wants to learn about dinosaurs and he/she is lured away with addictive games. Even more so if this is considered the pinnacle of our combined capabilities and at the same time a hint of the future into which we are heading.

patio114• 14 years ago

It's a comment, not a debate. I'm not trying to crush raganwald's constructive and collect many finger snaps from the judges. I'm just trying to explain how Internet advertising works for a community which a) viscerally despises advertising, b) often dreams of working for an advertising company, and c) even if they don't work directly for the ad company will have their careers determined in large part by their ability to form an accurate mental model of how advertising actually works. To the limited extent that I disagree with raganwald about anything, I think that any mental model where "An ad for a BBC documentary about dinosaurs" sounds like a more attractive placement for this pageview than "generic remant inventory" economically is likely flawed. That mental model has not come to grips with the fact that the conversion math would suggest a click on that ad would be worth fractions of a hundredth of a penny to the BBC and cost several orders of magnitude more.

tlogan2• 14 years ago

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

crusso4• 14 years ago

Yeah, but the blame the article's author espouses is misplaced.

It's not Google's fault that people want to play games any more than it's the sun's fault that it's shining outside of my window on days when I need to get real work done.

As usual it's easier to blame icons and officials in situations where really it's the consumers that drive these corporate decisions with their everyday decisions.

Granted, Google is showing self-serving ads that benefit it... but then again, maybe that site the opinion writer was reading is only possible because Google Adwords funds it. That part is a wash to me.

Sure, there's something sad in all this. It's sad that people want to play mindless games, watch sports, watch reality tv, etc. instead of learning and growing 99% of the time (or whatever) when given the choice. I don't really fault entertainers for providing the entertainment, though.

rmc4• 14 years ago

People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations.

The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses

ThomPete• 14 years ago

I don't think anyone disagree with the mechanics Patrick.

It's more whether it's tricking people to click rather than informing them.

Same way I felt tricked when I gave dustin curtis a kudos (vote up on his site) because he triggers it on roll over rather than a click.

I seem to remember you doing something along those lines on that teacher site. and personally I don't mind these things, it's after all just bits and bytes, but I can't help feeling there is a hidden agenda in your post.

Surely you can see that the aim of the site is not reflected in the way they try to make their money.

awt• 14 years ago

Can you please write a book? Thx.

dmoney• 14 years ago

Seconded.

harryh• 14 years ago

An important addition to your list of items that makes inventory more valuable:

2B) Purchasing intent for a commodity item where the inventory seller can extract a high percentage of the profit.

Apple isn't going to bid up the price of an ad that erodes their profit too much because, at the end of the day, they're the only source of iPhones.

Your local florist will compete against the guy across the street to buy that add even if nearly all the profit goes away because he can't easily differentiate his product.

look_lookatme• 14 years ago

"Because physorg.com does not have a sophisticated ad sales operation which routinely has steak dinners with ad buyers at Proctor & Gamble or any other large brand advertisers."

This is an exaggeration of how this process works. Most ad sales for publishers runs through an RFP process that is managed mostly by agencies, not the brands. There are a ton of brands looking spend money in this way, but ultimately you have to have someone that is good at closing, as well as maximizing the value of your inventory.

This person, of course, is very difficult to find for a publisher of any size.

My point however, I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the online ad sales business is a bunch of modern day Don Draper types... it's much, much less interesting.

tucson• 14 years ago

To your definition of inventory: "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against", Google does not sell an ad display, they predominantly sell clicks on ads and therefore Google has a key incentive to display ads that get more clicks per display, hence the importance of CTR (click-through-rate) because they will get more revenue for the same page views. I am sure you know that, but I think it's worth mentioning. So I would define inventory as "a page view plus a slot available on that page which Google can use to maximise revenue".

bitdiddle• 14 years ago

Thanks, very interesting and informative comment on how the ad business works. In my head I'm hearing Frank Zappa sing "I am the slime from the video" and Mick Jagger sing "Satisfaction".

It shouldn't sadden us though. We have to protect our children from this crap, the best way is to not let them see it until they are old enough and then to teach then how to distinguish between information and bullshit from someone selling crap.

We can only go so far in asking others to protect our children and our elders, we have to step up to the plate also.

We still haven't figured out how to turn the tables on this and monetize our attention, it is extremely valuable, more so than we think.

cpher• 14 years ago

Patrick, thank you for your well-thought-out response. I appreciate your longer posts because you tease out things I hadn't thought of. From now on, I dub you the Dennis Miller of HN (apologies to those who don't get the reference). I think I have to re-read your posts 2-3 times to fully understand them.

Travisism• 14 years ago

Google Adsense provides publishers the option to show ads relevant on a user's browsing history (via tracking cookies) as well as contextual ads. Since Google's goal is to make both the publisher and the advertiser more money, Google will choose to show whatever it has found to be more profitable.

On top of that, if Google does not have ad fill, such as in the case of articles about dinosaurs, it will sometimes advertise its own products (which the publisher will still get paid for) instead of showing a blank spot (as some advertising companies will do.

tl;dr Google shows ads based on a visitors browsing history if it thinks it will make you more money that way.

zeepickler• 14 years ago

Do you remember the days when they had "punch the monkey" ads? This is progress in plain advertising. Also, it's the responsibility of the website owner to be smart. He/she could have spent the effort in finding dinosaur book publishers, but apparently they took the lazy route. As well, the web designer didn't think the ad aspect through -- it's an "oops" on their part. It's not greed, it's poor execution.

seanp2k22• 14 years ago

AHAHAHAHA HE SAID VALUES falls out of chair

Americans don't have those anymore, silly. We have money, and to hell with everything else.

Edit, for those who don't get it: Consider what you do at work and whose benefit you do it for. If you're in the states, your job is to make money for shareholders and/or investors, period. You are not building a product, you are driving inequality. Always keep this in mind in any industry to understand "business decisions" and politics, because it's all the same game; "I want to be better than those people"

This attitude is literally destroying our planet.

rryan• 14 years ago

This viewpoint as raganwald expressed it is too oversimplifying for my tastes.

It's pretty .. well, wrong.. to say that all Google engineers are working on is putting ads on web pages. Similarly it's not true that a whole generation of people are working on ads. Google is working on a tremendous number of things -- as is the rest of this industry. It boggles the mind.

I do; however, agree with the generalization of his point (and it's not a unique or new one) that what the technology industry has produced in the first 10 years of the 21st century is mostly a letdown compared to what got done in the last 10 years of the 20th century.

The first dot-com bubble left us with the worldwide infrastructure that powers the Internet today. What will this social-networking bubble leave us with when it pops?

Hopefully strong AI and the best possible tools for dealing with petabytes of data -- but this is likely just wishful thinking on my part.

moocow01• 14 years ago

Yeah I think in many cases its all a matter of perspective. You can look at any Google product, analyze it long enough and then understand how it will lead to a stronger advertising business model for them. On the other hand you can look at it and say that is potentially exciting technology for reasons that have nothing to do with advertising.

Probably most of the engineers at Google don't think of themselves as working in advertising and probably shouldn't but Id say almost indisputedly their paycheck is mostly coming from advertising and people clicking on mindless ads.

I think the main problem is how do you solve and build business around interesting problems that don't have the ability to be monetized through click advertising which most of the internet seems to be funded by.

sskates• 14 years ago

I think you don't fully remember how different 2000 is from today.

gavanwoolery• 14 years ago

This reminds me of an episode of South Park:

[http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154597/find-the-heart]

The kids try to find the "heart of Wallmart" so they can destroy it (being the evil mom-and-pop store demolisher that it is). When they finally locate the mythical Heart of Wallmart, it turns out it just a mirror. In other words, the problem is not Wallmart (or Google, or whatever), it is us.

On another note, games (in general) are not so bad (although the ones they were advertising probably were). Even the games many people might view as mindless (such as your average FPS) are actually deeply embedded with strategy. I actually learned a lot from games - not just strategy or spacial intelligence or hand eye coordination, but many of the same things I would have learned if I picked up a science fiction or fantasy book. Children today are glued to screens, and I think the only cure may be to embrace this and find a better way to use games as educational tools.

yew• 14 years ago

The problem is actually a mutually reinforcing feedback cycle between culture and corporation that gives rise to addictive superstimuli. But I suppose "the problem is us" is an equally useful observation.

rbarooah15• 14 years ago

'the problem is us' is a useful observation in that clearly humans are vulnerable to addictive stimuli that were not abundant as we evolved.

That vulnerability isn't likely to change soon.

We can however recognize that activities designed to exploit it are harmful.

jwwest• 14 years ago

For many of us, our entire career eventually boils down to getting people to click on ads. Sit down and think about your product:

- Are you chasing the hockey stick, making a free product? You're getting paid to create an ad base that will focus on ads.

- Are you a content provider? A blog? You're getting paid for page hits to generate ad revenue.

- Perhaps you're a recommendation engine that makes money on Amazon referrals. Ditto.

Kiro• 14 years ago

Nothing wrong with games.

mattmaroon• 14 years ago

"Someone other than Google is involved in deciding that stock market scams and anti-aging scams and auction site scams are the best way to extract value from my curiosity about dinosaurs."

Those clicks are essentially auctioned off so that someone is quite simply the market. The market, when it comes to online advertising, is largely benevolent. Tons of businesses are built on the fact that Google allows those to buy traffic who can benefit from it the most. The overall wealth creation of such a system is massive, far beyond the wealth created for Google.

Lots of people have jobs because a system exists that allows crappy game ads to interrupt your dinosaur article. it sucks (and the physorg site is kinda shitty for formatting it to look like a headline) but overall the system is a great thing.

blake80862• 14 years ago

This is a common theme I see, often with respect to Zynga.

People want things. Some people want things that other people think they shouldn't want (games, drugs, sex, whatever).

Some people get mad (or in this case, sad) when someone provides a thing they think people shouldn't want to people who want it.

raganwald5• 14 years ago

Or to put it in a word, they have “morals.” And when they talk about it, they are ”moralizing.”

blake80862• 14 years ago

Do people who disagree with you lack morals? Or are their morals wrong?

laconian• 14 years ago

The webmaster of physorg.com made you sad today.

I don't get mad at Toyota when an inattentive Prius driver nearly sideswipes me in traffic.

grego• 14 years ago

What ads? I thought all the smart people were running AdBlock...

slig• 14 years ago

Actually you can learn a lot by seeing ads with a critical eye.

drunkpotato• 14 years ago

This post reminded me of Steve Yegge's cat pictures (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKmQW_Nkfk8). In a good way.

shashashasha• 14 years ago

Those ads on the rest of the page, and the sad part about all of this, remind me of what Steve Jobs said about network TV:

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=36783

rickmb• 14 years ago

Advertising makes me sad. I don't care about how good or bad algorithms are and how well the ads match the context or my personal interests.

If any company tries to sell me something via advertisements, I walk away. It's anti-communication that assumes I'm an idiot.

mattgreenrocks3• 14 years ago

The web is only usable with ad-blocking software.

Many ads are garbage for the soul. You know, the sort that imply that you should have this lifestyle, or need to look a certain way. I respect users too much to subject them to it. I'll probably never become rich, but, at least I have my integrity.

zmmmmm• 14 years ago

Directing this as a criticism of Google (or other advertisers) is a little bit misplaced; the site designer has a lot of control over where ads appear and how they look. Nobody but physorg.com decided that a good place for an ad was right in the middle of their content like that, and they chose the colors, size and style to match as well.

elliottcarlson• 14 years ago

For me, this site shows an ad about wine - which makes sense since I work for a company that deals in epicurean goods, with our primary product on our site being wine. Based on my browsing habits, it is an appropriate ad to show to me, from a user analysis point of view. Does it suck that it's not related to the article - perhaps - but that's not what will make the most money. Just because you are reading a single article pertaining to dinosaurs, doesn't mean you have a history of being interested in dinosaurs.

The play games ad could be remnant inventory as others pointed out, it could be based on your usage analysis (do you play a lot of games? or share a computer with someone who does?), or lack there of if you have circumvented ways that Google can snoop on/analyze you.

ChrisNorstrom• 14 years ago

I'm actually looking forward to the day when micro-transactions become easy and friction-less and we move onto paywalls. I'd love to support sites with content by paying $0.02 per article.

I hate seeing ads, and I hate my websites relying on ads for revenue. My parents have many times clicked on ads accidentally thinking it was the content they want. The last thing I need to is to clear out their laptop from endless toolbars and viruses so I've installed ad blocker on all of our computers.

It's gotten out of control. Even legit websites have started taking on questionable ad inventory. The kind that has a download button and tries to trick you. The kind that looks like thumbnails for the software that you're trying to read about. Or those annoying video ads that play automatically.

I'm actually looking forward to the day when I can say "Goodbye and good riddance, advertising killed itself."

redwood• 14 years ago

Seriously: like throwing some coins in the guitar box of the musician you hear in the subway whose melody really sets your mood straight for the day!

signalsignal• 14 years ago

I get ads on nanotechnology and Siemens. Maybe the Google Ad machine works different for each person. Oddly too, a search for Rick Santorum leads to Republican primary results fist and then ricksantorum.com second, but, then again, this is my work computer ;)

ChristianMarks• 14 years ago

Someone finally noticed that the Internet replicates the internal chatter of the mind. The web is designed to prey on human weakness, to encourage wilfing through the Internet, and to discourage learning and meditation. If our machines are to help us realize our potential, we must teach our machines to meditate. We must quiet their computations.

rbarooah15• 14 years ago

The web ism't designed this way - advertising companies make it this way.

prawn• 14 years ago

Furthermore, Google often encourages publishers to theme their ads so that they blend into the content.

nootopian• 14 years ago

I recently appointed a legal firm. Today I saw their ad embedded as copy looking for cheap clicks via google content network. Screenshot here http://portablepixels.com/images/google.png

Seems to me like Google are stooping to new lows. The ad makes me feel like the legal firm I have appointed are selling diet pills and Im minded to terminate my relationship with them. Cheap clicks can be costly.

da5e• 14 years ago

The worse thing is that Google lets ads like the "look younger" one buy time. They offer a sample to try for free, but if you don't return it they sign you up for a year's subscription for a $100 a month and you also get charged for the "free" sample. Simple ripoff.

toyg• 14 years ago

Another day of "5-minute Google Hate Sessions"? Google leaves webmasters the freedom to customize and place ads however they want. Physorg.com opted for the scumbag strategy of mixing ads and content, so it's 100% their fault.

Plus, the entire waxing lyrical about kids being fed ads for games is simply ignorant: he sees those ads because his advertising profile matches those interests, regardless of the page is looking at in this particular moment. A kid interested in dinosaurs might see ads for plastic dinosaurs or paid trips to natural history museums.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn Facebook has resumed his paid mud-slinging campaign, these days people are clutching at the smallest straws just to badmouth Google.

jasonzemos• 14 years ago

Just to note, I subconsciously skipped over the examples in the article as if they were ads -- then wondered what he was talking about for a few seconds afterward. Must be my years of kung foo internet training.

slowpoison• 14 years ago

The look and feel of the ad is publisher's responsibility. Can't blame Google for that. Rest, Google gets the blame. Before I get down to that, however, I would be suspicious of the veracity of a publisher who tries to blend the ad and the content so closely.

lnanek• 14 years ago

I've actually had ad companies complain about banners too close too buttons in apps before. They can tell, statistically, when users are clicking something by accident rather than interest. Raganwald's screenshot seems similar to me. The web site designer chose to blend the ad into the text content and Google may not even be happy about it due to the lower quality incoming traffic on the ad.

justncase80• 14 years ago

This is covered by the Tao of Leo: http://justinmchase.com/2012/02/20/tao-of-leo-3/

"For each 2x improvement in performance we get from Moore’s law, half will be spent on showing better advertisements, and the other half will be spent on emulating legacy platforms."

gkanai• 14 years ago

"We take a generation of incredibly smart people who have been rigorously trained to deliver amazing code, running on a massive computing engine, and when confronted with a human being trying to learn something, they try to distract him with games."

The same can be said for Wall Street in the past 2 decades. Generations of top graduates have gone not to medicine, not to law, not to real business, but to Wall St. where they create leveraged financial products and led the economy to the 2008-9 Financial Collapse.

Dinoguy1000• 14 years ago

Am I really the only one who started reading this thinking the author was going to discuss the paper's claim that dinosaurs, in popular perception, have a lizardlike/reptilian, splayed stance? I've been a dinosaur nerd for years, and the only times I've heard anything about such a possibility is in discussions of old perceptions of dinosaur posture - in every modern reference (intellectual discussion or pop culture appearance) I've seen, dinosaurs are always portrayed with nothing other than a mammalian stance.

usablebytes• 14 years ago

You echoed me & stole my voice by wavelengths

Tichy2• 14 years ago

I'm saddened that you think games are a bad thing. While there are certainly crappy games, I think I owe part of the survival of my childhood to computer games, and I rank them as the highest possible form of art and expression. At least they have the potential for it.

Also, making the ad look like the text is the doing of the site owner. There are people who will recommend you do that to increase click rates, but I don't think Google actively promotes that strategy.

The placement of the ad is also by the site owner. For my own site I chose to keep ads to the side bar. Admittedly Google keeps telling me that I could put more ads on my site, but I choose not to.

There is also perhaps an economics problem: perhaps most schools, being funded by public money, have no money for ads. What entities in the education market would spend big bucks on dinosaur ads? How can you make big money with dinosaurs?

The Internet Made Me Sad Today

Related Stories