Why GM slammed the brakes on its $10m Facebook ads In the week that Facebook finally went public, General Motors has axed its paid-for advertising on Mark Zuckerberg's social network. GM said today that it was still going to have a Facebook page and everything, but it wasn't going to buy any more ads because they just aren't shifting enough cars. It reportedly spent $10m on …
I've seen a smattering of them in the States, usually magazines or the occasional billboard, but nothing on TV -- and not a one for Ferrari -- while ads for US and Japanese makes, of course, are all over the place, non-stop.
As opposed to Porsche, BMW advertising is like a rash all over US TV, print, billboards, you name it. I don't know what that says about BMW, other than that they're one of the "hip" cars for affluent Americans to drive -- but then, so is Porsche, and I have yet to spot a Porsche ad on TV over here.
Mind you, I'm sure things are entirely different in Europe and the UK.
"Think about most banner ads: they have rich media and flash or video. These are all the things that would compel someone to want to click on an ad"
This is a joke, right?
Totally agree; AdBlock, NoScript and FlashBlock, FTW.
Also, as long as I'm here, just a bit of translation:
"Think about most banner ads: they have rich media and Flash or video. These are all the things that would compel someone to knee a Web site in the groin and, while it's doubled-up in pain on the ground, kick it repeatedly in the teeth."
You're welcome.
and did you try ghostery ? It makes these following ads non-following, removes all unwanted traces, to combat this:
"Say you've visited an airline company to book a trip to San Francisco and then you don't book it because you're just thinking about it. But then as you go to other websites like the BBC or USA Today the ads for that airline company follow you around from site to site, it's like a puppy dog following you home," Kim explained.
I'm amazed how much tracking stuff is on all web pages (only 1 her: "DoubleClick")
That's what I thought, then I realized we're not the people who ever click on ads in the _first_ place. So what makes an ad even more annoying to us, is of absolutely no interest to an advertiser.
if a 'punch the monkey' ad gets clicked on twice as often by the kind of people who click on ads, but causes 53.6% more rage in an adblock user, which of those two statistics do you expect the advertiser to be more interested in?
Just did that, because I've been using AdBlock+ for years, and I haven't looked at the Internet without it for quite some time. Your post made me think I'd have a look, so I checked out El Reg, Demonoid, Listverse, Mental Floss, W3Schools, YouTube and Facebook with it switched off and...
...Holy Mother of God...
...AdBlock+ is back on now, and will be staying that way for the foreseeable future.
D'oh icon because mfw I saw those sites with ads.
However, if you annoy visitors enough one of two things happens:
1) They go away and never come back.
2) They install an ad blocker and never see another web advert.
Both of these are failures for the advertiser, and the latter is more serious.
Option 2 is more likely on a site that the user finds compelling because they want it despite the annoyance, and becomes almost certain if it has a social element that allows users to talk to each other.
Somebody will discover ad blockers, and then everyone will get one.
The American car companies have upped their game in the last seven or so years. My wife would NEVER have considered an American marque but she likes the Cadillac CTS, loved the Potiac Solstice, has seriously considered a Ford when we talk about replacing a VW Golf, ... Besides, when all the components are made in China (and those components include Toyota's bad brakes and BMW's bad fuel lines) and Honda, Toyota, and Subaru have assembly plants in Indiana, ...
. . . we used the Hosts file to block with.
With AdBlock I tend to strip back as much of the adserver URL as possible to save time later.
With Facebook and the current 'news feed' or the new 'here's something the bloke in the pub's brother's mate's dog looked at' there is the option to turn it off.
I am tempted to turn off AdBlock to see what ads are aimed at my minimalistic and totally bogus 'personal details'.
I like it that GM it to keep its free Facebook page - the big firms are learning from the punters.
Dirty American politicians continue to allow the Wall St. 1% of 1%ers like JPM that go caught betting and losing 2 Billion dollars to keep BETTING unsuspecting hardworking people's retirement and savings (mutual funds and 401k), and take the suckers on the street, the casual investors for a ride.
This is 1998 TGLO IPO redux. TheGlobe.com IPO Pop was reportedly a record increase, but crashed a couple of years later, and it was a far SUPERIOR site!
FB = Fools' Buy
"JPM that go caught betting and losing 2 Billion dollars to keep BETTING unsuspecting hardworking people's retirement and savings (mutual funds and 401k),"
Investing is betting, PERIOD. You risk your money in hopes that you will have more at the end.
Nice rant and all, but I'm pretty sure you don't really understand economics that well.
That said, YES Facebook is a fools buy, it's an inflated pop stock with no sustainable business model.
Well, the market droids focus on the explosive growth of FB, deftly avoid mentioning their revenue stream, then compare them to Google. Throw in a little "and Google are losing the social media wars" and the unsuspecting mark is well set to be separated from his money.
I only wish there were far fewer institutional investors in the pool of unsuspecting marks.
Seem to be mainly "have you been mis-sold PPI, Have you had an accident and want to Sue? Do you want to meet sexy singles"
Basically the same sort of spammy shite you get via sms and email.
Never been inclined to respond to the SMS or the spam so am not going to ever click through a FB ad.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
