I don’t understand how Google™ Adsense™, given the enormous amount of data that they have on me, would think that I care one whit about dating Christian singles.
I’m married, and I’m Jewish.
If I were to troll some group looking for illicit hookups, I’d go with J-Date, but I don’t f%$# around.
I’m just an ordinary guy with ordinary tastes, “4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries, satin sheets, a magnum of champagne, a trapeze, and a python.”
No link for my reader(s), because if you want to troll a Christian web site, I don’t want it to be tracked back to me.
Please note: once again, that I do not vet, nor do I endorse any ad that appears on my site, and I reserve the right to mock both the ads that appear on my site, as well as the advertisers.
Also, please note, this should be in no way construed as an inducement or a request for my reader(s) to click on any ad that they would not otherwise be inclined to investigate further. This would be a violation of the terms of service for Google™ Adsense™.
woah exhibit 16. more Facebook docs quietly unsealed yesterday – it gets worse. A full, damning senior execs’ email thread (CFO, COO) unsealed. Facebook slowed unsealings in this fraud case and spun it as “cherrypicking.” Top marketing exec, Carolyn Everson, weighs in here. /1 pic.twitter.com/Zn51XNcKxn
Both Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandburg are famously “Hands On”, and this is at the core of their business.
They knew that they were defrauding advertisers, and they took their money anyway:
Carolyn Everson, one of Facebook’s most senior advertising executives, said the company had to “prepare for the worst” over claims that it overstated the potential reach of its advertisements, according to newly released court filings.
The world’s largest social network has been fighting a class-action lawsuit in California since 2018 over claims that its figure for its “potential reach”, which told advertisers how many people saw their ads, included duplicate and fake accounts.
Facebook has argued that the numbers were only estimates and that advertisers are charged for actual clicks and impressions, rather than for the potential reach of an ad.
But according to filings in the lawsuit that were unredacted over the weekend, Everson, the vice-president of Facebook’s global business group, wrote an email in 2017 that said the metric “clearly impacted [advertisers’] planning”.
“We are going to get really criticized for that (and justifiably so),” she said. “If we overstated how many actual real people we have in certain demos, there is no question that impacted budget allocations. We have to prepare for the worst here.”
………
The lawsuit, which was filed in northern California in 2018 by a small-business owner, alleges that Facebook executives knew the potential reach figure was “misleading” and took no action to correct it in order to “preserve its own bottom line”.
It points to research showing Facebook had suggested potential reach in certain US states and demographics that was greater than the actual populations in those geographies. A Financial Times investigation in 2019 found similar discrepancies in Facebook’s ads manager, an online tool to help advertisers build campaigns, even though the company made some changes to its potential reach definition earlier that year.
They knew that the metrics were complete crap, and they tried to bury the information and continued to use the bad data to get paid.
By way of context, the population of Maine is 1.35 million.
Collins raised about $30 million, and Gideon raised about $75 million. (And the loser spent only about 85% of that, because there is only so much media in Maine)
This is addition to at least $70,000,000.00 in “independent” PAC spending.
This from a campaign that was literally sending out frantic funding requests emails the day before the election.
The reason that they spent so much money was that for every media buy, the consultants associates with the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment) got a percentage.
The same thing happened in Kentucky, where Mitch McConnell destroyed the hapless Amy McGrath by almost 20 points.
In both cases, the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment) chose to run a largely content free campaign and a largely content free candidate, and the only winners on the Den side were the consultants.
The same could be said from North Carolina, where 3rd party expenditures, and hence commissions, dwarfed spending be l by both campaigns.
All of these races were seen as winnable, and all of these races were not even close, despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment).
By comparison, Democrats won both (still hugely expensive) races in Georgia, largely on the get out the vote efforts of Stacy Abrams, which were a TINY fraction of total spending. (I still don’t trust her though, because of her choices in literature)
For to many in the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment), the strategies never change, because they make money from these failed strategies. Lots and lots of money, something like 20% on media buys, and 10% on fundraising.
My advice is the same as always tell the DCCC, DSCC, and the DNC to pound sand, never respond to online or phone solicitations for funds, and chose your candidates yourself.
Act Blue is good, but going through a candidate’s web site is better, and you can get links to their web sites through Act Blue.
Until the plague of consultants, who I liken to a plague of locusts, are ejected from the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment), it’s all you can do.
I pointed to the case of a Dutch broadcaster who got better results, and more revenue, when they stopped using ad tech that tracked and identified (stalked) people, and switched to ads based on the contents of the web page that they were viewing.
Bacardi last October ran a test to tell whether its campaign promoting Bombay Sapphire in the U.K. could boost sales and brand favor—and in the process help answer a broader question about the long-term fate of its digital marketing as the way consumers are targeted for ads faces a shift.
The campaign took 10,000 anonymized identities of people who had visited the gin brand’s distillery or website, and sent them offers like promotional emails or Instagram ads promising drink recipes and early access to new products.
The result was a click-through rate, which indicates how often ad exposures lead to clicks, around 9% higher than previous campaigns that relied on common but now endangered targeting methods, such as using data from third-party sources. The new campaign also saw a 14% increase in cost efficiency as measured by a cost-per-click metric.
Bacardi says those and other encouraging signs give it confidence in its ability to build its brand and sell products even once it no longer has access to individual ad tracking and targeting technology that Google plans to move against next year.
My guess is that Bacardi’s marking department is calling Google and Facebook and the other “Stalker Advertisers” pig felching* c%$# sucking con men who should be put up against the wall, because they realized that they have been scammed.
You want to sell booze? Buy ads on booze web sites.
It’s that simple, and it’s cheaper, and far less opaque.
*If you do not know that that word means, Don’t Google It. Trust me.
About 7 months ago, I mentioned that a Dutch broadcaster turned off tracking ads, and went with simple contextual ads, and earned more money.
Contextual ads are, for example, you read a story and the ads are based on what you are reading, so if you were looking as sports, you would get ads for beer, and if you were looking at barbecue recipes, you would get ads for beer, and if you were reading a story about a heat wave, you would get ads for beer.
Tracking ads, on the other hand will look at everything that you have done in the past 18 months, and determine that because you looked at sports, barbecue, and the weather, you get served an add for beer. (all ads lead to beer, but that is another post)
The reason that tracking ads are more popular these days is because they are supposed to get higher response rates..
Certainly, that is what the incumbents, like Facebook and Google want you to think, because if contextual ads work just as well, then pretty much anyone can go into the online ad business, and Google and Facebook can no longer slurp up most of the revenue
This is why Facebook is going nuclear about Apple’s new privacy policies, which will require an explicit opt-in for tracking.
It’s not because they would lose a whole lot of money with this, they would still sell ads, but because this is a massive A/B test on the internet giant’s business model.
If advertisers find that non tracking ads work just as well, or nearly so for less money, they will switch to non-tracking ads.
This is why we have leaked emails in which Mark Zuckerberg states that, “We need to inflict pain,” on Apple.
All this is a long way around to seeing that we now have another data-point in addition to the Dutch broadcaster NPO, we also have the New Zealand news site Stuff, which has abandoned Facebook to no effect. (They did so because of Facebook’s irresponsibility both before and after the Christchurch shootings)
The short version, (video below) is that Stuff cut advertising spending on Facebook with, “No traffic impact at all,” and since they stopped posting on Facebook, they have been unable to tease out any impact on traffic.
I have noted for some time not that even by the rather loose standards of internet advertising, Facebook stands out because of the fraudulent nature of its ad metrics.
A Facebook employee warned that the company reported revenues it “should have never made” by overstating how many users advertisers could reach, according to internal emails revealed in a newly unsealed court filing.
The world’s largest social media company has since 2018 been fighting a class-action lawsuit claiming that its executives knew its “potential reach metric”, used to inform advertisers of their potential audience size, was inflated but failed to correct it.
According to sections of a filing in the lawsuit that were unredacted on Wednesday, a Facebook product manager in charge of potential reach proposed changing the definition of the metric in mid-2018 to render it more accurate.
However, internal emails show that his suggestion was rebuffed by Facebook executives overseeing metrics on the grounds that the “revenue impact” for the company would be “significant”, the filing said.
The product manager responded by saying “it’s revenue we should have never made given the fact it’s based on wrong data”, the complaint said.
………
Facebook has argued that the metrics are only estimates. Indeed, advertisers do not pay the company based on potential reach, rather for actual impressions and clicks on ads.
………
Facebook itself acknowledged that the metric was “arguably the single most important number in our ads creation interfaces” in an internal document cited in the unsealed filing.
The filing also claimed that in early 2018, internal Facebook research found that removing duplicate accounts from potential reach would result in a 10 per cent drop in the figure.
………
In March 2019, Facebook made some changes to its potential reach, making it based on how many people matching an advertiser’s criteria had been shown an ad in the past 30 days, rather than the number of active users over the same time period. However, the lawsuit alleges that as of 2020, the company “still has not removed the fake and duplicate accounts from its potential reach calculation”.
………
The lawsuit over potential reach is the second major suit brought by advertisers regarding misleading metrics at Facebook. Several years ago the company settled a complaint filed after it disclosed it overstated video-viewing metrics in 2015 and 2016.
(emphasis mine)
I really want to see Mark Zuckerberg marched out of Facebook headquarters in handcuffs one day.
Of course, that would require a Department of Justice that wasn’t generally opposed to prosecuting white collar crime.
The Republicans haven’t won a Presidential election in Pennsylvania since 1988.
Obviously, it is illegal for an independent PAC to coordinate, this has no relation to what the Clinton campaign is thinking (and according to Gilbert and Sullivan, married men never flirt).
If you believe that, then I have some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in purchasing.
One can look at this as the Clinton campaign taking nothing for granted, (glass half full) but if the past is precis, and panic mode does seem to be how the Clinton campaign operates, so I am inclined to see this glass as half empty.
He referred to Mexicans as “rapists,” questioned Sen. John McCain’s status as a war hero, ridiculed the physical appearance of his opponents, falsely claimed that “thousands” in New Jersey cheered as the World Trade Center fell and, this week, called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Despite predictions that such searing, divisive rhetoric and the resulting outcry would cripple his campaign, Donald Trump’s insults and controversial proposals have propelled him to the forefront of the 2016 presidential race — and kept him there. And while it may seem like a lurching, chaotic campaign, Trump is, for the most part, a disciplined and methodical candidate, according to a Washington Post review of the businessman’s speeches, interviews and thousands of tweets and retweets over the past six months. Trump delivers scores of promises, diatribes and insults at breakneck speed. He attacks a regular cast of villains including undocumented immigrants, Muslims, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, his GOP rivals and the media. He keeps the narrative arc of each controversy alive with an endless stream of statements, an unwillingness to back down even when he has misstated the facts — and a string of attacks against those who criticize him. All the while, his supporters see a truth-talking problem solver unlike the traditional politicians who have let them down. Spending remarkably little, he dominates yet another news cycle, and his Republican rivals languish in his shadow. ……… The Post’s analysis found several qualities to Trump’s approach. First is a pattern of experimentation that suggests that he is testing his insults and attacks as he goes along. Like a team of corporate marketers, Trump understands the value of message-testing — but he appears to do it spontaneously, behind the lectern and on live television.
It appears that there is a method to this madness.
To me this is a hell of a lot scarier than him being some loud mouth who accidentally captured the Zeitgeist of the Republican Party, because it means that the next time, it could be worse.
Drug companies should stop advertising directly to consumers, a major U.S. doctors group said Tuesday, declaring that the ads often push patients to more expensive treatments and inflate demand for therapies. In a vote Tuesday at the group’s annual meeting in Atlanta, the American Medical Association called for an end to television commercials and magazine spreads that are used to pitch prescription drugs. It’s a change from the AMA’s previous position, which said the ads were fine as long as they were educational and accurate. The U.S. is one of the few countries that allows direct-to-consumer drug ads. The vote “reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices,” AMA Board Chair-elect Patrice A. Harris said in a statement announcing the vote result. “Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.”
I am not sure why the AMA has reversed itself, but it is long overdue.
However, given the expansive view of business free speech held by the Supreme Court, I am not sure precisely how one would enforce such a ban.
Advertising, Exploiting People with Insecurity About Their Manhood for more than a Century
In the conflation of automobiles and manhood that is the American car advertisement, the latest GM ad, which doesn’t even bother making the juxtaposition between one’s choice in transportation and one’s manhood, and they pretty explicitly state it.
The video attached shows hoe they bring in a “focus group” of young women who look at pictures, and they universally find the guy in front of a truck sexier than the same guy in front of a hatchback.
First, they obviously had to find a group of women dumb enough not to think, “Hey, these are the same guys? Are you trying to imply that I am a vacuous shallow bitch?”
Seriously. Just how tiny does a potential car buyer’s penis have to be for this ad to work?
The data science community responded with a number of rebuttals (I put together a roundup of my favorite ones below). Collectively, these posts did a great job of breaking down the Statistics 101 problems with Sharp’s original analyses. But even if Sharp had been less sloppy, it would have been right to take issue with the larger implication of his work — that any major outlier, if shown to be statistically significant, should be seen as evidence of rule-breaking. Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong were outliers. But so is Lionel Messi. And Phil Jackson. And the San Antonio Spurs. It would be irresponsible — and depressing — to assume every incredible performance equals cheating. Celebrating outliers is one of the best parts about being a sports fan. I’d beremiss if I didn’t note that, in cases such as these, our traditional methods of determining statistical significance can severely underestimate the odds of something happening due to chance. That’s because of the so-called Wyatt Earp Effect, named after the frontier lawman known for taking part in lots of gunfights without getting hurt. Earp’s feat seems improbable in hindsight, but given the sheer number of shootouts in the Old West, it was actually pretty likely that somebody would make it out alive. Likewise, it’s difficult to estimate the true odds against a team preventing fumbles to the extent Sharp originally suggested New England did. Knowing particulars about the Patriots after the fact can bias us into computing the odds that a specific team would have a specific fumble record over a specific period of years. But the real question regarding New England’s outlier-ness should surround the odds that any team would post any outlier statistic over any span of seasons. And the probability of that happening, as you may imagine, is a lot higher than the odds of a very specific set of circumstances. Here were some of the responses to Sharp’s posts: ………
The harshest counterargument belonged to data scientist Drew Fustin. Fustin challenged Sharp’s choice to exclude dome teams (Sharp’s own post says outdoor teams barely fumble more often than those based in domes), instead looking at fumble rates across all teams in outdoor games only — whereupon the Patriots don’t even rank first in the NFL at fumble avoidance over the 2010-2014 period. He also questions whether Sharp’s decision to use that 2010-14 period was a case of cherry-picking the timeframe that would make the Patriots look most like an extreme outlier.
(emphasis mine)
Seriously, it’s a tempest in a teapot, and distracting all of us from the true meaning of the Super Bowl: To sell us useless sh%$ that we really do not need and to pump up the profile of advertising firms.
*Love of my life, light of the cosmos, she who must be obeyed, my wife.
I realize that my readership numbers probably don’t rate a T-shirt, but I wasn’t even offered a f%$#ing key fob.
Seriously, if you are not going to read my article, and know that I condemned what your employers are doing, at least have the decency of offering some form of remuneration.
It’s a matter of pride.
To quote fellow engineer Montgomery Scott, “This was a matter of pride.”
Politico Chief White House Correspondent Mike Allen writes “Playbook,” a daily e-mail newsletter featuring stories from Politico and other outlets, various “exclusives,” tips and birthday notices. It also carries “messages” from big companies and trade associations hoping to reach “Playbook’s” audience of influentials.
All the items below were extracted from “Playbook” and are related to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying force that has advertised in the newsletter. Please designate which are paid advertisements for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and which are Allen’s own work: ……… Answers: 1) and 3) are paid ads; 2) and 4) are Allen’s own work. One of the hottest issues in journalism today is “native” advertising, the tricks that publishers deploy to elide the domains of journalism and advertising. BuzzFeed has sustained gray-bearded criticism for its boundary-defying listicles. The Atlantic earlier this year ran a native ad from the Church of Scientology that inflamed its audience and prompted an apology and a review of Atlantic procedures for approving ads. Forbes, The Washington Post and the Huffington Post are also experimenting with this approach to funding journalism.
A review of “Playbook” archives shows that the special interests that pay for slots in the newsletter get adoring coverage elsewhere in the playing field of “Playbook.” The pattern is a bit difficult to suss out if you glance at “Playbook” each day for a shot of news and gossip. When searching for references to advertisers in “Playbook,” however, it is unmistakable. And its practitioner is expanding the franchise. Today, Allen disclosed in “Playbook” that he’ll be collaborating in the production of “Capital Playbook,” a newsletter stemming from Capital New York, the news site that Politico acquired earlier this year. Also today, the New York Times, as part of a reorganization of its Washington/political coverage, announced that it would be launching a “morning news tip sheet that sets up the Washington day for our readers.” ………
Such fandom helps to explain why Allen’s updates have become perhaps the Beltway’s most impressive journo-business story of the past decade. As previously reported, advertisers pay a good $35,000 for a weekly run in “Playbook,” a price tag that has inflated nicely for Politico in recent years.
Top editors at The Washington Post and Politico tried on Wednesday to mend a rift between the two news organizations.
Politico’s editor in chief, John Harris, and the Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt spoke about columns by Erik Wemple, a media critic for The Post, that have been heavily critical of Mike Allen, a star reporter at Politico and author of the popular Playbook newsletter. Mr. Wemple has accused Mr. Allen of questionable journalistic practices, including using Playbook to provide favorable coverage to the companies that advertise in his newsletter.
It had been reported that editors at The Post and Politico would meet in person, but instead they talked over the phone.
“One of his writers made assertions that I believe do not meet Washington Post standards of fairness or accuracy,” Mr. Harris said in an email, describing the call with Mr. Hiatt. The assertions, he said are “emphatically untrue — and we had a serious and non-dramatic conversation about this.”
Would the Post have a meeting like this with the now-indicted former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel?
Of course not. They would contact him for comments, and they would review any complaints, but a meeting? Of course not.
When the target has a complaint, you get those complaints, and you examine those complaints, and if you determine them to be valid, you publish a correction.
You don’t hold f%$#ing peace talks.
This sort of mutual back scratching by media institutions is one of the reasons that so many people don’t trust the press.
I was looking up some data on Loctite™ thread locking compounds and was perusing an online brochure (PDF).
And then I saw this.
Since the 1950s, Henkel has served the defense market. While taking a leadership role in supporting the U.S. Military’s efforts with dedicated resources, Henkel has developed products and specifications for high performance adhesives, sealants, coatings and surface treatments. Today, thousands of assemblies in military vehicle, ordnance and other device applications use Loctite®, Alodine®, Multan®, Bonderite® and Turco® products.
In isolation, the quote sounds pretty innocuous, until you examine the accompanying picture.
Isn’t that a Russian MiG-29? Why yes, it is!
How does this have anything to do with, “taking a leadership role in supporting the U.S. Military’s efforts?”
More crap advertising.
