this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
55 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

44926 readers
832 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

At first internet advertising was a no-brainer. Agree to host ads, get revenue to keep your site afloat, make a profit, expand. Fine. But now we're inundated with ads to the point people are turning off. Hell, there are ads I'd be happy to see, but I never will because I've blocked them with a Pihole and Ublock. The vast majority of people aren't doing that, but are they actually buying the advertised products and services?

Guess I can't get my head around the logistics. Seems like all the money in the world is available for advertising, but are these companies actually seeing a return on that investment? Reddit's basically bots advertising to bots, and the stock market rewards them handsomely. Nobody involved is stupid, they know this is happening, yet companies are still throwing money around. (Someone will relate this to the AI bubble, but it's not really the same thing.)

There was a great article posted here about how 40% (?) of ad views are bots. (If someone can find it, that would be great!) The issue came up to the author because he was tasked with finding out why the advertising spend wasn't getting expected sales. The number of clicks didn't jive with sales results. The advertiser was seeing some ludicrous clicks vs. sales that was 1/10th of what it should be.

And companies are paying for these dismal results?! Think of a time where you were responsible for results at a company. If your spent $X on a thing, and didn't get at least $X dollars back, you would back off that spend or your boss would pull the plug. (Sure, marketing often takes time to get a foothold, I get that.) That's how capitalism fucking works. And for all the bitching about capitalism, the players don't seem to be doing that thing. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Is internet advertising a sort of bubble? Doesn't seem to be as it just keeps going.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 32 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Advertising creates a presence. They don't think any one ad is going to convince you to buy it, and they know that after watching the ad enough times, it's not going to get any more convincing, but when you are in need of their services, you'll be looking at their brand and a competitor, and odds are, if price and everything else are the same, you'll buy the brand you recognize.

[–] TARgz@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And a new ad for the thing you've already bought can reassure you that you've made the right choice. Going forward, you're more likely to stick to that brand and for adjacent products.

[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 minutes ago

IIRC that's the whole point of luxury car commercials during half-time breaks. 99% of watchers can't afford one, but the ad is there to remind the owners of that very fact.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Both your question and the answers are a sign of a healthy (oblivious) detachment from advertised society, IMO. Advertising works. Not to you, because you have the mental infrastructure to not want it to work. The right kind of advertising would work on you too, it's probably just not profitable.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 18 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Advertising works. Not to you,

everyone thinks they are unique. but advertising really works on anyone. it is not like you are seeing an ad for nike and you are just "oh my god, i just realized i need some nike shoes RIGHT now". but when you are in need for shoes in some future and you have to choose between nike and unknown_brand_27, it is more likely you will choose nike.

collapsed inline media

[–] Fleppensteijn@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

Assuming price is the same, would you pick a brand known for using child labor, or a company you know nothing about? I'd avoid the Nikes unless they're the cheapest option.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This. It’s amazing to watch normal people operate. It’s like they think the universe must be showing them the ads for some profound reason

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 hours ago

Oh people know they're being sold and watched, it is just that many can't resist in a very literal sense, because they have stressors that outweigh lost (seemingly theoretical) freedom by manyfold.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If you think the number of people that use ad blockers is not a fraction of a percent of internet users, you're in a bubble.

Go outside, talk to people, friends, family, especially of different generations. Even people I know that I consider much more "tech savvy" than average have no clue about ad blockers or how to begin using them.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago

If you think the number of people that use ad blockers is not a fraction of a percent of internet users, you’re in a bubble.

It's about 30%.

Nowhere near the majority, but also not a "fraction of a percent."

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago

Google cooks the books on ad sales and after being found out it makes a lot more sense on the actions they are doing now with their other products that ads we're propping up.

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-artificially-raised-ad-prices-could-cost-it-100-billion-2024-9?op=1

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 6 points 5 hours ago

AFAIK Google owns the vast majority of advertising online and is the one making all the money.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 hours ago

I generally post variations on this when similar questions come up:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2025+marketing+technology+landscape&iar=images

The companies on the edges are all about marketing adtech firms to companies with money to convince them to spend it on digital marketing.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 56 minutes ago

My friend's partner works in online advertising from matching, ugh, "influencers" to brands to more "traditional" targeted online advertising.

I asked her something along these lines and she told me about a campaign she'd just worked on which dropped my jaw and changed my perspective.

Essentially, she was working with some product being sold with or inside some luxury brand of cars. Her firm was able to target people who seemed to work in dealerships for that brand in Canada. The product being expensive as hell meant that even a handful of sales would justify the campaign.

The campaign cost her firm almost no time, the data were available fairly easily and once established could essentially be run automatically.

Hers is an extreme example but combine relatively low costs with unnervingly accurate micro targetting like that... It's a stupidly efficient means of communicating to prospective clients compared to every other type of advertising.

Reddit is an interesting example. They're milking the advertising for all they can but I'd be surprised if the bulk of their revenue/stock valuation was from ads versus holding all sorts of AI trainable data.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter because they don't work on me since I can't see them anymore.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

There are uhhh, many people who are not you.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 36 minutes ago

Yeah, it's untenable. It's a bubble

[–] phonics@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

Ads are actually pretty incredible. If no one knows your brand, all it takes is money to tell em. It's like a short cut compared to having a good product and word of mouth.

Its essentially like a cold call, but you know the audience is at least generally interested in your topic because of targeting. All that data that is being taken and sold from you, is being sold to avertizers.

Pay Google for getting on search on Google and youtube.

Pay meta to get ads on Insta and Facebook.

If you spend $500 to sell a $3000 product, it's a no brainer. Ita basically printing money when it works. So yeah, companies are paying when the results match. But also when they are testing the waters to see if its worth it to them.

[–] limdaepl@feddit.org 1 points 25 minutes ago

I think what’s happening is that each individual company has a positive ROI on ads in the sense that they would lose more than a dollar in sales if they spent a dollar less on ads, but collectively the ROI is probably smaller than one: if all companies would cut their advertising budgets in half they would all be better off, as they would keep their sales roughly the same.

So adverting is less about sales volume (people don’t necessarily buy more things when they see more ads) but about market share (you get a bigger piece of the cake). Classic prisoner’s dilemma.