Hacker News Reader

Comment by themoonisachees | Hacker News Reader

This article is a fantastic window into the ad publishers world. One aspect that struck me in particular is how the writer insists watching an ad for an in-game reward is bad, actually, because "the viewer has no attachment to the product". I fail to see how that would differ from any other ad. People don't tend to want to see ads, and this is the one area where they actually chose to do so.

View on HN

No, the views aren't people looking at the ad, they're gamers using it as an alternative to paying to play. As the blog says, there is no attachment between the views and the ad buy. But it is being sold as if they were legitimate impressions.

May as well say "people don't tend to want to spend money, but this pyramid scheme is one way that they choose to do so."

What makes that different than ads on YouTube, where I watch the ad to see a video?

Hey there, writer here:

I can understand how it comes off that I consider rewarded ad formats bad, but that's actually not the case. I have the view that advertisers should know when their ad shows in that context. Those ad formats work for a lot of different kinds of advertisers, particularly mobile game developers.

What's most troubling here is that NONE of the advertisers knew this is how their ads were loading.

There are standards on how to disclose this kind of ad placement in an auction, but they weren't followed at all. Advertisers thought they were showing their ads to organic visitors of a website with high contextual relevance to their product / company values.

it’s definitely poor phrasing, but my gut says that the sentiment is correct. if you’re playing a game and you want to get back to it as quickly as possible, you’re gonna have even more resentment than usual for whatever pointless product is being shoved in your face

Totally! It's worthless from a brand association standpoint. Even a company like google states that the key factor in counting an ad impression (or anything else for that matter) is intent. It's all about intent. Not to say that you WANT to see ads when you visit a website, nobody does, but it's at least the expected exchange.

Is there any such thing as a voluntary ad impression?

there are times when people will voluntarily look at adverts, but they tend to be in situations where you’re expecting them and they’re appropriate to the context. usually this isn’t online: film trailers at the cinema, properties in the window of an estate agent, classifieds at the back of a newspaper

No, not really. As much as the industry tries to tell itself that a well targeted ad delights the user, that just isn't the case. I think a little honesty would go a long way in the digital advertising world. (I use little to mean a lot)

Hum... A lot of times people play mobile games just because they are bored. Those are not eager to get back to the game, and may find an ad for something interesting even more fulfilling than the game.

Ads are weird. And if you look at it, most of the problems on discussion here would go away if the ad networks simply collected feedback from the buyers.

The only time people want to engage with ads, is the classifieds (and even the classifieds have ads ffs).

Where else do people want to see an advertisement and it’s not just an interruption of sorts. TV ads, Popup ads, taking up the entire screen, etc. it’s the same thing.

film trailers (at the cinema), properties in the window of an estate agent, online marketplace listings, there are even times that people will go out of their way to watch TV adverts, like at halftime in the superbowl, or if there’s a particularly funny or artfully made* edition. these are exceptions and not the rule, of course, but there are times when people want products marketed to them.

the problem is that 99% of adverts are as you say interruptions, pestering you to buy something you don’t need

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ogzVyTtcw

Reply on news.ycombinator.com