
Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results - walterbell
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/chase-ads-youtube-fake-news-offensive-videos.html
======
doctorpangloss
It's crazy how many apologists there are for Big Web Advertising!

So many commenters are giving the customer a hard time for realizing, "99% of
my budget is spent on zero value, i.e. fraud."

The biggest lie the online advertising industry has sold is aggregate
statistics. Of course a handful of traffic sources convert massively while the
supermajority (99%) don't convert at all. Advertising intermediaries rely on
the statistical mean to hide all the garbage in the gold. It should surprise
no one that for the vast majority of customers, like Chase, conversion as a
function of source is skewed.

I suspect too many ad tech companies rely on the ignorance of their customers
to make money. They monetize the basic math of "if it's more than break-even,
it's working"—in other words, their objective is to take as much ad budget as
possible while still delivering a profitable conversion for the customer. By
simple math, ad tech uses garbage inventory until the customer's profit is
close to but above zero. It works, and you'd have to be a real blowhard to
believe that it's not how the ad tech ecosystem works.

That ad-tech does this by laundering e-mail spam, blogspam and other forms of
spam into Google AdWords: that's the real fraud. All those Googlers then go on
to pretend like it's not happening.

I mean, what 400,000 sites do you think Chase was advertising on? Ones that
really have to do with banking? Or just ones that, by some idiotic metric,
have a keyword that ".equals('banking')"?

I would love for someone at Google's direct navigation ads (or whatever
ridiculously obscuring name they're called now) to come out and say how
"Nobody clicks twice [on spam ads] by accident." It's like they inhabit a
make-believe universe. The ad exchanges aren't ignorant: they're facilitating
the massive fraud of their own customers.

~~~
omarforgotpwd
I agree completely with your assessment. I run a website called HeyAmIFat.com
where you can send in a picture of yourself and we'll tell you if you look fat
or not in minutes. I often look at the huge companies advertising on my site
and think "if they could see where their ads are being placed right now they'd
probably realize they're wasting their money"

On the other hand this huge "fraud" is what makes Google free and has thus
powered the information revolution that now looks like a pivotal turning point
in human history. Hard to be all that mad that Google made all the worlds
information freely searchable by ripping off dumb businesses...

~~~
mrieck
Give your website more credit.

I mean what do people do after learning they are fat and feel depressed? They
buy crap to feel better. Maybe your website is exactly what advertisers need.

~~~
bigtimeidiot
> _I mean what do people do after learning they are fat and feel depressed?
> They buy crap to feel better. Maybe your website is exactly what advertisers
> need._

It is quite sad that anyone would consider this a business opportunity.

~~~
njharman
Swaths of consumer products are targeted at people with self esteem issues.
Fashion, makeup, fitness performance, jewelry luxury and stats products of
allmstripes. It's especially bad for young women who are bombarded with
Photoshoped images of "perfection" and reminders that attractiveness = success
and that sex sells.

------
blazar
"An intern then manually clicked on each of [the 12000] addresses to ensure
that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on." \- true hero
of this article

~~~
iamjeff
Yeah, success of this entire pivot relied largely on this intern's audit
report. I imagine that the intern had a massive list of 12,000 URLs and would
click through them, taking care to note why the site passes muster or
otherwise so that management can add a layer of justification to the final
decision. Even at an average of 3 minutes per URL, that still amounts to >600
hours of repetitive and sometimes traumatising work. Remarkable that they only
selected a _single_ (unpaid?) intern to deal with this...truly remarkable.

~~~
TeMPOraL
You're assuming the intern actually did the job - that he didn't e.g. get
bored a third of the way and finished the rest by dragging down the "No" field
through the rest of the column in in Excel, and then changing a bunch of
random URLs to "Yes".

My experience is that most people assigned with boring, repetitive jobs will
either automate some of it or start cutting corners to avoid the work.

(In fact I'm starting to believe that the first runaway evil AI trying to take
over the world will get stopped in its tracks, because it will not understand
just how different the "on-paper" states of inventory and books in small and
medium businesses are from reality.)

~~~
antisthenes
That's exactly what I would have done given such a task if there was no good
way to automate it.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Many people do think exactly like that, but now realize that the output of
such a task is often an input to another one. Garbage in, garbate out applies
just as much to decision processes as to computers.

~~~
cestith
Most computer programs are just very quickly run decision processes,
especially in the MIS subfield.

------
soared
This is definitely an interesting tactic, but this is a pretty poor article.

#1. Chase is claiming performance hasn't been affected, but it has only been a
couple days since they made changes. With display you can't measure
performance in only a few days.

#2. The author confuses the number of sites with the number of impressions.
Chase is buying the same number of impressions - if everyone else followed
this strategy it wouldn't hurt exchanges. It would have weird outcomes, but if
the same volume is served the exchange makes the same amount (excluding data
costs and how cpm would be affected, etc).

~~~
ffumarola
1 - agreed. A few days is nothing.

2 - The exchange would likely make more because the increased auction pressure
from the same amount of advertisers trying to buy the same amount of volume
(same demand) on a smaller list of websites (lower supply) would lead to
higher prices being paid to show ads.

~~~
LoSboccacc
1 - depends on volume. high enough and you can get goodp-value of the
population even in a few days

2 - still a win-win-win-win, Chase get more views for the same budget, few
website of good content that attract good traffic get more money out of ads,
bad website spamming keywords get less money and the exchange gets the same
money but displaying the ads few times as the unit price increase so it has
more margin.

~~~
ffumarola
1 - It's not really about the volume of impressions, but about typical
attribution windows. Banner ads typically aren't measured on 1 day click
attribution. In more DR oriented workflows the impression logs will be
ingested into MMM (media mix models) to project the impact the banners had on
conversions across all of your acquisition channels.

In non-online conversion paths (e.g. offline retail, call centers, etc) or
branding campaigns, many are measured using offline lift studies or brand lift
studies which take at least a couple months to show results.

2 - Not exactly. The prices would be driven up, meaning eventually Chase would
get less impressions for the same budget. If both you and I used to buy 1,000
impressions for $5 across 100,000 websites who had a total supply of 2,000
impressions, but then we limit our list of allowable websites to 5,000
websites that only have 1,200 impressions... prices will rise.

The impact is not apparent when only I change my bidding strategy, because
I'll buy 1,000 of the 1,200 impressions from the top tier websites, and you'll
get 200 from them and then 800 from the bottom tier. But once we both change
our bidding strategies, we're now both competing on the same 1,200
impressions. Prices will go up as we compete over them.

This is a simplistic auction, of course. In practice, the ad exchange values
different sites differently... but this is just to give a rough mental model
about how the increased competition on fewer sites will lead to increased
auction pressure thus driving prices up and volumes down for each advertiser.
The exchange and publisher will be happy, though.

------
ransom1538
The fix to online ad fraud is obvious: CPA (Cost per action). If a signup
occurs, then you pay for the ads. If a user pays for the service, then you pay
for the ads. It would align the incentives of the advertisers (people paying
for ads) and the ad networks (google). Currently it is the ad networks
incentive to use CPC and to hide fraud by not releasing traceable ids,
allowing clicks from bots/proxies/adsense holders and allowing ads on
unrelated content which cause accidental clicks. CPA would incentivize the
advertisers (people paying for ads) to commit the fraud by not reporting the
action. This would be easier to maintain since the people paying for ads is a
much smaller set. BUT - from my experience there would be almost no money in
this system for Google since most of their income is from fraud.

Disclosure: worked in ad tech.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Chase already does this, its a big reason all the credit card blogs pimp Chase
cards so much.

~~~
asafira
Yeah, I think the blogs even mention they get a kickback.

------
ericdykstra
While the premise of the article is reasonable, the evidence is flimsy. This
seems like an example of NY Times defending their turf. We've seen numerous
[1] examples [2] lately of legacy media companies trying to drive advertisers
away from new media sites and Youtube by discrediting sites as "fake news" and
by running hit pieces on popular Youtube personalities.

I mean, just look at the author's latest articles. 5 of the last 6 (including
this one) disparage advertising on new channels! [3] Targets include Youtube,
Snapchat, Breitbart, and Google (in general).

The legacy media is just not well suited for the current state of the world.
Breaking news comes first through Twitter now. Investigative journalism
doesn't require a big budget to make high quality content any more. As for
political commentary, many people would rather listen to a well-educated
everyman craft videos on Youtube than listen to the millionaire personalities
on Fox News talk about how the Democratic party doesn't understand the
proletariat.

1\. [https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/feb/24/zoe-sugg-
zoe...](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/feb/24/zoe-sugg-zoella-the-
vlogger-blamed-for-declining-teenage-literacy)

2\. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-
youtube...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-youtube-star-
pewdiepie-after-anti-semitic-posts-1487034533)

3\. [https://www.nytimes.com/by/sapna-
maheshwari?action=click&con...](https://www.nytimes.com/by/sapna-
maheshwari?action=click&contentCollection=Business%20Day&module=Byline&region=Header&pgtype=article)

------
drej
My mate worked at a giant ecommerce company, it would send hundreds of
millions of e-mails a month... and with virtually no performance evaluation
(only high level stats which are by no means actionable). It took a single SQL
query to propose cuts to traffic in the order of 20% with ~zero loss in
revenue.

I remember attending a talk, where this guy talked about their freemium app
used by dozens of millions of users. Their in-app popups were cut by 30% or so
without losing revenue, all thanks to a few simple if statements (they tried
machine learning as well, but this did it).

One can only wonder how much of this excessive advertising there is, I guess
it's mostly driven by absolute revenue numbers without much consideration for
costs and efficiency.

------
jtraffic
> At some point, a human is going to take a look.

I recently saw a talk by Foster Provost, a big ML guy at NYU. The main points
of his talk were that using fine-grained behavioral data (like browsing
history) is better than demographics (at least in his context: predicting ad
lift), and he proposed a way to interpret the model (somewhat). I left feeling
disappointed. His system for interpretation was super post-hoc and tenuous,
IMHO. It felt like a computer scientist doing social science (because it was).

I think ML is great for lots of things, but there are still lots of problems
with using it in systems with humans.

An example: if you do a Google search for "Amazon <some book>" then you'll
almost always get an ad from Amazon. So Amazon pays for a click that would
have happened anyway. Maybe Amazon does this to crowd out other advertisers,
but maybe it's just the algorithm being stupid and nobody is watching.

~~~
tgtweak
It's not being stupid it's designed that way. "Gee that'd suck if somebody
else bought ads for all your organic keywords. Sorry we don't have a better
way to prevent that, you should bid on those."

Even if Google did provide a provision for blocking ads for certain keywords
(and they do have one), who controls that system? Amazon is also a bad example
since many 3rd parties affiliated with - and driving traffic to - Amazon buy
those keywords.

~~~
013a
I think that's entering an area of ad ethics. Yet, its an ethical violation
that companies like Google make today. If I search for "Wealthfront", I get an
ad for Wealthfront, Betterment, and TDAmeritrade, in that order, before an
organic result for Wealthfront. If Wealthfront didn't pay up, even though it
is _obvious_ what I am looking for, the result I am looking would be buried.
That's a protection racket.

Rank-based advertising, like in search results, is fundamentally unethical. To
do it ethically would require perfect comprehension of what the searcher is
seeking, so that you can prioritize organic, helpful results. Google never
prioritizes organic results.

~~~
qeternity
What? It's not a protection racket. Google is a private enterprise who is free
to show whatever content they like on their page. Not showing your site is not
illegal, nor is it unethical. A protection racket involves some illegal
compulsion to pay for the protection. That's what makes it illegal.

~~~
samscully
It's not a protection racket but it is close to becoming a monopoly, which is
also illegal in some circumstances.

This sort of anti-competitive coercion through overwhelming market power is
why monopoly laws exist in the first place.

~~~
qeternity
I don't think you understand what a monopoly entails. Having a large
marketshare is simply not the only qualifier. It's also not remotely anti-
competitive. That's just not what that word means.

------
diogenescynic
I work for a biggish company and sit near the marketing department. They
report similar results, if not quite so dramatic. Advertising isn't
incremental. Sometimes there's only so much demand for your product and you
can only change that so much with marketing or promotion.

------
olb
> Surprisingly, the company is seeing little change in the cost of impressions
> or the visibility of its ads on the internet, she said.

If/when other companies switch to this strategy, they’ll all be competing for
less inventory and cost will go up accordingly.

~~~
xbmcuser
At the same time good content providers will be paid more. So overall it is a
good thing for the web. Content farming won't be worth much either.

~~~
pilif
I'm not so sure, but I would love to be proven wrong.

The issue I'm seeing is that there are many orders or magnitude more potential
content providers out there than people are willing to manually validate and
white-list.

This might lead us to a situation where only the largest content
providers/creators still get access to ad money which in turn will make it
impossible for creators targeting a more niche audience to still have a chance
in the market.

Case in point: lately I'm totally into science videos on YouTube. From the
more mainstream "Space Time" to the now-not-as-niche-as-in-2012 "Cody's Lab".

While the latter doesn't share the former's production values nor budget, it's
YouTube ad revenue that allows both to exist and to me personally, both
provide equal value.

It concerns me that in the future, if this trend continues, only one of the
two will have a chance to survive.

~~~
user5994461
Niche creators never had a chance in the first place. The few pennies you get
for thousands of impression don't cover the expenses to run the site or the
time to write the content.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
Tell that to the thousands of niche podcasters out there who sustain their
programs through marketing partnerships.

Niche creators do stand a chance. They just need the opportunity to reach
their audience with a degree of intimacy and trust that the horrific scourge
of mainstream online video and corporate 'journalism' do not and cannot offer.
Certain media can enable this for their viewers and others less so. It's no
cliche to say that medium is the message in this context.

Native advertising in podcasting is proof that not all online advertising has
to consist of bludgeoning ignoramuses over the head with colorful nonsense
within the infinite scroll of their Facebook feed. It can be about legitimate
respect for a brand and a brand's legitimate respect for it's engaged,
targeted niche demographic. But at the current rate of things, the web will
require another massive spree of innovation to fix the tragedies caused by
Facebook and Google over the past 10+ years to ever reach this point.

~~~
douche
Podcast advertising is really not the same as the ad networks on a blog or
website. It's far more analogous to the advert spots that radio does.

It doesn't even need to be particularly native advertising. I've listened to a
bunch of ads on Dan Carlin's Hardcore History that are completely unrelated to
the subject of the podcast.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
I believe you're mistaken. At the end of every Hardcore History episode, Dan
Carlin recommends an Audible book related to that day's topic. It doesn't get
more native than that.

Also, the comment I was responding to was using YouTube ads as an example,
which are temporally inserted, very similar to podcast and radio ads.

When media consumption demands true engagement of both time and attention, the
ad quality improves. Even the best niche digital video content on YouTube is
too low-brow to offer a comparable experience to viewers. Again - the medium
is the message.

~~~
douche
That might be. For some reason I was thinking he usually pumped squarespace or
something like that at the end of episodes.

It reminds me a lot of the spots that the local sports radio station uses

------
trustfundbaby
"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know
which half"

\-- John Wanamaker

------
mikehollinger
Can we talk about the fact that "an intern" had to filter through 12,000
websites and make a judgement call for a second here?

Also - I presume the spending was the same in both cases - just focused. If
so, the risk here is that you may miss out on a new up and coming blog
"exploding" onto the scene. However, all it would take to "reset" is next
quarter, "tasting" ads on 400k sites again, paying an intern (again) to filter
the ones that led to revenue, and creating yet another list.

~~~
tlrobinson
And presumably you could use the previous list as the starting point of
subsequent lists, then you'd only need to check the new sites.

------
elorant
So if advertising on questionable sites bares the same results as advertising
on respectable ones the bottom line is that advertising doesn't work at all.

Perhaps it's time to move away from profiling and return to the old days where
the ads were correlated with the content/web site.

------
dfgonzalez
So, they run their campaigns with an open targeting and then they trimed the
websites to the ones users clicked, and then, selected which ones had better
brand value for them. That's simple optimization and they should have always
been doing that.

The question arrises when you have to start from scratch. They would also have
to start with an open targeting to learn what performs for them.

~~~
tmaly
This is just the 80/20 rule essentially

------
thomed
An important difference between buying ads on 400k sites and 5k sites is the
margin for the middlemen. The money is going to get spent anyway, so the
middleman needs to optimise his take.

The bigger the sites; the more leverage they have over middlemen. The lower
the fees exchanges/ssps can collect - for big sites (ones people have actually
heard of) the fee is effectively zero, and are needed by exchanges as loss
leaders to attract any demand. Little sites with no leverage will expect to
pay around ~70% to the middlemen (although not all of that will be disclosed).

True story: about 250 domains will get you above 98% of online population in
most countries. This is plenty large enough for dvertisers to do all kinds of
fancy targeting and optimisation within this pool.

~~~
geocar
Ad exchanges do _not_ usually charge the sites.

Ad exchanges usually charge a fixed rate on revenue (like 15% or 20%).

If the spend is the same, then the ad exchanges don't make any more money.

There are other middle men, like the audit companies and the impression
counters, but they end up making less money because they usually charge by the
volume of impressions: Since the same budget will be spent over a smaller
number of sites, the prices for those sites will raise and the number of
impressions will go down.

The only people who win are the publishers of those sites who now have more
money for the same users.

------
pryelluw
Eh, same would have happened with billboards, newspapers, radio, etc. Bad
marketing cannot be fixed by mass deployments.

------
mjevans
Edited for elaboration:

The article doesn't mention the precise methodology for reaching the 5000
sites number, other than some human filtering being involved.

The precise wording of another section is also vague, the 'cost of an
impressions' could mean either their total Internet marketing expenditure is
the same (thus 395000 sites were largely ineffective and merely exposed them
to risk and complexity) OR that they've reduced their spending by around 98+%
with no appreciable change in effectiveness.

~~~
sumoboy
The real question is how long has this been going on? I've seen these
campaigns go on for years with worldwide clicks completely unchecked wasting a
ton of $$. You can't trust automatic site placement but if you do, analytics
will identify it quickly to exclude the loser sites.

This is just complete mis-management of paid media. Fire the agency or
internal people for stupidity..

~~~
bluGill
click is not a good measure of advertising value though. Clicks doesn't
measure how many people see your ad and come back a couple months latter to
buy.

------
nerfhammer
What's the shape of the long tail distribution? Does the top 5000 get 99% of
the traffic?

~~~
ffumarola
Typical pareto rule I've found. It'd be closer to 99% if all of their supply
was sold into the exchanges, but most sites have a much more complicated
waterfall to clear out their supply such that the premium inventory gets
direct sold or sold into a private marketplace and only the remnant inventory
goes into public exchanges.

------
anothercomment
In their test they had 12000 clicks, and decided they only wanted 5000 of
them. So they miss 7000 clicks, or more than 50%. How is that the same result?

I could understand if they found that click from certain sites did not lead to
new business for them. But that is not what the article says. It says they
didn't want those 7000 clicks because they were from sites they didn't like.

It seems to me they should already have figured out which sites bring them
useful clicks long ago, in an automated way. Isn't that standard procedure for
advertising? Then there would be no need for moral judgements. Of course they
are in their rights to shut out sites they don't like. But not everybody who
browses such a site has to be a believer, among other things.

I think drawing attention to such automated matches of ads can only produce
losers. The sites lose out on ads, but the companies force themselves to
become political, needlessly driving away users from the other political
spectrum. (Again, I assume it is in every companies rights to do so, it just
seems bad for business).

------
bjd2385
I feel bad for the intern who JPM paid to click through 12k sites to find the
7k that we're unacceptable.

------
pwg
> "99% of my [advertising] budget is spent on zero value,"

This has _always_ been true for advertising. The difference is that before the
internet there were zero methods for the advertising client to directly
recognize this fact.

~~~
bluGill
I believe that statement is wrong. 99% of advertising might not be worth the
money spent, but it wasn't zero value. (if you spend $1 to generated $.50 that
is advertising at a loss, but a much smaller loss than advertising with zero
return). Advertising needs to figure out how to generate positive value.

The problem is there is two types of ad. The first is "buy this now", if the
user clicks and buys it was a success, but that doesn't mean a failure to
click is a failure because there is a second type of ad that I believe is more
important: awareness. You advertise so that people know you exist - that way
when they realize their need for your product you come to mine. I think the
pay per click model that the web advertising has settled on is wrong because
it doesn't well account for ads that you don't want clicked.

There is a reason McDonald's advertises on every radio and tv station they can
every few minutes: it works. Some of those ads go to people who will never eat
at McDonald's and if they could figure out how to save money by not
advertising to those people it would be worth it. Overall though the return on
those adds it large.

------
nichochar
it's only been a few days though, I think this fact alone invalidates the
data.

~~~
soared
Exactly! Who in their right mind would deliver a report to their boss and say,
"Its only been a couple days, but this drastic change has been successful!"
But someone instead went to the NYT and said that same thing.

~~~
busterarm
Gee, I wonder if Chase buys display ads on NYT...

------
ptenk
Likely due to ppc arbitrage. It doesn't change anything in terms of spend and
the return is the same, it's just that users click through different sources
to get to the same destination.

------
jpalomaki
With the magic of computers you could deliver 400k versions of your ad. Each
tailored to the site where the ads are being displayed (or even more -
tailored also to the specific user). Probably most of these sites have very
distinct audience, so you could build quite targeted ads.

If you are just spamming the same ad everywhere, then I can certainly
understand why it does not make difference if it appears on 5000 vs 400.000
sites if the ad display count stays the same.

------
arbuge
The irony is that it is so easy to track online conversions with a simple
pixel or server postback. It's called performance marketing, or affiliate
marketing, in the sense that the advertising websites then become what is
commonly called an affiliate in online advertising lingo. There really is no
reason to pay for impressions these days, unless you believe in a mystical
(and suspicious IMHO) quantity known as "branding value".

------
1337biz
The NYT arguing that one should only advertise on 'high quality websites' is
the equivalent to a retailer arguing that you should only buy in store because
all the online stores are full of fakes. Fits perfectly in line with their 'we
report the truth and anything else is fake' narrative.

------
jack9
This is non-news, when talking about Display Ads.

Relevant: [http://www.businessinsider.com/its-more-likely-you-will-
surv...](http://www.businessinsider.com/its-more-likely-you-will-survive-a-
plane-crash-or-win-the-lottery-than-click-a-banner-ad-2011-6)

------
fabiandesimone
Basically brand advertisers are becoming performance marketing oriented.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/ddb-ceo-wendy-clark-
mcdonalds...](http://www.businessinsider.com/ddb-ceo-wendy-clark-
mcdonalds-2016-9)

------
konceptz
I would wonder if the whitelisting is in-house or part of their contract? If
it's in-house then the added cost to maintain the whitelist (in-house
expertise), while not much comparatively, isn't nothing.

------
justforFranz
There's probably more effective ways for government & corporations to track an
individual's internet usage nowadays than web advertising. :/

------
pcurve
I guess Youtube content creators will ramp up their self-censoring. At least
those who were deriving meaningful amount of revenue from their videos.

------
taksintikk
The Pareto principle (80/20) most definitely applies to advertising.

If you let google or FB choose where to show your ads, you are going to have a
bad time.

------
NicoJuicy
So, limiting websites gives the same result? What happens if they change their
bidding and did the total amount of impressions change?

------
pajop
Archived version: [http://archive.is/2EhFW](http://archive.is/2EhFW)

------
madebysquares
This sounds like pure PR spin to make chase sound like some altruistic
advertising adverse bank.

------
bayesian_horse
As they say, 80% of advertising has no effect. The trouble is telling which
part.

------
flatfilefan
One would think this could be the perfect case for Big Data approach, web
scale and all. But no - it is an intern manually clicking through 12K web
sites. Somebody sell them some buzzwords, anybody?

------
jlebrech
this is smart, find out which sites give you revenue then trim.

if only we could get Chase's list it would save others a lot of money.

------
douche
No shit, nobody clicks on ads. Many people don't even see them. It's the
biggest class of Graeber-esque bullshit jobs[1] I can think of .

[1] [http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/](http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)

------
Neliquat
More terrible tech reporting from NYT, why are they being spammed here so much
now? Can it stop? Tired of the clickbait and paywall. I thought HN was against
both.

~~~
JBReefer
If there's a book on the downfall of the NYT, I would love to know about what
happened. The quality drop in the last 8 years has been truly shocking to me.
Before the stopped their local coverage, their articles about the outer boros
were just as bad as their tech coverage.

Go back and read old articles though and holy heck they were good. I feel like
an old friend is gone.

