1. Using predefined broad audience categories rarely works. Doing keyword targeting or specific video targeting usually works out better.
2. $10 cpm isn't high. I regularly spend $40+ on Facebook that can be 5x+ profitable ROI. Judging an ad buy only by cpm is short sighted at best.
3. 14k is a very small budget. I regularly spend 5-10k per day for folks. It takes volume and frequency to optimize. Even the amounts I spend as a freelancer makes me a small fish in regards to any serious agency and their clients.
4. It is far far too early to measure the effects of the campaign. CLTV (customer lifetime value) takes years to realize. Modern analytics tools are very useful to inform us on performance. They are not the end all be all and don't do an awesome job of multi touch attribution.
5. 1 ad isn't really a great test. For clients spending any real amount of budget I can pretty easily push out 300+ ad variations a month. To find something that gets you the kind of results you want it takes time, effort, and paying close attention to what's working and what isn't.
Overall it's an interesting case study but I caution folks to not simply take this as "youtube doesn't work" but rather what this person did on youtube doesn't work.
So it feels quite hard to stablish a relationship between the money spent and what we directly get the client in return.
So your comment was extremely useful for me!!
Sensational news, fake news will get you massive CTR. You'll have cheap CPCs but your ad account will be dead after some time. Yes, Facebook doesn't like it when ad viewers report our ads.
At a practical level I wonder if you / they are cognizant of an exhaustion measure, if new campaigns are introduced rapidly enough to continue to maintain a 5-10x return, whether the spend is managed to a predefined ROI, etc.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always seemed to drive it into the ground, but those are for short term campaigns. The long term campaigns I’ve inherited have usually already been driven into the ground before me (though the PE firm I was working for bought that distressed startup on the cheap).
Driving it into the ground might be profitable for a product owner but not to an ad agency which pockets the middle.
Tracking those late conversions is imprecise. This does not mean advertising is useless. But it is not generally a game for those with a tiny budget or a short time horizon.
With regard to niches, my experience has been the opposite.
If your niche is small enough, you can't properly bid on adwords for rare keywords because they are flagged as "low quality" and you are forced to either abandon those keywords or pay 10x for them to show.
This, of course, defies the entire raison d'etre of adwords - the whole purpose of which is (presumably) to bid on a keyword that targets that one rare person that searched for that.
But it can't be done - if only 5 or 10 people search for a phrase or keyword every day, it cannot be bid on properly.
Alec Brownstein did exactly that by ad targeting his favorite creative directors' names some years back in order to land a job. It worked.
I was faced with keyword combinations that had "natural" costs that were very low (and appropriately so, since I was the only person "bidding" on them). But then a few days later, "low quality score" and they ratcheted up the price 10x.
If you get a job out of it, the penalty doesn't really matter ... I was trying to convert $5/mo IaaS customers.
How do you define a great vodka? With blind testing?
If its like beer, then there's a few types of beer and perhaps some spice but its mostly the same.
That is why I think CS and software engineering should be part of every college degree, so that people can see the opportunity for software where it exists. I wasn’t good enough to be a programmer but I had enough knowledge to see an opportunity whereas most people thought “hm, this is just how this is done.”
> Here's an exercise you can do: do you understand what a life insurance agent does all day every day? Make it your mission for a week to do so, well enough to explain it to a close friend who has no access to your sources. All you have to do to learn this is read and make conversations happen. (People are happy to talk to you!)
I really need to take that seriously, and talk to people in a lot of different industries.
My advice is stay away from outsourced sales. It is possible that you might find a good one, but you are more likely to find the secret of how to turn lead into gold.
The major problem you will have starting out is good sales people won't work for a business without an established sales process. Of course without good sales people it is hard to establish an effective sales process (nice catch 22). You are probably best grabbing someone new and keen and hitting the road with them until you have an established process that works. Then hire sales people.
Source: I work on these techniques
A first step I thought of was to build some multiple variable models / apply multiple linear regression to try to measure the relative influence of our marketing campaigns and touches to a sale.
With your experience in this area - are there are particular models you recommend trying to build as a first step for someone who's more of a beginner in modeling and predictive analytics? Or business questions you find go the furthest within this specific domain of sales and marketing?
High quality multi touch attribution models are still fairly new and I've not seen much public literature on the designs. We've had to spend a fair amount of time in development ourselves vs. relying on existing methods.
The idea of compound investment into brand building doesn't seem to exist.
I don't know if these guys thought that decades of TV advertising campaigns were made by clueless people, with no education, with no market research, benchmarks, that dumped millions to build reach and frequency to try to fill a small spot in the mind of consumers.
I'm not sure that's true. Some people are just working on a different scale.
Brand-building is fine if you're Coke or BMW or McDonald's. You have millions to spend, you can saturate channels, and then people might actually think of you in preference to your competition when they're in the market for a drink or a car or a burger.
On the other hand, if you're a bootstrapped startup and worrying about affording this week's ramen, ttul's "tiny budget and short time horizon" is probably all you've got. To a first approximation, the only thing that matters for online ads in this environment is how many people you can get to take some immediate useful action, even if it's just volunteering an email address that you can use to follow up, or sharing your site with someone else they know who might be interested.
Of course, in the longer term, brand awareness is valuable as well. But branding isn't worth squat if your business won't be around long enough for someone to remember it later.
I don't agree that brand-building is fine just for major brands, where they fight for small % of a saturated, well defined, market share.
Like you said, it's all about scale, and actions of a bootstrapped startup should adjust to it - not to be spending thousands on Youtube campaigns (picking up this post example). If you want some immediate useful action you should focus on media and placements where you have a higher percentage of people that a near to take immediate useful actions - maybe a video platform to consume video content is not the best choice to start with.
Brand building can be as simple as the way you address your customers, how your company looks, how the buying/service experience is, etc - things that change the perception of something random and generic, yet foundational to any brand.
McDonald's was the place to get tasty food without having to wait sitting down for it.
Where would that be for a candy subscription service? I mean, people looking to buy candy probably just want one packet right now, not ten spread somewhere over the next few months.
The most useful thing I noticed some startups do is get involved in their niche community and spent money building brand awareness for a targeted group.
What kind of brand you want, and set it right away from the beginning because it will define your media channel/production investment.
I think that brands who had strong branding advertising are still well positioned in people's minds, and it's indeed an investment that should be made with a massive ROI.
Now, it's a long term game. Doesn't suit the status quo like you well said.
I work with marketers and I am one myself, and the concept of brand-building is as familiar as loops are to software developers.
No doubt you've encountered misguided individuals, but please don't generalize from specifics.
> No doubt you've encountered misguided individuals, but please don't generalize from specifics.
When the community gives visibility to bad examples, specifics gain other dimension. So instead of blaming me for generalization, maybe understand the context.
I'm a marketer as well.
But small companies don't even know how to measure such returns, or can't afford to measure their return beyond sales and analytics data. That's why it will always be a gamble for them, specially like you said, it's not the best place to start.
When I started consulting, I spent some money on marketing, but my big constraint was that if a given channel didn't at least break even on direct conversions, there was only so much money and time I could afford to spend on that channel for conversions down the road by increasing my brand: It's not just total lifetime returns from the advertising that matters, but how the timing of those returns affect cash flow.
If the time it takes to break even is too long, you might be bankrupt first, even if the potential lifetime return is fantastic.
Sometimes it costs a lot to not have the time and budgets to take a longer term view.
My nuanced take is that a brand "exists" in the sense that we are able to understand it, what it represents, etc. What we do not know is if that's the best way to spend resources. All the money that went into Intel Inside -- what if they spent it on something else? No marketer can know that; the question as a marketer: "is this the best thing I can do with my resources?" Nothing about "building a brand" provides objective feedback or testable predictions about the usage of that dollar.
Suggesting that TV advertising can't be a scam because so many people have put so much effort into it is another fallacy. Old school TV advertising was done by people whose jobs dependent on the revenue stream -- even if branding were completely ineffective; if they got paid, I wouldn't consider that irrational.
Brands happen. They can have value, but we can only try to prove that value after the fact.
Direct response, on the other hand, tends to be less full of b.s.
For starters, I would not pitch a real world get stuff in your mailbox service with animation. There are no photos of the product, the explanation of how it works and why it's not a scam is hand wavy. I don't care how it works I care about what's in it for me, the buyer.
There are no clear examples of what you'll get. There is no sense of who is behind this service and why you should feel connected and like you would trust them.
In addition the implementation tactics are suspect. You targeted hardcore gamers, but you're not selling games. That's almost a complete non-sequitur.
Your goal was to target people likely to purchase candy, or perhaps Japanese novelty items, via a mail subscription service. It doesn't appear that you made much effort if any to figure out what that audience looks like and how to reach it.
One of the reasons digital advertising can be so effective is that it allows you to try multiple different approaches at the same time. Nearly every successful PPC type campaign starts with multiple theories, different hypothesis about who the audience is and what they'll respond to.
You try a few ideas, see what works, track sales and intermediate metrics (clicks, engagement, time on site, add-to-cart behavior) and then continue to direct your budget to things that show signs of yielding positive ROI.
These things are to some extent always a roll of the dice, but there are definitely some things you can and should be doing here to improve your odds of success.
Maybe I missed something, but where does it say he targeted gamers? I only see a mention of the fact you can target it to gamers as an example.
I don't subscribe to CJ despite having seen it a million times here and almost definitely being the target audience (though this particular ad would have definitely repelled me) because your prices just aren't competitive. I mean, sure, the root price of $29 a month is, but when you consider the volume of candy you get, it's not even close. 7 items on your example image vs. the 14 I got in the February TokyoTreat (one of which was a heavy drink and another of which was a 30-piece share pack) just makes it clear.
Have you considered dropping the shipping to once a month like all the other boxes and making them bigger? I think that would help you compete more effectively, because you'd be paying less for shipping as a percentage of your subscription gross and the "unboxing" pictures of your boxes wouldn't look as sad.
$29 for 7 items is over $4 an item. You're going to have a hard time convincing people it's worth paying that if they look at any other subscription box.
From looking at the list of past boxes, I think you do a really good job hitting the right balance of "ooh, exclusive Japan thing" and balancing out the tastes of an average person. The candy you select is spot-on with what I considered some of the best stuff I got when I lived there.
> Here's the end result. If the video tingles your weeaboo senses, that's intentional, as I want clearly uninterested people to skip the video as fast as possible. I'll explain why next.
> Now you might understand why I want to get people not in my target audience to skip – it's cheaper because you don't pay when people skip your ad!
In other words - you're probably not in the target audience.
Not saying I agree with why he is saying you shouldn't be in his audience (you're clearly interested in Japanese candy) but maybe you're not because you have an interest but would likely still cancel earlier than his normal audience. (which would have a much higher lifetime value making the numbers much harder to run)
> Not saying I agree with why he is saying you shouldn't be in his audience (you're clearly interested in Japanese candy) but maybe you're not because you have an interest but would likely still cancel earlier than his normal audience. (which would have a much higher lifetime value making the numbers much harder to run)
My wife loves Japanese candies and snacks. Neither of us watch much anime. I would absolutely buy this for her as a gift for Christmas or anniversary. Previously I bought her a monthly makeup subscription and she loved it. $350/year is easily within my budget for a special gift, especially something like this that keeps giving and that connects with her emotionally (she spent some time in SK/Japan as a kid).
If I had come across this ad, I would have skipped it immediately. That being said, I'm bookmarking the site for later this year, so I guess the blog post worked better than the ad?
It's a good strategy. In theory he could spend the money saved from people like you skipping the ad on a different ad that targets a more general market and end up with more wins overall.
Sometimes you get it wrong, like with GP, but that's worth it.
I think this is a Good Thing - it makes advertisers and YouTube care in dollars-and-cents terms about not wasting ad viewers' time and attention.
Western-accented Japanese is the worst of both worlds.
Yes, it could have been better, yes maybe there could have been an "adult" version of it. (I don't think the narration is bad, but I'm not used to hearing native Japanese speakers, so that might be it)
What I think they should have done is have a copywriter script it.
However the phrase "would you like to try some Japanese candy" ends at 0:04 (and "Candy Japan sends you unique surprises 2x a month" ends at 0:08) so I do think they got to the point as quickly as possible
In this instance it appears the ad may have been more the issue than the system so people are pointing out where the issue may be. Criticism of the ad is essential in this case to determine where the "burning" of $14k happened
The blog post wasn't totally clear on this point, but it sounds like the problem was that YouTube's ad tools weren't good enough to get them the fine-grained targeting they needed. They'd put in "anime" as a keyword and then their ad would be shown on totally unrelated videos. There is plenty of anime on YouTube -- if they could attach their ad to that, and nothing else, I think it would have done well.
It should have been:
1) a personal story of him going to Japan
2) him going back the US... and missing the awesome Japanese candy you can't (easily) find in western countries
3) him starting a service to ship Candy (right from Japan!) to people every month for a (not-to-expensive) subscription!!!
That's a great story/ad. His ad was generic and soulless. And the honestly annoying childish voiceover really didn't help sell it the candy to me at all.
I doubt anyone gets their video based marketing right the first time - another thing an agency would have helped him avoid.
Me: I don't really care about the video or the product, I'm just glad he shared the marketing experience.
Or someone who is a weeb but feels guilt, hides their power level and wants to indulge their inner weebness but the messaging/branding here is a step too far.
Or a proud degenerate wizard who is turned off by the quality of the animation and voice acting (perhaps it sets off his "ugh dubs" trigger despite context and logic).
I think a slideshow of actual examples of products with a quality normal adult human voiceover explaining the value prop, or a video of a normal adult human unboxing a shipment, or edited clips of several normal adult humans emoting the experience ("What are these" "I can't read what this says here... oh they're gummy haha ... mmm grape") would go a long way.
I really wonder about the target audience, I can't come up with more than toddlers and Anne Wilkens from "Misery"... as for the creators, they "just want to make some money", and I know I'm mean about something that harms nobody and is voluntary to watch. Though I'm not blaming them at all for being linked from EG, I do find them demented in their own right, and can see why EG would approve of them.
Agree - I found the voiceover in particular, to be very off-putting.
That said however, a brief view of the comments section on the ad showed that more than one person thought the voice was great.
Which kind of leads through to this statement from the article
If I didn't use an ad-blocker, and I was ever shown that ad, I would've skipped it straight away just to get away from the irritating voice.
'Every car you've ever bought has been used by the time you take it home. Ours just happen to have been used by someone else. Wanna buy one?'
What's so cool about Japanese candy? There are a ton of other services out there like this one, why should I get this one? These are the questions I had that talked me out of it.
I say this hoping it helps, I felt really inclined to want to subscribe from past interest and I don't know what keeps me from doing so. Best of luck, and maybe I will in the future regardless ;)
A lot of the sweets are made with cane sugar, which tastes distinctly different from the typical american fare. Beyond that they also have some taste combinations that you usually don't encounter in the us. Savoury snacks with sea weed tastes are pretty nice.
I'll point out that the savory snacks and sea weed are part of the "eww" mindset. When the pitch is "we're going to send you a bunch of random candy" I dread the prospect of opening it up and getting a box of sea weed. The repetition of "unique candy" reinforces that "I'm probably going to get sea weed"
While there may be good candy out there, trying to market it needs to take more into consideration that they're selling to an American sweet tooth. The Japan candy consumer who already has a different subscription service or connection needs to be sold on value (better selection, better quality, better price).
As to the sugar source debate... I've got a fondness for some european candies (particularly the Haribo candy berries). Yes, its a corn syrup base, but even the different traditions in making candy for a different pallet will change the flavor profile. Trips to Ieka find a purchase of Jelly Mice. All that matters at the end of the day is the "does it taste good?"
But, getting a bit more on topic, that amazon link is "dagashi", which is just inexpensive snack food. It can contain candy (in that box I notice "Milky" which is a hard candy), but things on the same level of potato chips would be in that category. I don't know for sure, but I think CandyJapan sells only candy. The "It'sugar" link seems to be much more similar.
I'm going to guess that his target market is people who have an interested in Japan (possibly through anime) and would like to try an assortment of Japanese candy. I think his home page does a lot better job of explaining the product than the ad did, so possibly it's something to think about in the future.
I've even used some of them as gifts for other people based on their quality and taste matches.
That is a very good question. I don't know if there are comparison review sites, or how reliable they would be.
> I dread the prospect of opening it up and getting a box of sea weed
It sounds like you're not the type of adventurous person who'd care for this in the first place? Your mind went, in a leap of fear, from "tastes of sea weed" to "box of sea weed", which are wildly different concepts.
> different traditions in making candy for a different pallet will change the flavor profile
I'm a german and i've tasted, well, most german candies. And a bunch of american stuff when i visited (lol candy corn). The cane sugar stuff is wildly different even to my palate.
Personally, I’ll try things. However, a subscription service isn’t try. You have to be sure you want it to subscribe. Without specics, it’s the random grab bag of clearance items sold for a flat rate.
I’ve had problems with poor quality subscription services in the past. Starts out ok, goes downhill.
This campaign is targeted at people who are familiar with the range of Japanese candies, like anime, and don’t already have a subscription to such. I’m not sure how big that audience is nor am I sure if YouTube videos are the way to reach them reliably (most of the time I’m waiting for the skip advert button to show up).
There isn’t any indication to the type or quality that will be sent. There is no indication that one could indicate flavor preference (I don’t like many chocolate varieties).
Are you sure? As far as I can see, Haribo's European products at least are made with sugar.
The EU sets a maximum production quota on high fructose corn syrup, I doubt there would be enough for Haribo to use it. (300,000 tonnes per year is the quota.)
Corn syrup != high fructose corn syrup. Way less sweet and mostly dextrose/glucose. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_syrup
I'm not used to the American terms for ingredients, it's labelled glucose syrup in Europe.
A good point for an American, but most other countries in the world use cane sugar too, right?
But if you hit my nostalgia button or my curiosity then I'll be willing to spend so much more.
Place the how-to video on your site but go for the heart with ads.
Why didn't it work on those people?
How many many Japanese candies by mail services are there, not a lot of competition here ;-)
I've never seen any of those.
Would you make money back, if you would include all the signups you will get within next 96 hours? The "mistake" cost you real money, but on the other hand, it allowed you to generate a content on a very interesting topic, that surely will get you thousands of new visitors, right to your website.
Also, the animated video is... well, it is not good. You can easily get highest quality animated videos on Fiverr or PPH for way below $1K.
I would suggest you get featured on unboxing video of some semi-famous guy. I am sure, you will get much more conversions for your buck since those channels are watched by people willing to buy a product.
And, when you say "a typical YouTube ad is 30 seconds" doesn't mean you have to make one so long, you could have considered it more as an upper limit instead of a goal. Your message was simple, and i've felt the ad was unnecessarily slow and long. Being more specific, you lost me exactly after the first 8 seconds.
On the other hand, the ad taught me that it's possible to buy japaneses candies easily and where i could get them. If someday I, or one of my friends, want japanese candies, I could simply point to your website. (And in fact, I already made a friend interested about it before reading your post).
Lastly, the ad itself is boring, maybe with some background music or even a voice more like "Hatsune Miku" could been a little more fun to see entirely.
Also, you'd probably get higher ROI sending $14k worth of Candy Japan to YouTubers in the hopes they'd open it on their vlog and mention the website.
I'm not a marketer, but it would probably have helped to have the phrase "you pay us" or similar in there somewhere, even without mentioning the price.
Perhaps a missed opportunity was not advertising the domain name during the entire video. Often a user may not have the volume up and so perhaps providing a textual call to action in the first half continuously would help with conversions?
>In other words you can track both people who click through an ad directly, or who see your ad and then visit your site a bit later
How does this work?
The ad network records a post-view conversion if either:
1. The ad network cookie that was set when the ad was served is still present, or
2. A user was logged in to the publisher's site (Google, Twitter, etc) when they viewed the ad, and is also logged in when they visit the advertiser's site.
#2 is also how most cross-device tracking occurs. For example, if you're logged in to Twitter on your phone and see a Twitter ad, then type in the advertiser's URL on your desktop where you're also logged in to Twitter (and the advertiser has Twitter's conversion pixel on their site), Twitter will record a cross-device post-view conversion.
Here are examples:
AdWords (for YouTube impressions): https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2375431?hl=en
Aside from blocking the ads, uBlock Origin blocks the conversion pixels/requests for the largest ad networks.
Often a conversion pixel snippet is used alongside retargeting/remarketing. Some ad networks use #2 above to do quite sophisticated retargeting, not just targeting those who viewed a specific page. For example, Google lets advertisers retarget AdWords ads to those who liked a video in the advertiser's YouTube channel: https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2545661?hl=en&ref_...
All ads and tracking can be blocked if you want them to. Its a arms race.
Disabling third-party cookies (desktop and mobile) is also easy to do. The only thing I’ve seen this break is inline support chat widgets. Enough clients have third-party cookies disabled (Safari defaults to disabled) that the chat widgets usually test for it and show an explicit message.
It’s much harder to block anything based on being logged in to a site (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc), because:
* for retargeting based on intentional actions done while logged in (such as liking a YouTube channel): these can always get recorded, since the requests must succeed in order to complete the action you wanted.
* for conversion tracking: the hostname and even path of the conversion request can be very similar to that of an intentional request (like to login with SSO or to show content inline). The filter list entry is more brittle.
* for retargeting based on something done on a mobile device: you’ll need an ad blocker on the mobile device as well.
uBlock Origin with EasyList and EasyPrivacy gets as close as any other simple approach, though.
If you’re significantly more motivated, don’t browse while logged in to Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook (and set their cookie duration short, like the current session). For most people, this is past the point of diminishing returns. If you change only 1, make it Google; it has the largest market share of advertisers, has the most services to target based on, and has the largest inventory.
Otherwise, put your money where your preferences are: move to FastMail or the like. Not because there’s anything wrong with Gmail (there’s not), or because they’re unethical (I have no reason to think they are), but because their product choices don’t meet your privacy preferences.
Hopefully anyone reading this far has already done it, but if not, pause everything on Google Activity Control: https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols
Anyway, the above, as well as:
> If that still doesn't make your campaign profitable, there are broader exclusions and bid adjustments you can make based on age, gender, device, location, parental status and household income.
Really stood out to me - if anyone needed further evidence that Google is still an ad company, and that the free services are about driving ad traffic.
It'll be interesting to see how GDPR affects this. I suppose the sad truth is that Google/alphabet has built a ton of cash on the back of user data, and now no-one else will be able to that as this particular form of business becomes illegal.
But Google is big enough to shift into other growth markets like media manipulation/lobbying and defence contracts etc.
Anonymous reporting in Chrome has been one of the leading use cases for differential privacy at Google. See e.g. https://github.com/google/rappor and https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c... which specifically mentions the Chrome use case. This seems to indicate the people who work on this do care at least in some amount about privacy.
(Given the fact that you use a throwaway account I'm very much not expecting to see anything else than FUD, but hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)
Also yes, Google is an advertising company. I'm not sure when perception around that ever changed? Their biggest new avenue though is their Google Cloud Platform which has the potential in the future to make more than their entire business combined.
97% of their income is through ads. Maps, Docs, email, Google Plus, Youtube, even Search - it all exists only to increase advertisement profits, and to get ever more minable data from the users. If the ads money ever dries up for whatever reason, the entire company goes belly up.
They're already the number one single company in lobbying, beating out AT&T and Boeing:
I imagine DoD would love smarter autonomous drones and tanks. They bought Boston Dynamics awhile back, makers of seriously creepy things:
They'll do just fine when the ad bubble bursts.
An "app" would not be sufficient to handle any of the complexity here.
I say this as a tinfoil-hat person: narrowing the audience is going to need a lot more info about the person. Particularly, their browsing history (i.e. remarketing). Knowing this would raise the conversion ratio immensely at the cost of privacy.
At least your article got on the front page of HN. That should count for something.
It looks to me that they grab the first 10 people off the street, pay them $10 to read a script (really bad awkward scripts as well!) and do 10 videos like that.
They are everywhere so it must be working and it must be cheap as well.
1) A video ad is potentially a poor environment for direct response signups in this case. People usually just want to watch the video they clicked on (unless maybe you're advertising on videos about Japanese candy — but in that case it might me more effective to sponsor videos by a popular video producer / channel (what SquareSpace does with Lessons From The Screenplay etc). At least with a sponsorship you can have a link in the description that doesn't disappear in 30 seconds.
2) Going a bit further, something like this is ideal for content marketing on Instagram (et al). I looked for an example of an account that posts novel Japanese candies. Low and behold the top two are both content marketing for similar services.
$14k will get you a lot of pretty photos, posts, hashtags, follows, comments, etc. You continue to own your audience going forward and you end up with a neat little online publication / channel, which is a great jumping off point for other types of organic publicity (news quotes, etc).
Disclosure(?): I do content marketing / PR and formerly worked for a video platform on the product side.
Candy Japan, the master of upvoted stories on HN, burned $14K on Youtube to have another story for HN which brings attention, traffic and new subs. Still: The thread is full of super important infos, so all good.
Where does a person order voiceovers?
Contacts are anything from adverts to video games to an interactive display in a science museum to a telephone "press 1" system.
She worked for a voiceover company, but I don't remember the name. We called her company up and said we needed xxx word narration.
Why doesn't the Candy Japan Website have prominent links to Twitter and other social media?
Have you thought about using Social media more? Let's look at Twitter. Bemmu has almost 6,000 twitter followers, I'm guessing the Candy Japan Twitter account is @candyjapanese with about 250 followers?
While rivals - http://www.japancandybox.com/ has 23K follows and J-List has 155K followers.
I think it could work a lot better as is if it was used for retargeting. i.e. people who have already been cookied and visited your site but haven’t yet made a purchase, or clicked through on some of your email marketing.
It's not immediately obvious - but it may be a prolonged subtle benefit resulted from it.
Whenever I test a new channel I start by making variations to test different factors, so that I can learn what works and what doesn’t. I feel like a lot of people run ads but don’t quite get the concept of running a campaign.
My suggestion would be to try that next time... while you didn’t make money the real question your left with is what could you change to actually make money?
Loved be writeup! Thank you.
This should not be a lesson in avoiding all ads, not all ads are made equal.
I should also add that I'm the epitome of anti-advertisement. The more that I am forced to see (thinking of YT style of ads here) an ad, the more likely I am to NOT* use that product or service. In fact, the more likely I am to purposely avoid that product out of spite.
I watch youtube all the time. I some ads, at least the first few seconds. I have never clicked on one deliberately and certainly would never be a convert, but i do know these companies exist. That is worth something.
At the other end, car companies. You only need to move a tiny fraction of people left or right on a $20K purchase to justify a hell of a lot of ads. 1,000 car buyers changing from a Toyota to a Hyundai is a massive return.
It's not magic, just evil.
Only handling dutch currently, niche - swimming
Is also the reason why I installed an adblocker.
I do not know if anybody still remembers the time when ads were not intrusive and did not try to hog all the CPU cycles.
And which are more intrusive, TV ads or youtube ads? I can skip youtube ads.
Fortunately(?), reloading the page made them skipped.
That sucks, and certainly would be frustrating. If something like that happens, sending feedback (right click and select “Trouble shoot playback issue”) can help (and no, those feedback reports aren’t just sent to /dev/null; they really are helpful!). Additionally, some employees have been known to lurk on r/youtube, but they might request the debug info for the playback (again, right click on the video; do this while the ad is playing and save it for later if you/someone needs it).
Disclaimer: I work at YouTube, but I’m just posting this in a personal capacity and don’t represent my employer in any way.
Sometimes it's Patreon or Netflix between me and the content creator
Other times they show me a video that attempts to influence me to go to the store, pick up a different brand of detergent, then the store gives money to the multinational behind the brand, then the multinational gives the money to an ad agency, then the ad agency give the money to Youtube, then Youtube gives the money to the content creator. Except I buy store-brand detergent, so this pipeline leaks a lot.
Does Youtube extract the keywords from the speech in the videos?
When I was living in Canada I managed to find some things. For example daifuku (mochi rice with sweet bean paste inside) is amazing (I especially like goma daifuku, which is unfortunately not popular where I live). Manju (steamed buns with sweet bean paste, etc inside) can probably be frozen and shipped. But it's just not really that good when not fresh.
For actual candy that's available almost everywhere: Pocky is nice -- not exactly mind blowing, like I said, but pleasant. Where I live "matcha chocolate" is popular and worth trying. It's basically coco butter with ground green tea in it. There are even various versions of Kitkat with green tea flavours. Actually Kitkat flavours are pretty crazy in Japan -- some of them are even good. My town is a test centre for Kitkat, so I get to try all of them (as well as Coca Cola -- Peach Coca Cola is horrible, just in case it makes it out of here).
Basically, as far as I know (and would be glad to be proven wrong) Japan doesn't really have a long history of candy making, so the candy you are likely to find is basically just variants of candy that came from other places. There are some exceptions, but I can't imagine the traditional candies I've had being particularly popular for anything other than nostalgia (for example pressed soy bean sugar).
I too have lost money on adwords, and have a feeling it is more the rule than exception.
My budget allows me to spend €500 on entertainment/leisure per month. You can bombard me with advertising all day but that's not going to change my finances.