If we are to believe advertisers are so great at their jobs, why can't they produce any meaningful metrics that don't commit egregious sins of statistical analysis?
Here's a thing that I am absolutely convinced happens. Ad network tracks purchases. Ad network track ad impressions. Ad network correlates the two and finds that 90% of people who saw the ad also bought the product. But they conveniently "forgot" to check if the ad impression was before or after the purchase.
I'm confident this is happening because the only times I see ads for anything I'd be interested in buying is after I've already bought the damn thing.
If 1 out of 100 impressions leads to a purchase it's alredy a good performance. The effort to improve this rate is not always worth it. That's the reason we are spammed with ads.
> If 1 out of 100 impressions leads to a purchase it's alredy a good performance.
But do they at all take into account the fact that probably about 50 out of 100 ad impressions lead to an "I'll NEVER purchase anything from the purveyor of this ad-spam shit!" reaction?
I'm not convinced even 1 out of 100 is happening. If advertising is having an impact, it would be measurable. If it's not measurable, there's no impact.
Here's a thing that I am absolutely convinced happens. Ad network tracks purchases. Ad network track ad impressions. Ad network correlates the two and finds that 90% of people who saw the ad also bought the product. But they conveniently "forgot" to check if the ad impression was before or after the purchase.
I'm confident this is happening because the only times I see ads for anything I'd be interested in buying is after I've already bought the damn thing.