A3: Always - but as with anything, it's a cost/benefit analysis. It's a question of understanding what channels are contributing positively to the business, as well as the risk profiles associated with each. I expect October/November to be pretty bad + BF/CM to be $$$$ #ppcchat
A3.1: I think I have the most direct concern with the FB/IG + Twitter ecosystems; but the most indirect/2nd order concern with Google, Snap + YT.
Basically I think some advertisers are going to run from FB/IG/TW, but that $ needs to go somewhere.
A3.2: The most logical place for it to go is G, YT + Snap/TikTok* - so the economics of those platforms could get hit pretty hard, which creates a really interesting (read: awful) situation for brands between advertising in hell (i.e. FB/IG/TW) and doing nothing #ppcchat
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a lot of commotion, confusion and fear about Google's removal of 3P cookies + what that means for advertisers.
Much of this is unwarranted and ridiculous:
First, there's a misconception that the removal of 3P cookies from chrome somehow impacts Google's data (1P cookies) - nope.
This will impact many third-party services, from smaller (relative to Google/Meta/Apple) ad platforms, to attribution platforms, to certain UI/UX platforms, to other website service providers (basically - any third party that uses a pixel/tracking tag).
Whenever major changes occur, there are winners & losers.
I view this as an overwhelming positive for Meta, Google, Amazon & Apple.
It is an overwhelming positive for marketers.
It is likely a massive win for most users, who will get better, faster, cleaner web and ad experiences.
It is a massive negative for parasitic data leeches, along with the brands that rely on their less-than-optimal 3P data for marketing, to the exclusion of building 0P/1P audiences.
It is a massive negative for publishers + brands who have not invested in building their 0P/1P data capabilities.
Just spent some time playing around with the Google Demand Gen Beta. Initial reactions & takeaways:
1. RIP Discovery - I've long been a big fan of discovery campaigns, though DG appears to be a level-up from existing Discovery for 4 reasons:
(1) Inclusion of YT placements (2) ML-driven targeting options (similar to Meta) (3) Ability to create LALs (4) Standard Bidding Strats
2. Lookalike Segments - I love a good Lookalike. Done well, it jump-starts machine learning + helps reduce wasted/unproductive spend. This is a HUGE benefit to organizations that have invested in their zero-party data infrastructure.
Google Ads is an area where brands invest heavily, all with little-to-no transparency on what that investment is returning. I've done 100+ audits covering hundreds of millions in spend - and here are the 10 things that result in suboptimal outcomes (+ lots of wasted $$$)👇
"Let's break this down into five core buckets -
1. Strategy & Research 2. Account & Campaign Structure 3. Data Flows 4. Creative & Landers 5. Management
High performance in each of these areas is *essential* if your goal is to build + maintain a highly profitable account."
Strategy & Research
In roughly ~90% of audits, the biggest failures are NOT a result of tactical mistakes; they are a result of strategic failures. Just as a house built on a crappy foundation will fail, so too will a Google Ads account built on a flawed strategy
So #MarketingTwitter you've heard about the big scary antitrust case against Google that was brought by a bunch of states you wouldn't expect to be suing big business (TX, KY, AK, ID, IN, MI, MS, ND, SD, UT) + wondering what's it all about, here are some (preliminary) thoughts:
(Disclaimer: I have no idea how long this thread is going to go so :shrug: and stop reading whenever you get bored)
2/x
From a high-level, the case is primarily focused on a vulnerability for Google (AdX), with some (IMO) stupid digressions around search market share and an illicit agreement with Facebook to cripple header bidding. In that sense, it's a case that has some merit.
3/x
@NeptuneMoon I don't know if I'm an "expert" -- but as someone who worked in finance + now does lots of digital things, this is a really, really dumb take, for (at least) 5-6 reasons:
Thread time, because I want to procrastinate and way too many people don't understand how MBS or ABS work.
@NeptuneMoon Reason #1 - MBS issues resulted in a systemic failure due to a heinous combination of securitatization, proliferation of CDOs, deregulation, fraud + general stupidity (simplified).
The *combination* is what allowed the situation to go from an isolated bad to a global really bad.
@NeptuneMoon As I understand it, Hwang's argument is (basically): 1. online advertising doesn't deliver the value it claims 2. but people keep buying it, so prices keep going up 3. lots of companies rely on it for $$$ 4. so if people figure out (1) + stop (2), then BOOM.
A4.1: The only "rule" I can think of for this is, "it depends" -- what is your brand? What is your target audience? What social/political issues? It *can* make sense, but it can just as easily alienate you from your target audience if not done correctly.
A4.2: Likewise, the last thing many brands want is to be pulled into a national debate or targeted by certain elected officials for expressing their viewpoints -- which is certainly a possible outcome for engaging in overtly political debate. #semrushchat
A4.3: But, where there's a risk, there's also a potential reward. For an upstart brand, or a brand with a clear, defined target audience that's overwhelmingly invested in a specific social/political issue, taking a stand can foster loyalty + new customer acquisition. #semrushchat