Hacker News

points by asdff 2 days ago | 0 comments

Hard to imagine all the combined various bob spend is really very cheaper than a single better placement. You have to imagine this also puts downward pressure on those nyt placement prices and upward pressure on bobs.

[–] keeganpoppen 2 days ago

it’s not that hard to imagine. you put in bids on bobs, and they only fill on secondary sites.

[–] asdff 2 days ago

If there is such an unrealized margin why hasn’t it been eaten up by now? No one should be advertising on nyt at all if what you say is all thats going on.

[–] elictronic 2 days ago

You are forgetting that the big tech ad companies are cooking the numbers in other ways making them generally untrustworthy. Ask yourself deep down do you trust Meta or Google.

The New York Times doesn't have to bullshit because people want to use it, thus it's a more trustworthy advertising point.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

The NYT has been caught bullshitting at least a few times including one that started/worsened a major atrocity that's still ongoing

[–] rationalist 1 day ago

I have no idea if you're right or not, because you didn't substantiate your large claim - which is probably why you're being downvoted.

[–] inemesitaffia 2 days ago

Which one?

[–] jordanb 1 day ago

They famously cheerlead the Iraq War. Not sure if that's what OP meant

https://fair.org/home/20-years-later-nyt-still-cant-face-its...

[–] solyin 2 days ago

Businesses don't want to pay for marketing that doesn't work and the simple answer is targeted ads work. Advertising to anyone that reads the New York Times, when a business can target people that are searching for a couple of key words relevant to the business' product? Even if it's the company's money and not my own, I'd rather spend it on something with a provable ROI, not just blindly blowing money showing ads to people that wouldn't or can't buy the product.