Hacker News Reader

Comment by noer | Hacker News Reader

Facebook has a display network similar to DoubleClick, called Audience Network. In my experience it pays publishers a lot better than DoubleClick. For advertisers, they're able to target on more demographic categories (for now, the CA scandal has done a lot to reduce targeting options).

View on HN

Also people tend to forget that advertising on Google’s own properties represents the vast majority of its ad revenue.

A significant chunk of that ~4 Billion or ~5% of total global online advertising is because Google also owns YouTube, which captures a large chunk total advertising spending independent of search.

Which is almost all revenue that Google has to share with YT publishers. 50% anyway.

Twitter also has an ad product called "Twitter Display" in which your promoted tweets get reformatted into display ads and shown in other ad-supported mobile apps. It was some of the cheapest, but worst-performing, traffic we've ever driven through a paid channel.

in my experience FB's audience network was junk

The first thing I look at when optimizing a Facebook ad campaign is to look at performance by placement.

In many cases, turning off the Audience Network will do wonders for your CPA.

Seconded - one of my default actions when setting up a campaign is to switch that off.

Compared to Google's Display Network using non-retargeting ads? IMO, comparing banner placements to native social is like comparing apples to oranges

GDN is generally bad, worse than FB

I've seen lots of money wasted on blogspam websites within GDN (non-retargeting) -- there's a need to be very hands on if you don't want to waste money across all display tactics, in my opinion

Reply on news.ycombinator.com