Hacker News Reader

Comment by rao-v | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this the sort of thing Google is supposed to be doing for us?

What incentive do they have to do that kind of work? They get paid anyway and they've basically got no competition

"They get paid anyway" yeah not really. Businesses have margins and marketing budgets. There's only so much you can spend on ads and if those ads don't convert, you go elsewhere, you literally have to. You spends less on Google ads and more or Meta or other channels (influencers, marketplaces, etc. etc.)

Google has to be careful, ads that convert less are less valuable (duh) and what happens is not "well the business will just buy more ads", but "well the business has a 35% gross margin and marketing expenses already account for 20% of gross profit, they can't just buy more ads"

I agree but that will eliminate a big cash cow for them.

Why would you expect the water company to check your water for poison?

Liability when it happens?

Don't all water companies do it?

And while it may point at what we could do with Google and the likes, the risk profile is still a bit different (make many people ill or die vs "unknowingly" stealing some money).

My comment was meant to be sarcasm. I see that didn’t come through.

It did partially, which is why I have the second part — even if we applied the same rule, it's not really apples-to-apples.

It isn’t. But it should be.

I find online advertising crooked as hell. Google charges by the impression and knowingly allows huge percentages of fake impressions. How is that anything other than fraud?

It’s not because it’s online advertising. And that sucks.

I am not disagreeing it's outright fraud. I am disagreeing it's the same thing as water company not testing the water they distribute on purpose (or hiding the negative results).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com