Uber Wasted $100 Million On Useless Digital Ad Campaigns (inputmag.com) 81
Uber apparently squandered an estimated $100 million on third-party digital advertising campaigns. Input Mag reports: Former Sleeping Giants alum and co-founder of Check My Ads, Nandini Jammi, caught most of us up on the whole situation yesterday in a lengthy Twitter thread detailing just how Uber, the poster child of startup capitalism's unethical robber baron mentality, managed to recently waste a mind-boggling $100 million in pointless digital advertising campaigns through a host of blatantly shady ad networks. One such instance involved launching "'battery saver' style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone." Upon typing "Uber" into Google Play, the service "auto-fires a click to make it look like you clicked on an Uber ad and attribute the install to themselves."
It's a comprehensive rundown worth reading in its entirety, but to make a long story short: after getting publicly roasted for continually advertising on Breitbart -- Stephen Miller's racist, chauvinistic fever dream billing itself as a "news" outlet -- Uber's former Head of Acquisition, Kevin Frisch, realized the company could trim roughly 3/4 of its entire online advertising budget and see next to no change in consumer engagement. No, seriously. Over $100 million that could have been reallocated towards such "costly" investments like sick leave, overtime, health insurance, or any number of the other bare minimum workforce benefits Uber routinely denies its gig employees.
It's a comprehensive rundown worth reading in its entirety, but to make a long story short: after getting publicly roasted for continually advertising on Breitbart -- Stephen Miller's racist, chauvinistic fever dream billing itself as a "news" outlet -- Uber's former Head of Acquisition, Kevin Frisch, realized the company could trim roughly 3/4 of its entire online advertising budget and see next to no change in consumer engagement. No, seriously. Over $100 million that could have been reallocated towards such "costly" investments like sick leave, overtime, health insurance, or any number of the other bare minimum workforce benefits Uber routinely denies its gig employees.
“Half my advertising spend is wasted; (Score:3)
It seems Uber found out which half...
Wasted? (Score:1)
Written off!
Re: (Score:2)
"Written off" doesn't really mean anything. They still spent a bunch of money on worthless expenses. Just because those expenses are not taxable just like most any other expenses isn't really that comforting.
Re: (Score:1)
"Written off", They avoid taxes, and use Hollywood accounting. All expenses are just added to the user fees
Yeah, they could have allocated the money (Score:5, Insightful)
to the welfare of their employees (sorry, "business associates"). But they didn't because like all corporation, it's psycopathic [baheyeldin.com] by nature. And this one is right up there on the psycopathy scale, because its business model relies exclusively on circumventing labor laws and bringing back wage slavery.
Incidentally, if you book an Uber ride, or order food from Uber Eats, or use any other kind of "gig economy" service, you're complicit.
1st Hand (Score:5, Interesting)
I've used Uber five times. In each case, I asked the driver how they liked it, and all three said it was a great gig. One said he was a former taxi driver, and made *far* more money with Uber than driving a taxi, and liked that the hours were flexible so he could spend time with his family.
So, it's anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I don't think people are rushing out to be exploited by Uber blindly. I think it works very well for a *lot* of people.
Re: (Score:2)
It really comes down to giving people a choice. No one is forced to work for companies like Uber, and Uber does offer something traditional companies don't ( flexibility ). So it seems a win/win, with employees getting a job which has perks they like, and the company getting a resource that works with their business model.
Re: (Score:2)
It really comes down to giving people a choice.
Ah, the old "are there no workhouses?" argument.
Re: 1st Hand (Score:2)
Oof, what a lame analogy. Uber isn't like a "workhouse" by any stretch of the imagination. I wish people had more than just a glancing knowledge of history.
Re: (Score:2)
Oof, what a lame analogy. Uber isn't like a "workhouse" by any stretch of the imagination.
The point I was making (not especially well) is that saying that no one is forced to work for X is an age-old reductionist excuse for abuses of worker rights. There's nothing new about Uber's business model - it was pretty standard in the 1790s when no one was "forcing" weavers to work in the new mills you they still had no choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Labor is much more mobile (literally!) in 2021 than it was in 1790. Back in those days, people had very little ability to go out and seek employment elsewhere compared to the worker today.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This just in: People who are paid based on how much you like them tell you what you want to hear. Shocking!
Next up, is that stripper actually turned on by you? The results may surprise you!
Logic (Score:3)
Because I'm going to like them more if they like their job? I'm going to tip them more if they enjoy their job? I'll tip them *less* if they don't enjoy their job?
This makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because you'll be more likely to give them 5 stars if they're enthusiastic. Or at least fake it really well.
The difference in money you can make between a 4.9 and a 4.7 rating is rather significant. And the number of people wanting to take you for a ride as a customer drops significantly if you have lower than 4.5. Enough
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, that's basic psychology. If the rider feels good about the server, they don't feel that they are exploiting someone, they are more likely to rate it positively. If the driver complains about conditions and how they are getting screwed so that the customer can save a few bucks or avoid making a phone call then they probably won't tip.
Re: (Score:3)
Because if you don't give them 5 stars, they lose their job.
If you are in a good mood, you're more likely to give them 5 stars.
If they've just been talking about how happy they are about their job, you're more likely to be in a good mood. If they were just bitching about how terrible it was to drive for Uber, you're much less likely to be in a good mood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've used Uber five times. In each case, I asked the driver how they liked it, and all three said it was a great gig. One said he was a former taxi driver, and made *far* more money with Uber than driving a taxi, and liked that the hours were flexible so he could spend time with his family.
So, it's anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I don't think people are rushing out to be exploited by Uber blindly. I think it works very well for a *lot* of people.
A *lot* of people right now, are in a gig economy by force, not by choice.
And a "gig" economy, isn't a sound one in the long run. It's ripe for abuse, just as Uber still abuses even their "happy" workers by not providing basic benefits, and dancing around labor laws. Ironically enough because Uber is still very much a part of the "gig" economy, the "great gig" drivers you ran into may have all held full time jobs with benefits, and merely enjoyed the quick money Uber could provide them as a "gig" on the w
Re: Yeah, they could have allocated the money (Score:2)
Shouldnt you go the extra mile and mention day laborers, or paying cash for illegals to clean your house because its cheaper than paying regular labor rates?
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldnt you go the extra mile and mention day laborers, or paying cash for illegals to clean your house because its cheaper than paying regular labor rates?
People, like businesses, want to pay the minimum possible for the maximum possible outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
People, like businesses, want to pay the minimum possible for the maximum possible outcome.
Woop woop meaningless statement alert!
Define "maximum possible outcome". Remember to mention ethics and social awareness levels and why exactly you support slavery as a morally neutral option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Yeah, they could have allocated the money (Score:2)
The branding economy is actually all about the issue you mentioned. The movie Tommy Boy actually in part is about the impacts of a branding economy and the nature of purebred capitalists, which is to say someone who just wishes to control and maintain capital. Capitalists love the branding economy because it makes people have the helpless feeling you describe.
A culture built on the inauthenticity of brands is why you have Nikes and iPhones produced in sweatshops. you could make an argument it's why cars
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of those "fakes" are made at the same factory and by the same workers on the same machines with the same molds as the "originals". Just the tag if counterfeit (and that may well have been printed at the same place that makes the original tags.) This is not a secret in the Third World, only here.
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy. You can buy food and clothes that are produced with poor working conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
If you eat, are you responsible for farm workers being underpaid and exposed to dangerous chemicals? If you wear clothes, are you responsible for conditions of third world garment workers? Just asking, so if the answer is yes, I can stop eating, go around naked, and feel good about myself.
If you eat cheap food or cloths produced under slave labour conditions are you responsible? Of course you are.
Not all food or clothes are made that way, though.
Re: (Score:2)
And to call corporations psychopathic is just absurd. Whoever fed you that line must have had a seriously distorted understanding of what a corporation is if they thought they could be diagnosed
Re: (Score:3)
"because its business model relies exclusively on circumventing labor laws and bringing back wage slavery"
Do you people know what "slavery" actually is? This is so screwed up. You greatly diminish the suffering of so many people who spent (and spend) their lives in actual slavery when you use that word to whine about someone who voluntarily agrees to make less money than you think they should.
Nobody has to drive for Uber. Nobody.
Quit acting like it's "slavery". It's just a shitty investor-fueled busines
Re: (Score:2)
We've been doing AirBnB on our cottage for the last couple of years, and other than the idiots who decided to hold a wedding reception/COVID party after being directly told they couldn't and the woman with the two horrible children that burned three weeks of firewood in two days while their mother drank inside it's been very nice. We get some income from the cottage that we wouldn't have otherwise, and other people get to enjoy the amazingly beautiful location and really nice house. Slavery? No.
Slashdot Summaries, now with 100% more SJW! (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what BeauHD is trying to tell us. It's almost as if he has an agenda, but I can't quite make it out.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why people who produce such subtle, fair-minded, agenda-less content usually type in all caps with misspellings so that their meaning is not lost. Had this article been:
"UBER BAD - IT WASTED HUNDERD MILION ON SKAM ADDS THAT SHUD GO TO POOR POENS IT XPLOITS!!! AND THO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, BREITBART BAD TWO!!!!"
its thesis wouldn't have gone over your head.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the agenda exactly? Uber paid the state of California to have legislation passed instead of actually putting money towards employees. They operate as a taxi service while following none of the regulations applied to taxi companies. All because they are a “ride sharing” service.
Re: (Score:1)
I can remember when Uber was just getting started, when it seemed like they were setting up a casual carpooling operation with smarter infrastructure to organize the ride sharing. It was gonna be non-professional without a serf class of 'drivers' being dispatched around.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when Twitter was a group SMS service where you text 40404 and your friends who follow you all get an update on what you were doing. Most successful startups follow the money and end up doing something totally different than they set out to do.
In the case of Uber, it wasn't until 4 years after they started [wikipedia.org] that they allowed regular drivers to share their ordinary cars. A heavy rebranding followed, most of it aimed at regulatory pressure. The hint is in the name.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is entirely copied from TFA. And that's how normal people think, they find malware and Breitbart to be unethical uses of ad spend.
Re: (Score:2)
So which articles on Breitbart do you find so offensive? You must read it fairly regularly if you can be so certain of it's ethical abnormality, so what exactly do you find fault with? Perhaps it's specific writers you dislike. If so, I'm sure you can cite numerous specific examples. Use all the space you ne
Re:Slashdot Summaries, now with 100% more SJW! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about disagreeing with political views, it's about consistently printing untruths and failing to correct them when pointed out, and doing so in a way designed to stir up anger, hatred and strife. Breitbart is not a news outlet, it's propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
You're very offended by the suggestion. Are you really going to argue that Breitbart pretends to be even slightly objective?
It would be insanity to continue reading a news source after finding it to be extremely biased and misleading just to be able to cite examples later on. Nearly everyone has seen their articles shared on Facebook in the last year. And the ones that get shared are the least factual / most misleading. I'm not saying they don't have valid, well researched articles at all. What matters
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is "news outlets" aren't suppose to have strong political leanings. Sites like Breitbart have strong obvious leanings and are known to spread racist and false information, which is unethical to support.
If they paid in bitcoin... (Score:1)
Advertising on Breitbart wasn't such a bad idea. (Score:1)
That was a good way to target the amoral exploitation apologists most likely to use Uber, and anyone likely to boycott you for doing it was probably boycotting you already for any one of a laundry list of other reasons. It's not morally good, but none of what they're doing is anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, anyone regularly reading Breirbart is going to burst into flames, eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, in fact if I had to guess I'd say the most common Uber rider ideology is centrist or latte liberal with right-wingers being a slight minority, but right-wingers would be the least likely to be interested in boycotting them. Uber's biggest business risk is the fallout of its own behavior, and advertising on Breitbart would be a good way to reach remaining potential customers.
Stephen Miller (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean Steve Bannon when referring to that other site as a "news" outlet with sarcastiquotes, there, serious journalists.
Re: Stephen Miller (Score:2)
Breitbart -- Stephen Miller's racist, chauvinistic fever dream billing itself as a "news" outlet
It works either way. They were both presidential advisors hired by Trump, but Miller still is and he and the Trump admin still has connections to Breitbart.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Connections, sure, but Miller wasn't fundamental to Breitbart the way Bannon was.
That's beside the point, anyway. It's just a really bad look for this writer and this magazine to get such an obvious detail wrong in the process of throwing shade at Breitbart for calling itself a news organization.
Not a big deal (Score:2)
And the rest on a cancerous leech business. (Score:1)
Long-term-invest in high-quality public transport like every other civilized country.
Instead of having three cars per client cruise all day for no reason, and being a digital South American land baron, monopolizing the market under themselves and aiming to enslave the former market actors with employee treatment not seen since Rockefeller... At least until the investment strawfire is over and the scam artists are off with the money, while the never-profitable business dies.
How about that for a suggestion?
Re: (Score:2)
Long-term-invest in high-quality public transport like every other civilized country.
Civilized countries don't have people avoiding public transportation because of racism. The belief is strong that public transportation is for minorities and that if you can afford it driving a personal vehicle is better.
Re: (Score:2)
terrible summary (Score:2)
"... managed to recently waste a mind-boggling $100 million in pointless digital advertising campaigns through a host of blatantly shady ad networks. One such instance involved launching "'battery saver' style apps in Google Play, giving them root access to your phone." Upon typing "Uber" into Google Play, the service "auto-fires a click to make it look like you clicked on an Uber ad and attribute the install to themselves."
1) This makes it sound like Uber was making the fake "battery saver-style apps", not
Re: (Score:2)
2) the twitter thread linked to says the "waste" was 15% of their $100m advertising budget, not that the entire $100m was wasted.
My reading says that their online ad spend is $150m and that 2/3 of that was proven wasted ($100m). I don't even see a 15% figure, though I do see a $15m figure relating to trying to stop all 3rd party advertisers from putting Uber ads on Breitbart.
Sad (Score:2)
This is obviously a troll article just from the blurb. The article doesn't contain any news itself but does have quite a bit of propaganda. Either the author is a low mentality sucker who got played or the author is in on the con. It's embarrassing that they continually approve articles like this. The article's main source of information they quote is an extremist group whose sole purpose is to manipulate social media to bully companies to remove advertising dollars from conservative websites. Good job Slas
Re: Sad (Score:2)
Send the slashdot editors an email. I've been complaining about these kind of slanted articles for some time. Emails seem at least to be read by a real person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breitbart might be right-wing, but it is not conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely disgusting.
Re: Sad (Score:2)
This is probably the only response worth a damn. Thank you for actually seeing through this reposted political nonsense!
I don't see where the $100 million is from (Score:2)
If one follows all the links and gets to the source tweets, I see that they are talking about $15 million (which comes from 10% of Uber's $150 million ad spend). The headline of the slashdot linked article seems to have made up the $100m and slashdot blindly followed.
Re: (Score:2)
My reading says that their online ad spend is $150m and that 2/3 of that was proven wasted ($100m) based on a quote in a screenshotted article of their CEO. The $15m figure relates to trying to stop all 3rd party advertisers from putting Uber ads on Breitbart.
The screenshot is lazy, because the source article is a Top 10 list from FYI Music News [fyimusicnews.ca], which does not attribute where they obtained the quote.
But the quote seems to first pop up online here [ibtimes.co.in], relating to him speaking on an episode of the Marketing Tod
Stop it Beau. (Score:2)
Riiiight (Score:2)
...capitalism's unethical robber baron mentality...
Um, no. All you've done is tell us that you're a fringe lunatic.
I worked in Online Advertising at the beginning (Score:2)
Not journalism (Score:2)