3 ms·

I've been running ad campaigns for about 10 years. The market seems to have done a fairly good job of balancing out inventory costs. If a publishers hammers the

by AJ007 11y ago

I've been running ad campaigns for about 10 years. The market seems to have done a fairly good job of balancing out inventory costs. If a publishers hammers their audience with ads they lose them. In the short term, people throw up their hands, but eventually those users move to greener pastures. There is a damn good reason the most dominant parties in advertising - Google and Facebook - have the tiniest, and most targeted, ads. There has yet to be a point at any time in the past decade where I said, this doesn't work, and shut all of the ad campaigns off. There definitely are issues that exist. There is a problem with mobile app ad quality. There definitely are bot traffic problems. The ad exchanges will be pretty brutal on inexperienced advertisers, but this was the case pre-exchange too. One "bubble" point is I suspect many of the adtech companies involved in exchange inventory may fine themselves on the line for the bot traffic. It will be enough to wipe out the investor equity. This follows based on class actions Google, Yahoo, and others have had to settle in the past and Google especially has always been aggressive about this stuff (although less so in the past two years.) I read the original blog post and the writer doesn't seem to make a very good case outside of things that happen in normal capitalism. Lots of middle men, tools, and supply chains attempting to add value along with investors dumping in a ton of money in an attempt to gain some return -- possibly more than they will ever get back out. Sounds like a healthy marketplace to me. Some ideas are terrible, some are good, some are amazing but will never return their investment. That is ok. The bigger problem is for small publishers and likely medium sized ones too. Ad inventory and the users online has ballooned many times over over the past decade. It also is a problem for traditional media companies like radio stations, newspapers, and television channels. I don't need to extrapolate on that one. Advertisers need to be sophisticated. They had to in the past too but few had access to tools that told them they sucked. I'm not sure that is any more extraordinary than asking a commodity traders purchasing cocoa beans to know what they are looking at and know how to be sure that is really what shows up at port.

lmm 11y ago
Presumably there have been points at which you've said "this space isn't generating enough return any more, I'm going to stop advertising there". And while few businesses are set up in a way where it's ever politic to say "I think other departments could use part of this budget more effectively than mine", ultimately that kind of choice gets made one way or another. You're right that this is part of the normal cycle of capitalism, with all the creative destruction that entails. It's quite normal for a new, growing industry to support a whole forest of new businesses, and then as the industry matures some of those will die off. But I think there's one extraordinary thing here: the advertising industry is growing like a new market, the kind of market you see when the customer base is growing by 100% every year, like the early days of the Internet. But that growth simply isn't there; advertising is by most measures a mature market. So what's fueling all this expansion?
- AJ007 11y ago
  Yeah, "placement doesn't work" happens, and it is because another party keeps increasing their bid. Sometimes that was because they blind bid, sometimes it is because they have funds to burn through (Groupon, Zynga, all the big mobile games, Uber, Lyft, all fit in this category, and they bought enough in their time to really move ad rates), other times the company just had a better model and it forced me to make other adjustments to my campaign. Is the question the expansion in adtech companies? If that is so, I think a huge part has been the Facebook traffic dumps to publishers like news sites. Basically the available display inventory something like doubled. That isn't sustainable, Facebook fully intends to recapture that external traffic back in to their platform. The drop is already visible to some publishers. Many companies certainly are turning a blind eye to fraud so as to hide the bad news from their clients and investors. At some point the shift from offline to digital ends and the growth moves more in line with GDP. That will bring down valuations. Google and Facebook probably want to integrate the ad model with every human transaction. One could imagine getting in a Google car and saying "pizza" and be driven to the highest bidding pizza shop. Certainly ad costs get baked in to some products in a big way: Coca-Cola, Geico, hotel rooms, for profit universities, and so on. Sometimes the costs are so much the profit center moves to another area, such as investing the float from insurance or maybe just straight up stealing money out of a person's bank account (pay day loan lead aggregators selling bank info to criminals, has happened many times, see FTC.) As a whole, I don't know how this plays out. If the ad competition is brutal enough the costs will be driven up to the point where the parties not spending money on advertising are just far better deals. If it isn't the prices running up, the cost could be offloaded somewhere else like cutting maintenance at a hotel. Eventually the advertiser's reputation tanks. These are marketplaces. On a micro level there are many perverse distortions because of some condition at a given time. Over time they should re-balance. Some things like Coca-Cola, which has probably physically harmed and killed people on the scale of cigarettes, just last a really long time. Coca-Cola has a truly perverse combination of trademark law enforcement, addiction (caffeine+sugar), general scientific ignorance by consumers, and a long list of government subsidized cost advantages. All of these strengths save trademark law are being chipped away at right now. Which, at some point it flips and they have the McDonalds problem (toxic brand.)
- ganeumann 11y ago
icoder 11y ago
I've been on the advertiser end (of Facebook and Google ads) and it didn't work. At all. I guess this is what you mean with 'being brutal on inexperienced advertisers', and I want to believe you. Most of the time, I've been at the receiving end of advertising as a publisher (web/mobile). And I'm looking at the money stream from a different angle. What I hope (and fear the opposite of) is that for all the money I make with advertising (plus Google's share) there's actually more money earned (profit) by the advertisers. Because only then the system as a whole is sustainable as it is now.
- AJ007 11y ago
  If there is a problem with the $600~ billion of advertising spent globally in 2015 (online & offline), it is going to be at the macro-economic level and have nothing to do with whether its a good deal for the advertisers or not.

by AJ007 11y ago

lmm 11y ago

Presumably there have been points at which you've said "this space isn't generating enough return any more, I'm going to stop advertising there". And while few businesses are set up in a way where it's ever politic to say "I think other departments could use part of this budget more effectively than mine", ultimately that kind of choice gets made one way or another. You're right that this is part of the normal cycle of capitalism, with all the creative destruction that entails. It's quite normal for a new, growing industry to support a whole forest of new businesses, and then as the industry matures some of those will die off. But I think there's one extraordinary thing here: the advertising industry is growing like a new market, the kind of market you see when the customer base is growing by 100% every year, like the early days of the Internet. But that growth simply isn't there; advertising is by most measures a mature market. So what's fueling all this expansion?

AJ007 11y ago
Yeah, "placement doesn't work" happens, and it is because another party keeps increasing their bid. Sometimes that was because they blind bid, sometimes it is because they have funds to burn through (Groupon, Zynga, all the big mobile games, Uber, Lyft, all fit in this category, and they bought enough in their time to really move ad rates), other times the company just had a better model and it forced me to make other adjustments to my campaign. Is the question the expansion in adtech companies? If that is so, I think a huge part has been the Facebook traffic dumps to publishers like news sites. Basically the available display inventory something like doubled. That isn't sustainable, Facebook fully intends to recapture that external traffic back in to their platform. The drop is already visible to some publishers. Many companies certainly are turning a blind eye to fraud so as to hide the bad news from their clients and investors. At some point the shift from offline to digital ends and the growth moves more in line with GDP. That will bring down valuations. Google and Facebook probably want to integrate the ad model with every human transaction. One could imagine getting in a Google car and saying "pizza" and be driven to the highest bidding pizza shop. Certainly ad costs get baked in to some products in a big way: Coca-Cola, Geico, hotel rooms, for profit universities, and so on. Sometimes the costs are so much the profit center moves to another area, such as investing the float from insurance or maybe just straight up stealing money out of a person's bank account (pay day loan lead aggregators selling bank info to criminals, has happened many times, see FTC.) As a whole, I don't know how this plays out. If the ad competition is brutal enough the costs will be driven up to the point where the parties not spending money on advertising are just far better deals. If it isn't the prices running up, the cost could be offloaded somewhere else like cutting maintenance at a hotel. Eventually the advertiser's reputation tanks. These are marketplaces. On a micro level there are many perverse distortions because of some condition at a given time. Over time they should re-balance. Some things like Coca-Cola, which has probably physically harmed and killed people on the scale of cigarettes, just last a really long time. Coca-Cola has a truly perverse combination of trademark law enforcement, addiction (caffeine+sugar), general scientific ignorance by consumers, and a long list of government subsidized cost advantages. All of these strengths save trademark law are being chipped away at right now. Which, at some point it flips and they have the McDonalds problem (toxic brand.)
ganeumann 11y ago

icoder 11y ago

I've been on the advertiser end (of Facebook and Google ads) and it didn't work. At all. I guess this is what you mean with 'being brutal on inexperienced advertisers', and I want to believe you. Most of the time, I've been at the receiving end of advertising as a publisher (web/mobile). And I'm looking at the money stream from a different angle. What I hope (and fear the opposite of) is that for all the money I make with advertising (plus Google's share) there's actually more money earned (profit) by the advertisers. Because only then the system as a whole is sustainable as it is now.

AJ007 11y ago
If there is a problem with the $600~ billion of advertising spent globally in 2015 (online & offline), it is going to be at the macro-economic level and have nothing to do with whether its a good deal for the advertisers or not.