3 ms·

Google DFP allows it because publishers (e.g. the New Yorker) aren't ready to switch all their traffic HTTPS. If they wanted to they could turn the switch and

Google DFP allows it because publishers (e.g. the New Yorker) aren't ready to switch all their traffic HTTPS. If they wanted to they could turn the switch and be HTTPS and tell DFP to only serve secure creatives. One of the larger difficulties for publishers is that many of the 3rd party SSPs aren't ready to go full HTTPs and so publishers are reluctant to make the switch because it reduces demand sources. Disclaimer: Work for Google in advertising

michaelt 11y ago
One of the larger difficulties for publishers is that many of the 3rd party SSPs aren't ready to go full HTTPs Right, but Google can motivate or improve the third-party advertisers to update much more effectively than publishers can - just Google hasn't chosen to do that yet. It would be easy to proxy http-only ads from through a CDN that added encryption. Or to charge a premium to http-only ad networks, and ramp the premium up over time.
- SystemOut 11y ago
  How do you think Google can motivate 3rd party advertisers? I'm talking about the Rubicons, Pubmatics, etc. Google doesn't have any real leverage over them. Other than the fact that as publishers do move to SSL (because of the SEO penalty that non SSL sites have) they won't use the SSPs that don't demand or can't insure 100% SSL for their buyers. So in effect Google is putting pressure on them to do it. I don't understand your next part at all. Who would charge a premium to http only networks? Those sites don't actually rely on Google for delivery.