3 ms·
But it's not the publishers process or business model that is causing the problem - it's the process of filling ad space that is broken. Sure, you could pick on
by econnors 10y ago
But it's not the publishers process or business model that is causing the problem - it's the process of filling ad space that is broken. Sure, you could pick one ad network and micro monitor it, but you wouldn't make enough money to sustain quality content. CPM optimization is a requirement of the field if you'd like to profit enough to sustain quality journalism and not be the next you-wont-guess-the-top-10-craziest-things site.
Yes, I think publishers have a responsibility to monitor their ads and keep their users safe. But I still don't think it's a black and white ethics situation. The exchanges and other ad providers need to fix their business model and not depend on publishers to filter the malware ads they're sneaking onto their page.
- devishard 10y agoYou're making 2 arguments here: 1. Publishers can't compete if they behave ethically. If this is true, then the solution is simple: if you can't run your business ethically then close your business. However, I believe that it's entirely possible for publishers to compete ethically; there are, for example, plenty of business models besides selling ad space. 2. Publishers are only accomplices in serving malware. We can't ignore publisher's role in serving malware and blame the ad networks. Both the ad networks AND the publishers are to blame.