11 ms·

I'm a bit shocked about the state of advertising. When I was making websites (~early 2000s), there were a lot more options to choose from, it seems. Now you bas

I'm a bit shocked about the state of advertising. When I was making websites (~early 2000s), there were a lot more options to choose from, it seems. Now you basically just have Google and this opaque network of algorithmic auctions. Back then, you had a bunch of small business ad networks that you could choose from. I found you could also choose more different formats. OK, there was no video (thank God), but you could have unobtrusive text links, you could have banners, little buttons, HTML blocks, and so on. And yes, also annoying pop-ups and flash ads... You also had paid content, which is absolutely taboo and vilified today, but I believe it was not nearly as bad as we think. It was certainly better than some alternatives (horrible pop-up-ads that installed dialers, does anybody remember them?) Back then, I was proud to not serve evil or annoying ads, and to promote articles from partners on my site - including setting links to them to promote their page ranks. (That Google shows links among search results that they get money for, but forbids slightly improving the position of search results when other people got money for it tells a lot IMHO.) One alternative to the current situation would be for sites to serve their own ads (from their own servers). I wonder why this isn't done at least from big sites?

matthewmacleod 10y ago
You also had paid content, which is absolutely taboo and vilified today Is this the case? I've seen absolutely tonnes of blatantly paid-for content across the web, and if anything there seems to be much more than there ever was.
- nvdk 10y ago
  they just call it "native advertising" now :)
  - wingerlang 10y ago
    Or sponsored, which is fine by me.
- DanBC 10y ago
  I'm not sure vilified is the right word, but the FTC in the US and the ASA in the UK have both said that paid-for content needs to be marked as such. The ASA rules are pretty tight. The user has to know something is paid for content before clicking. So a YouTuber putting out a sponsored video needs to include something in the title of the video, and the link, saying "sponsored content". A banner at the start of the video isn't enough.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    I wish a lot more people knew the ASA were a part of EASA[1] and that EASA even exist. ASA are happy to get involved with complaints about a wide range of countries[2] (basically all Europe, Canada, Brazil, Chile and the UK Commonwealth). eg, if you complain about an advert from a Canadian firm the ASA will refer it to the appropriate national agency for you. My limited understanding is this is reciprocal for residents of those nations too. The rules are being flouted wholesale, yet many nations have an ASA that could do something about it. [1] http://www.easa-alliance.org/ http://www.easa-alliance.org/ [2] https://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Working-with-others/Cross-border-complaints.aspx https://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Working-with-others/Cross-b...
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Be wary of terms such as “sponsorship” and “in association with” The ASA is generally likely to consider terms such as “sponsored content” as referring to a traditional sponsorship relationship, where material has been financially sponsored but over which the creator retains editorial control. Sponsorship of this kind is not covered by the CAP Code. Using such terms to describe an ad feature is unlikely to be acceptable. Following an ASA challenge, the ASA ruled against an ad that was included in a “sponsored section” of a website and labelled as “in association with”, considering that the labels in themselves did not make clear the commercial nature of the content
pjc50 10y ago
One alternative to the current situation would be for sites to serve their own ads (from their own servers). I wonder why this isn't done at least from big sites? There's no way to prove that you've served a particular number of ads to real humans. That's why all these ridiculous brokers and third-party fragments of javascript exist: it would otherwise be trivial for the publisher to defraud the advertiser.
- archon810 10y ago
  That's only 1 of many reasons. Another big one being it's a lot more time-consuming and costly to run your own ad sales team, you always have to worry about filling all ads in all countries, and the average CPMs you get may not be nearly as good as the ones without any headaches from big ad networks (well, headaches from the advertiser acquisition perspective).
- a3n 10y ago
  How do physical newspapers prove ad serving to their buyers? I'm certain they don't point to every single newspaper thrown in a driveway.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Third parties and surveys e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_Verification_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_Verification_Counc... Similar to Nielsen ratings for television, they're approximate.
    - a3n 10y ago
      And that, eventually, is going to have to be good enough for online publishers and advertisers.
    - kbart 10y ago
      So why can't the same be done on websites? If numbers of views can't be confirmed without spying on users or trusting shady actors to do that for you, it means the business model that is based on this metric is skewed.
ddebernardy 10y ago
> Back then, you had a bunch of small business ad networks that you could choose from. There was a lot of consolidation. But they're still around. They're basically that opaque network of algorithmic auctions you mentionned, in fact. If they can't display one of their direct clients' ads, they sell the spot to the highest bidder.

matthewmacleod 10y ago

You also had paid content, which is absolutely taboo and vilified today Is this the case? I've seen absolutely tonnes of blatantly paid-for content across the web, and if anything there seems to be much more than there ever was.

nvdk 10y ago
they just call it "native advertising" now :)
- wingerlang 10y ago
  Or sponsored, which is fine by me.
DanBC 10y ago
I'm not sure vilified is the right word, but the FTC in the US and the ASA in the UK have both said that paid-for content needs to be marked as such. The ASA rules are pretty tight. The user has to know something is paid for content before clicking. So a YouTuber putting out a sponsored video needs to include something in the title of the video, and the link, saying "sponsored content". A banner at the start of the video isn't enough.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  I wish a lot more people knew the ASA were a part of EASA[1] and that EASA even exist. ASA are happy to get involved with complaints about a wide range of countries[2] (basically all Europe, Canada, Brazil, Chile and the UK Commonwealth). eg, if you complain about an advert from a Canadian firm the ASA will refer it to the appropriate national agency for you. My limited understanding is this is reciprocal for residents of those nations too. The rules are being flouted wholesale, yet many nations have an ASA that could do something about it. [1] http://www.easa-alliance.org/ http://www.easa-alliance.org/ [2] https://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Working-with-others/Cross-border-complaints.aspx https://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Working-with-others/Cross-b...
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Be wary of terms such as “sponsorship” and “in association with” The ASA is generally likely to consider terms such as “sponsored content” as referring to a traditional sponsorship relationship, where material has been financially sponsored but over which the creator retains editorial control. Sponsorship of this kind is not covered by the CAP Code. Using such terms to describe an ad feature is unlikely to be acceptable. Following an ASA challenge, the ASA ruled against an ad that was included in a “sponsored section” of a website and labelled as “in association with”, considering that the labels in themselves did not make clear the commercial nature of the content

pjc50 10y ago

One alternative to the current situation would be for sites to serve their own ads (from their own servers). I wonder why this isn't done at least from big sites? There's no way to prove that you've served a particular number of ads to real humans. That's why all these ridiculous brokers and third-party fragments of javascript exist: it would otherwise be trivial for the publisher to defraud the advertiser.

archon810 10y ago
That's only 1 of many reasons. Another big one being it's a lot more time-consuming and costly to run your own ad sales team, you always have to worry about filling all ads in all countries, and the average CPMs you get may not be nearly as good as the ones without any headaches from big ad networks (well, headaches from the advertiser acquisition perspective).
a3n 10y ago
How do physical newspapers prove ad serving to their buyers? I'm certain they don't point to every single newspaper thrown in a driveway.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Third parties and surveys e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_Verification_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_Verification_Counc... Similar to Nielsen ratings for television, they're approximate.
  - a3n 10y ago
    And that, eventually, is going to have to be good enough for online publishers and advertisers.
  - kbart 10y ago
    So why can't the same be done on websites? If numbers of views can't be confirmed without spying on users or trusting shady actors to do that for you, it means the business model that is based on this metric is skewed.

ddebernardy 10y ago

> Back then, you had a bunch of small business ad networks that you could choose from. There was a lot of consolidation. But they're still around. They're basically that opaque network of algorithmic auctions you mentionned, in fact. If they can't display one of their direct clients' ads, they sell the spot to the highest bidder.