4 ms·
It's hard to tell from the article, but I don't think there was any change in Chase's advertising spend. My interpretation is that they are spending the same am
by dkuebric 10y ago
It's hard to tell from the article, but I don't think there was any change in Chase's advertising spend. My interpretation is that they are spending the same amount, but restricting bidding to a whitelist of sites.
If so, the fact that they don't see an impact in # of impressions means more about the ad exchange's bidding system and inelastic demand (or lack thereof) for inventory on those whitelisted sites.
I don't think this has anything to do with fraud.
- danjc 10y agoAlso entirely possible that the balance of the 400k websites account for a miniscule percentage of impressions.
- AznHisoka 10y agothis. everyone else is arguing about a red herring. but 10 or 20 of those sites probably accounted for over 90% of the clicks.
- Trundle 10y agoYep, as far as I'm concerned this article is a non-event without data showing this isn't what happened. "Business slightly tweaks marketing expenses" just isn't as attractive and rant inducing.
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago>Yep, as far as I'm concerned this article is a non-event without data showing this isn't what happened. What other things should the article show "hasn't happened"? That will be quite a big list. As the OP says, it's odd that people lean towards "everything is A-OK!". I guess there are many, many jobs that rely on the ad-tech bubble sustaining itself.
- imarg 10y agoThey essentially say so in the article. "Of the 400,000 web addresses JPMorgan’s ads showed up on in a recent 30-day period, said Ms. Lemkau, only 12,000, or 3 percent, led to activity beyond an impression."