15 ms·
I find most of the claims in this (obviously PR driven) piece misleading. Online marketers are aware of fraud. The common wisdom is to assume ~30% of your budg
by avip 9y ago
I find most of the claims in this (obviously PR driven) piece misleading.
Online marketers are aware of fraud. The common wisdom is to assume ~30% of your budget went into fraud. Advertisers measure ROI, don't bother much to dig into which form/shape fraud takes place, the tech details, or how to identify or stop it. Because that's technically far from trivial. It's like a restaurant assuming 15% loss on fresh supplies. You factor that in and as long as you have a margin you're good to go.
- baybal2 9y ago>Online marketers are aware of fraud. The common wisdom is to assume ~30% of your budget went into fraud. Common wisdom does not account for that some cash cow keyword/adnet combination you can approach to 90% of traffic coming from bots, or conversions being near nil even without clickfraud being involved, or for ad nets having interest to actually go soft on clickfraud. Whenever I worked in media agencies, I do see people running digital ads for major brands (coke, nike, li ning, microsoft level) being at least moderately competent in technicalities, yet I can't say that any of them ever approached to even partial understanding of what a total "Wild West" is the online ads industry today.
- jack9 9y agoI'm deeply involved in digital advertising and I don't even understand what you're trying to say, so maybe you could rephrase? At the very least, the "common wisdom" number is suspect (a random lampshade). I've measured bot traffic as high as 98% from quality news sites like the OCRegister.com
- baybal2 9y agoI want to say that most online ads people don't get that "you can be losing 30% of your ad spending, but things can be dramatically worse and you will not know it no matter how hard you try"
- redditadvthrow1 9y agomng?