3 ms·

> For car companies they track website sessions, chat/contact us forms/phone calls, and "vdps" (vehicle description pageviews, basically the product page for a

> For car companies they track website sessions, chat/contact us forms/phone calls, and "vdps" (vehicle description pageviews, basically the product page for a car). But here's the thing: all of these things are fake-able. chat sessions are probably the least gameable metric since you'd need to target that specifically, whereas all the others can be done in a completely non-ad specific way - just browse the site in a statistically normal way, but how many impressions do you need to tell that the chat metric isn't tracking the other ones and become suspicious? And do you just not advertise on longer tail sites where you can't get that volume? [EDIT]: I mean, click throughs definitely get faked, and post-click behaviour too. I don't know what chat rates you expect, but if it's small enough you might have people manually doing those chat sessions. Not all of these bots/fraudsters are naive.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
soared 9y ago
Yeah thats true.. but as far as I can tell that advanced fraud is at an acceptable level. That level might be 15% of traffic/conversions.. but its not severely hurting campaigns. This is a weird answer, but all the fraud/viewability/etc is priced in to some degree. So an advertiser who wants less fraud can just spend more to get high quality impressions. The long tail is super important and you can't exclude it. How you can see those individual sites (by proxy) is through something like a supplier vendor, fold location, geo, etc.. so you can't see the site, but other factors you can bid will point to and show that fraud. I think my point is that a skilled campaign manager can get rid of fraud, but the average marketing manager can't. That is a problem for most businesses, but also why agencies specialize in things like rtb.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  15% is still billions of dollars though.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

soared 9y ago

Yeah thats true.. but as far as I can tell that advanced fraud is at an acceptable level. That level might be 15% of traffic/conversions.. but its not severely hurting campaigns. This is a weird answer, but all the fraud/viewability/etc is priced in to some degree. So an advertiser who wants less fraud can just spend more to get high quality impressions. The long tail is super important and you can't exclude it. How you can see those individual sites (by proxy) is through something like a supplier vendor, fold location, geo, etc.. so you can't see the site, but other factors you can bid will point to and show that fraud. I think my point is that a skilled campaign manager can get rid of fraud, but the average marketing manager can't. That is a problem for most businesses, but also why agencies specialize in things like rtb.

Eridrus 9y ago
15% is still billions of dollars though.