3 ms·

The selection isn't happening on the publisher's side, but on the ad-tech side. Every publisher can enjoy the tech provided by Google, and participate in gaini

The selection isn't happening on the publisher's side, but on the ad-tech side. Every publisher can enjoy the tech provided by Google, and participate in gaining money from this system, relative to it's popularity. So what we see is that small players within the ad-tech business are dying, while bigger players (Google, Facebook) can not only adapt to the law, but also help writing the law. So a hypothetical switch to first-party/server side ads won't have a negative effect on small blogs, because they can simply chose Google as their ad partner, which will create the necessary solutions. The only advantage big publishers have over small publishers is that it's easier to scale the extraction of money from 10 million visitors, compared to 10,000 visitors.

dmortin 8y ago
> So a hypothetical switch to first-party/server side ads won't have a negative effect on small blogs, because they can simply chose Google as their ad partner, which will create the necessary solutions. With client side ad serving the ad serving network can be very fast, because google, etc. provides the cdn for this. If it is done on the server side then when loading the page the server will have to do additional remote network calls to retrieve the ads from google servers, so the page will be slower to respond. Also, smaller sites usually run on budget hosting which often limit resources and having to do additonal remote network fetches when assembling the page can very easily run into some server side limit. So server side ad serving for little sites can have a significant impact on server response time which is not an issue with the current model.
- otabdeveloper2 8y ago
  It's the opposite, actually. Servers have very good and very fast network connections to other servers. Clients have very shitty network connections, especially with wi-fi or mobile devices. CDN's can help with this somewhat, but a server-to-server network connection will still always be better and faster.

dmortin 8y ago

> So a hypothetical switch to first-party/server side ads won't have a negative effect on small blogs, because they can simply chose Google as their ad partner, which will create the necessary solutions. With client side ad serving the ad serving network can be very fast, because google, etc. provides the cdn for this. If it is done on the server side then when loading the page the server will have to do additional remote network calls to retrieve the ads from google servers, so the page will be slower to respond. Also, smaller sites usually run on budget hosting which often limit resources and having to do additonal remote network fetches when assembling the page can very easily run into some server side limit. So server side ad serving for little sites can have a significant impact on server response time which is not an issue with the current model.

otabdeveloper2 8y ago
It's the opposite, actually. Servers have very good and very fast network connections to other servers. Clients have very shitty network connections, especially with wi-fi or mobile devices. CDN's can help with this somewhat, but a server-to-server network connection will still always be better and faster.