8 ms·

It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT. They can get sweet "branding" dollars from advertisers, and with branding nobody cares about return on mon

It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT. They can get sweet "branding" dollars from advertisers, and with branding nobody cares about return on money spent. Smaller sites have zero chance to strike a deal with large agencies who are serving large brands. So their only chance to increase ad revenue is to offer targeting, to improve viewability (aka put banners on top), and to hope that they will get enough of retargeting dollars. EDIT: and once you think of it, people from Europe who are reading NYT is targeting option in itself. Most probably they are affluent, english-speaking, etc. If you are large luxury brand, this is all you need.

apexalpha 8y ago
This comment makes no sense to me. First of all: do you have any source for your first statement that "It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT" other than your gut feeling? Just because other sites are smaller doesn't mean they can't do it or work together. Smaller sites now also don't do targeted advertising; they just hire Google or any other ad network for that. They could do the same with non-targeted ads. About your edit: Yes, this is literally how advertising has always worked; you 'target' an entire audience, not an individual. Same for newspapers (on paper), TV, magazines, books, billboards in certain area's...
- nopriorarrests 8y ago
  >do you have any source for your first statement that "It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT" other than your gut feeling? 6 year experience working in ad-tech on different projects. >Just because other sites are smaller doesn't mean they can't do it or work together. Well, try to get a slice of Procter&Gamble or Volkswagen ad budget being a small guy and not having any targeting. > they just hire Google or any other ad network for that. They could do the same with non-targeted ads. This is not how it works. If you are a small site, you set a google or any other ad network tag on your site -- right. After that, when someone visits your site, you initiate a call to these ad networks with user cookie. If this user is identified as known (say, male, 25-35 y.o., NY, was interested in Hi-Fi equipment) some advertiser may pay a lot to show an ad to this guy. 5$ CPM is not uncommon, and you may even get $10-20 from time to time. If this user is totally anonymous and there are no advertisers interested in him, good luck getting even $0.5 CPM. Most probably impression will go unmonetized. >About your edit: Yes, this is literally how advertising has always worked; you 'target' an entire audience, not an individual. nope. in case of retargeting or even modern prospecting you do target individual, just as in example above. If good portion of your audience is known to DMP's (Data Management Platform, basically tracking silos, google "Salesforce DMP" for example) and other ad-tech players, you will easily get x5 return on showing ads to them, as compared to anonymous users, all other things equal. And this is how you make money being a small publisher on the internet these days.
  - Tsubasachan 8y ago
    Well I don't know much about the whole cyber economy but I don't think smaller sites are somehow entitled to advertising spending. If you run a website you are going to have to work hard to get Volkswagen to put ads on your site. Explain to them why they should care. The NYT started out small too.
- soared 8y ago
  > work together Say like, combining their inventory into one source (say a supply side platform) and then offer that inventory to buy (say via an exchange).
- jonas21 8y ago
  > do you have any source for your first statement that "It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT" other than your gut feeling? It says so right in the part of the article that was quoted: “The fact that we are no longer offering behavioral targeting options in Europe does not seem to be in the way of what advertisers want to do with us,” he said. “The desirability of a brand may be stronger than the targeting capabilities... (the "he" is the NYT's SVP for global advertising)
  - yifanl 8y ago
    The SVP himself is speculating from the wording, so I wouldn't use this as a source.

apexalpha 8y ago

This comment makes no sense to me. First of all: do you have any source for your first statement that "It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT" other than your gut feeling? Just because other sites are smaller doesn't mean they can't do it or work together. Smaller sites now also don't do targeted advertising; they just hire Google or any other ad network for that. They could do the same with non-targeted ads. About your edit: Yes, this is literally how advertising has always worked; you 'target' an entire audience, not an individual. Same for newspapers (on paper), TV, magazines, books, billboards in certain area's...

nopriorarrests 8y ago
>do you have any source for your first statement that "It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT" other than your gut feeling? 6 year experience working in ad-tech on different projects. >Just because other sites are smaller doesn't mean they can't do it or work together. Well, try to get a slice of Procter&Gamble or Volkswagen ad budget being a small guy and not having any targeting. > they just hire Google or any other ad network for that. They could do the same with non-targeted ads. This is not how it works. If you are a small site, you set a google or any other ad network tag on your site -- right. After that, when someone visits your site, you initiate a call to these ad networks with user cookie. If this user is identified as known (say, male, 25-35 y.o., NY, was interested in Hi-Fi equipment) some advertiser may pay a lot to show an ad to this guy. 5$ CPM is not uncommon, and you may even get $10-20 from time to time. If this user is totally anonymous and there are no advertisers interested in him, good luck getting even $0.5 CPM. Most probably impression will go unmonetized. >About your edit: Yes, this is literally how advertising has always worked; you 'target' an entire audience, not an individual. nope. in case of retargeting or even modern prospecting you do target individual, just as in example above. If good portion of your audience is known to DMP's (Data Management Platform, basically tracking silos, google "Salesforce DMP" for example) and other ad-tech players, you will easily get x5 return on showing ads to them, as compared to anonymous users, all other things equal. And this is how you make money being a small publisher on the internet these days.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Well I don't know much about the whole cyber economy but I don't think smaller sites are somehow entitled to advertising spending. If you run a website you are going to have to work hard to get Volkswagen to put ads on your site. Explain to them why they should care. The NYT started out small too.
soared 8y ago
> work together Say like, combining their inventory into one source (say a supply side platform) and then offer that inventory to buy (say via an exchange).
jonas21 8y ago
> do you have any source for your first statement that "It's absolutely working so well because they are NYT" other than your gut feeling? It says so right in the part of the article that was quoted: “The fact that we are no longer offering behavioral targeting options in Europe does not seem to be in the way of what advertisers want to do with us,” he said. “The desirability of a brand may be stronger than the targeting capabilities... (the "he" is the NYT's SVP for global advertising)
- yifanl 8y ago
  The SVP himself is speculating from the wording, so I wouldn't use this as a source.