7 ms·

Before anyone thinks this is a Eureka anti-ad-blocking technology: Clearly you still need client-side javascript, distributed by the mediator, to ensure that th

Before anyone thinks this is a Eureka anti-ad-blocking technology: Clearly you still need client-side javascript, distributed by the mediator, to ensure that the impression is actually delivered and the click is actually registered. Otherwise, obviously, the server could just maliciously record impressions/clicks. Then, logically, if uBlock Origin doesn't remove the ad, but does successfully remove the mediator's script, the server can never book the impression. So why waste precious bandwidth (actually INCREASING the cost of ad delivery for the publisher) delivering an ad you can never be paid for? Boggles the mind. Embedding the ad into the video is more akin to a native ad, which is generally understood by the advertiser to not have measurable conversion and to be strictly context (as opposed to user) targeted. We are going full circle--that is, back to the beginning--of ad technology.

kondro 8y ago
But for giant sites like NY Times or the like, you can solve this through commercial agreements and rights to audit.
zeta0134 8y ago
> Before anyone thinks this is a Eureka anti-ad-blocking technology: Clearly you still need client-side javascript, distributed by the mediator, to ensure that the impression is actually delivered and the click is actually registered. I don't suppose I understand why clientside JavaScript is needed here. The serverside code could simply generate a unique hash for every visitor, and include that in the campaign link. Then, server-side code on the receiving end can read this hash, record a unique hit, and monitor the user on the campaign landing page to see if a lead is generated. This seems obvious to me, but I don't actually work in advertising. Where is the break in this system? What am I missing that allows this to be exploited, in a way that only clientside JavaScript can fix? EDIT: In context, I've realized that my proposed solution might work for clicks, but would do nothing for tracking impressions. Hrm. I'm not really sure if that problem is solvable. Then again, I'm also not a fan of impression based ad tracking (it feels creepy) so maybe I don't mind if it remains broken.
- martimarkov 8y ago
  The server could track it based on the fact it delivered the content to the end user with the same unique hash present, no?
  - esrauch 8y ago
    You mean like a tracking pixel? The issue here is that all requests to the ad domain can be blocked by the ad blocker.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- C4stor 8y ago
  A couple leads to answer you : - Video advertising is not happy with only impressions and clicks metrics. In general, advertiser will want to know if their video played while in view from a human (or at least in view on a screen), and for how long it has played (or at the very least a rough estimate, like say how much midpoints). - The concept of "impression" itself is often not very well defined, but counting it at "the server served a request with the video payload" is really a too optimistic view of things which leaves big holes exploitable by fraudsters. Having client side javascript playing at least requires additional software running, aka additional costs (if minimal) for fraudster. - You can't really "just" monitor the user on the campaign landing page, since it's different sites involved, it involves different cookies, and actually reconciliating them is doable, but it'd require some work that the advertiser may not be willing or able to do.
  - dx034 8y ago
    If all script appears to come from the website (advertiser scripts routed via the website with random filenames), it'll probably be pretty hard to filter that kind of behavior without breaking other websites.
    - C4stor 8y ago
      Sure ! You still need client side javascript though
Pristina 8y ago
clearly we need an AI/ML that will actively scan any video footage and cut out anything that looks like an ad. then people might actually find out what is and isn't ad.
- sovok_x 8y ago
  It will start cutting out actual origin footage at some point because non-obvious ads are already there from the beginning mixed with primary content in a way they can't be easily separated.
techslave 8y ago
are ads only sold cpc these days? no cpm ads?
- cocochanel 8y ago
  CPM ads still out there, for brand awareness. But you'll be paying for ads that no one clicks. So most advertisers go for CPC.
enriquto 8y ago
> We are going full circle--that is, back to the beginning--of ad technology. I guess they will end serving ads and "content" from the same site, but this site will be controlled directly by the advertisers, not by the publishers.
- _-___________-_ 8y ago
  AMP
nemothekid 8y ago
>Otherwise, obviously, the server could just maliciously record impressions/clicks. I'd imagine that advertisers would just bake it into the cost of the impression like they do today for click fraud. In fact, I think this type of fraud is much preferable to click fraud.
spenczar5 8y ago
It's entirely possible to stitch a targeted advertisement into a video file. This happens.
shittyadmin 8y ago
Honestly, I'd be happy with that - the biggest problem with ads today is that they're a major source of tracking and malware.
manigandham 8y ago
That's not what native ads are. They are about following the form and behavior of the surrounding content and can have all the same complex interaction and conversion tracking as any other ad. Also video players with embedded ads have been around for years. The technology is already more advanced this and is just starting to roll out. Despite what you might think, there are plenty of checks against fraud and any publisher that does such blatant video fraud will get caught very quickly.
geocar 8y ago
> Clearly you still need client-side javascript, distributed by the mediator, to ensure that the impression is actually delivered and the click is actually registered. There's no point to client-side JavaScript: The baddies just write JavaScript that rewrites basic objects using Object.defineProperty so that document.visibilityState always says so (and so on), or that lie to the visibility sensor. Or they just make a whole fake web browser that runs on a Server. You are in an arms-race, and verification companies simply can't/don't do a very good job. > Otherwise, obviously, the server could just maliciously record impressions/clicks. I offer ads† to publishers server-side via XML or JSON, and they can stitch them into the page however they want, and I've been doing this for years. My publishers often get paid by click, but some of the more valuable ads are paid on referral. Occasionally I see a CPM/CPD deal go through, but it's usually to a larger publisher that I can understand how they get their traffic. I won't help anyone do a CPM/CPD deal unless I understand their traffic. You're right that it's much too easy to buy traffic from e.g. Google and spray it at my impression and click trackers, which is why I don't rely on them: Adblock and uBlock can remove the trackers all they want, but their users still get ads from my platform, and my publishers will still get paid. †: Strictly speaking: I offer a platform for publishers, and often help my customers get introductions/recommendations/connections to advertisers who believe in data-driven online sponsorship. > Embedding the ad into the video is more akin to a native ad, which is generally understood by the advertiser to not have measurable conversion Server-side stitching can be done in realtime, bespoke, and with standard VAST tags. Not everyone is doing this, because dash/HLS are simpler and still "good enough". > and to be strictly context (as opposed to user) targeted. I've worked with several (big) brands who have done completers and demo-guaranteed video campaigns. There is absolutely user-targeting in video.
- tobyhinloopen 8y ago
  > There's no point to client-side JavaScript: The baddies just write JavaScript that rewrites basic objects using Object.defineProperty so that document.visibilityState always says so (and so on), or that lie to the visibility sensor. Or they just make a whole fake web browser that runs on a Server. You are in an arms-race, and verification companies simply can't/don't do a very good job. You cannot overwrite javascript properties in frames from another domain, right? Am I missing something? A fake webbrowser requires a lot of IP addresses. Wide-spread abuse seems hard to me, especially when combined with Google's hidden "I'm not a robot" thingy.
rolandog 8y ago
What if there existed a standard protocol to (automatically) interact with website's CMSs for the buying and selling of ad space via an API? Maybe even programmatically allowing the upload of images or videos? (Maybe even ADsafe [0] scripts?) [0] https://github.com/douglascrockford/ADsafe https://github.com/douglascrockford/ADsafe
slimscsi 8y ago
The server could continue to serve ads until the client reports back that one ad was rendered. If the message is blocked, the content would never be delivered. Thus making ad blockers content blockers. I'm not saying this is a good thing or bad thing. Im just saying there are more cats and more mice out there.

kondro 8y ago

But for giant sites like NY Times or the like, you can solve this through commercial agreements and rights to audit.

zeta0134 8y ago

> Before anyone thinks this is a Eureka anti-ad-blocking technology: Clearly you still need client-side javascript, distributed by the mediator, to ensure that the impression is actually delivered and the click is actually registered. I don't suppose I understand why clientside JavaScript is needed here. The serverside code could simply generate a unique hash for every visitor, and include that in the campaign link. Then, server-side code on the receiving end can read this hash, record a unique hit, and monitor the user on the campaign landing page to see if a lead is generated. This seems obvious to me, but I don't actually work in advertising. Where is the break in this system? What am I missing that allows this to be exploited, in a way that only clientside JavaScript can fix? EDIT: In context, I've realized that my proposed solution might work for clicks, but would do nothing for tracking impressions. Hrm. I'm not really sure if that problem is solvable. Then again, I'm also not a fan of impression based ad tracking (it feels creepy) so maybe I don't mind if it remains broken.

martimarkov 8y ago
The server could track it based on the fact it delivered the content to the end user with the same unique hash present, no?
- esrauch 8y ago
  You mean like a tracking pixel? The issue here is that all requests to the ad domain can be blocked by the ad blocker.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
C4stor 8y ago
A couple leads to answer you : - Video advertising is not happy with only impressions and clicks metrics. In general, advertiser will want to know if their video played while in view from a human (or at least in view on a screen), and for how long it has played (or at the very least a rough estimate, like say how much midpoints). - The concept of "impression" itself is often not very well defined, but counting it at "the server served a request with the video payload" is really a too optimistic view of things which leaves big holes exploitable by fraudsters. Having client side javascript playing at least requires additional software running, aka additional costs (if minimal) for fraudster. - You can't really "just" monitor the user on the campaign landing page, since it's different sites involved, it involves different cookies, and actually reconciliating them is doable, but it'd require some work that the advertiser may not be willing or able to do.
- dx034 8y ago
  If all script appears to come from the website (advertiser scripts routed via the website with random filenames), it'll probably be pretty hard to filter that kind of behavior without breaking other websites.
  - C4stor 8y ago
    Sure ! You still need client side javascript though

Pristina 8y ago

clearly we need an AI/ML that will actively scan any video footage and cut out anything that looks like an ad. then people might actually find out what is and isn't ad.

sovok_x 8y ago
It will start cutting out actual origin footage at some point because non-obvious ads are already there from the beginning mixed with primary content in a way they can't be easily separated.

techslave 8y ago

are ads only sold cpc these days? no cpm ads?

cocochanel 8y ago
CPM ads still out there, for brand awareness. But you'll be paying for ads that no one clicks. So most advertisers go for CPC.

enriquto 8y ago

> We are going full circle--that is, back to the beginning--of ad technology. I guess they will end serving ads and "content" from the same site, but this site will be controlled directly by the advertisers, not by the publishers.

_-___________-_ 8y ago
AMP

nemothekid 8y ago

>Otherwise, obviously, the server could just maliciously record impressions/clicks. I'd imagine that advertisers would just bake it into the cost of the impression like they do today for click fraud. In fact, I think this type of fraud is much preferable to click fraud.

spenczar5 8y ago

It's entirely possible to stitch a targeted advertisement into a video file. This happens.

shittyadmin 8y ago

Honestly, I'd be happy with that - the biggest problem with ads today is that they're a major source of tracking and malware.

manigandham 8y ago

That's not what native ads are. They are about following the form and behavior of the surrounding content and can have all the same complex interaction and conversion tracking as any other ad. Also video players with embedded ads have been around for years. The technology is already more advanced this and is just starting to roll out. Despite what you might think, there are plenty of checks against fraud and any publisher that does such blatant video fraud will get caught very quickly.

geocar 8y ago

> Clearly you still need client-side javascript, distributed by the mediator, to ensure that the impression is actually delivered and the click is actually registered. There's no point to client-side JavaScript: The baddies just write JavaScript that rewrites basic objects using Object.defineProperty so that document.visibilityState always says so (and so on), or that lie to the visibility sensor. Or they just make a whole fake web browser that runs on a Server. You are in an arms-race, and verification companies simply can't/don't do a very good job. > Otherwise, obviously, the server could just maliciously record impressions/clicks. I offer ads† to publishers server-side via XML or JSON, and they can stitch them into the page however they want, and I've been doing this for years. My publishers often get paid by click, but some of the more valuable ads are paid on referral. Occasionally I see a CPM/CPD deal go through, but it's usually to a larger publisher that I can understand how they get their traffic. I won't help anyone do a CPM/CPD deal unless I understand their traffic. You're right that it's much too easy to buy traffic from e.g. Google and spray it at my impression and click trackers, which is why I don't rely on them: Adblock and uBlock can remove the trackers all they want, but their users still get ads from my platform, and my publishers will still get paid. †: Strictly speaking: I offer a platform for publishers, and often help my customers get introductions/recommendations/connections to advertisers who believe in data-driven online sponsorship. > Embedding the ad into the video is more akin to a native ad, which is generally understood by the advertiser to not have measurable conversion Server-side stitching can be done in realtime, bespoke, and with standard VAST tags. Not everyone is doing this, because dash/HLS are simpler and still "good enough". > and to be strictly context (as opposed to user) targeted. I've worked with several (big) brands who have done completers and demo-guaranteed video campaigns. There is absolutely user-targeting in video.

tobyhinloopen 8y ago
> There's no point to client-side JavaScript: The baddies just write JavaScript that rewrites basic objects using Object.defineProperty so that document.visibilityState always says so (and so on), or that lie to the visibility sensor. Or they just make a whole fake web browser that runs on a Server. You are in an arms-race, and verification companies simply can't/don't do a very good job. You cannot overwrite javascript properties in frames from another domain, right? Am I missing something? A fake webbrowser requires a lot of IP addresses. Wide-spread abuse seems hard to me, especially when combined with Google's hidden "I'm not a robot" thingy.

rolandog 8y ago

What if there existed a standard protocol to (automatically) interact with website's CMSs for the buying and selling of ad space via an API? Maybe even programmatically allowing the upload of images or videos? (Maybe even ADsafe [0] scripts?) [0] https://github.com/douglascrockford/ADsafe https://github.com/douglascrockford/ADsafe

slimscsi 8y ago

The server could continue to serve ads until the client reports back that one ad was rendered. If the message is blocked, the content would never be delivered. Thus making ad blockers content blockers. I'm not saying this is a good thing or bad thing. Im just saying there are more cats and more mice out there.