6 ms·
As someone that has done consulting in a past life for ad-tech, I think you're severely underestimating not only the effort involved to keep this type of ad sal
by s3r3nity 7y ago
As someone that has done consulting in a past life for ad-tech, I think you're severely underestimating not only the effort involved to keep this type of ad sales team + ad-operations + ad-tech in-house, but the _significant_ margin gain for potentially a higher quality experience for the user.* As in, it's a very non-linear gain for going with an ad-network rather than try to hire and build that much talent + capital respectively. And that's just for _one_ publisher - imagine if every single publisher had to do this!
*The hypothesis here is that a more targeted ad experience is better for me, as a user, rather than some generic ad that I would see in a newspaper, where everyone sees the same thing (hence your "relevant advertising" note.) If you don't believe this to be true, then some folks on the Executive team at Alphabet would _love_ to talk to you about how Google's whole business model is built on a lie.
- phicoh 7y agoThe lie is that users like targeted ads. Most people buying ads believe that targeted ads give better results. But that doesn't mean that people like to be followed by ads for something they just bought. Let alone all the privacy violations where if somebody can see you web browser, they can see from the ads what you have been doing recently.
- bsg75 7y ago> I think you're severely underestimating not only the effort Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that there is also a cost to outsourcing, in the form of risk. This is especially relevant in an industry like ad-tech, where a bad actor can taint a brand.
- marcosdumay 7y agoSomehow newspapers and magazines managed to do that in print without a problem. It's amazing that there is absolutely no online ad agency that behaves like the print ones.