5 ms·
Several reasons: Many large, higher quality ad buyers (agencies and direct sold) can get enough return from non-greyarea inventory like this. There's no point
by Joe8Bit 7y ago
Several reasons:
Many large, higher quality ad buyers (agencies and direct sold) can get enough return from non-greyarea inventory like this. There's no point in them taking (even a small) perceived risk of buying this grey market inventory.
However, they likely do use this tracking data second or third hand via their third party data providers brokering and including it in larger data sets they use for cross site targeting via DMPs.
Finally, there's simple economics: people who go through enough effort to block trackers and other things are (perceived) to be less likely to engage with ads (e.g. they see it as you do, when one 'slips through'). So there's no point in paying $$$ for those eyeballs.
All of this in combination means you get low quality, barrel bottoms ads.
- alexbanks 7y agoPeople forget (or just never knew) that tracking and ad-serving isn't necessarily about giving every screenviewer the best possible ads you can all the time. Inventory and return on ad spend are both big factors in determining where to spend. The tracking enables ad placement companies to know that even with the best possible ad (which cost inventory to place), specific users just will not engage. And if that's true, why spend that ad on that person?
- Joe8Bit 7y agoThere’s a whole chain of companies who have financial incentives to maximise spend through their platforms. They’ll place creatives in ad units with impressions they know are low quality based on needing to fulfil fill rates and volume. It’s pretty shitty and unethical, but welcome to to add tech!