3 ms·

> and "brand", which is trying to influence your future purchases in a much less legible manner (drink more Coke). Brand advertising is where the biggest spendi

by amluto 4y ago

> and "brand", which is trying to influence your future purchases in a much less legible manner (drink more Coke). Brand advertising is where the biggest spending is, but because the purchases aren't tied to clicks it's very dependent on keeping down fraud. I find this part a bit surprising. Brand advertising surely cares about fraud when it’s done on a cost per impression model. But I expect that brand advertising’s effectiveness is more related to placements, not impressions. For example, Nike once famously reduced the number of swooshes they used because they thought that having too many diluted the brand. Similarly, a brand placement somewhere like a movie or an article might have high impact despite only being seen once per viewer, whereas a placement on a site that gets lots of intra-site clicks (like Amazon or some mediocre review site) will get many more impressions per viewer but likely less impact per viewer despite a higher number of impressions. So, with a cost per placement model, I would expect the simple forms of fraud to be much less relevant.

williamcotton 4y ago
In addition, “premium” placements and take-overs can be negotiated without metrics and just a flat fee making fraudulent impressions a non-issue entirely.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  They can be. But when you say “premium placements” and “take-overs”, I hear “banner ads” and “pop-ups”. They didn’t go away for regulatory reasons so they can absolutely return if there’s a financial incentive to make them.
  - amluto 4y ago
    Banner ads? Maybe. But take a brand like Nike as an example. I can imagine Nike paying to put (one!) swoosh on an article on a site like ESPN. But Nike, if they’re doing their job right, would not want a swoosh to interrupt the reader’s experience — that’s the opposite of good branding. Consider FM radio as another example. Ads on most music stations are obnoxious. Sponsorships on NPR are generally much more subdued, take less time, and don’t try to stand out. (Oddly, NPR is quite obnoxious about their own fundraising placements. I wonder whether they would be more effective if they backed off a bit.)
  - klvino 4y ago
    Generally, a "take-over" is a guarantee from a publisher that all ad slots appearing on a specific page will only deliver ads for a single advertisers for a limited time period, usually a day or two. Variations on "take-over" exist where you may have a "branded slate" in which the normal framing and background of the site will also be updated to align (and sometimes synchronize) with the "take-over" ads for that day. You have likely visited imdb.com at some point in time. With so many TV shows and movies premiering throughout the year, IMDB has a higher frequency of "take-overs" than an average site. The "pop-ups" or interstitials did decrease due to being bad design & bad consumer experience, but have returned and are now overrun with publisher sign-in and privacy/consent interstitials.
emodendroket 4y ago
I'm not sure the relationship you're positing. They would still want to know how many people look at the article. Right?
- amluto 4y ago
  They would, but they will also want to know how many people read all the way through, how many come back, how many bookmark it or navigate directly, etc. And the advertisers may even want to perform due diligence on their venues. See daringfireball as a somewhat vocal example of how this can work. NPR has a similar model. Click farms will not land actual high paying placements no matter how many click they claim. edit: there could be a startup opportunity here. Build a placement ad network. Participating sites get vetted. Placements are per article, optionally for a limited time or limited geographic region. No tracking. Sites agree to be monitored by human and AI analysis for quality and non-spamminess. Sites warrant that their content is original and the network assists with copyright enforcement. Ads come from the backend (first-party), may be genuinely a part of a content, are are very difficult to ad-block. Ads involve no scripts at all. GDPR compliance is above-and-beyond. Advertisers pay very high rates compared to current systems but get higher value out. The network helps warn sites if they are inadvertently letting other networks track their users. After all, a high quality site wants to monetize its own users, not let its users be tracked and monetized elsewhere. In general, ads on a system like this might not even be clickable.

by amluto 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago

In addition, “premium” placements and take-overs can be negotiated without metrics and just a flat fee making fraudulent impressions a non-issue entirely.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
They can be. But when you say “premium placements” and “take-overs”, I hear “banner ads” and “pop-ups”. They didn’t go away for regulatory reasons so they can absolutely return if there’s a financial incentive to make them.
- amluto 4y ago
  Banner ads? Maybe. But take a brand like Nike as an example. I can imagine Nike paying to put (one!) swoosh on an article on a site like ESPN. But Nike, if they’re doing their job right, would not want a swoosh to interrupt the reader’s experience — that’s the opposite of good branding. Consider FM radio as another example. Ads on most music stations are obnoxious. Sponsorships on NPR are generally much more subdued, take less time, and don’t try to stand out. (Oddly, NPR is quite obnoxious about their own fundraising placements. I wonder whether they would be more effective if they backed off a bit.)
- klvino 4y ago
  Generally, a "take-over" is a guarantee from a publisher that all ad slots appearing on a specific page will only deliver ads for a single advertisers for a limited time period, usually a day or two. Variations on "take-over" exist where you may have a "branded slate" in which the normal framing and background of the site will also be updated to align (and sometimes synchronize) with the "take-over" ads for that day. You have likely visited imdb.com at some point in time. With so many TV shows and movies premiering throughout the year, IMDB has a higher frequency of "take-overs" than an average site. The "pop-ups" or interstitials did decrease due to being bad design & bad consumer experience, but have returned and are now overrun with publisher sign-in and privacy/consent interstitials.

emodendroket 4y ago

I'm not sure the relationship you're positing. They would still want to know how many people look at the article. Right?

amluto 4y ago
They would, but they will also want to know how many people read all the way through, how many come back, how many bookmark it or navigate directly, etc. And the advertisers may even want to perform due diligence on their venues. See daringfireball as a somewhat vocal example of how this can work. NPR has a similar model. Click farms will not land actual high paying placements no matter how many click they claim. edit: there could be a startup opportunity here. Build a placement ad network. Participating sites get vetted. Placements are per article, optionally for a limited time or limited geographic region. No tracking. Sites agree to be monitored by human and AI analysis for quality and non-spamminess. Sites warrant that their content is original and the network assists with copyright enforcement. Ads come from the backend (first-party), may be genuinely a part of a content, are are very difficult to ad-block. Ads involve no scripts at all. GDPR compliance is above-and-beyond. Advertisers pay very high rates compared to current systems but get higher value out. The network helps warn sites if they are inadvertently letting other networks track their users. After all, a high quality site wants to monetize its own users, not let its users be tracked and monetized elsewhere. In general, ads on a system like this might not even be clickable.