Live data from Hacker News

Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

nytimes.com

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#41
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile users. There just aren't any pleasant ad free browser experiences for stock mobile phone users. Firefox for Android is quite poor and fixing through chrome requires root, something most users are not going to be doing

I use AdBlock on my iPhone with Safari and it's seamless (even though it's AdBlock and I'd much prefer uBlock)

AdBlock didn't block enough ads for me. Currently I use Eluo, but I'm not 100% satisfied with it: it tends to block more ads, but it can be trickier to whitelist sites and the UI isn't quite polished and full-featured.

Edit: All content blockers either end up breaking sites or not blocking enough ads or both, it seems. Be prepared to long-press the refresh button on iOS to reload the page without Content Blockers if something breaks and you need quick access. See also, a list of iOS content blockers reviewed late last year at https://brooksreview.net/2015/12/content-blockers/

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#42
OK, great, but let us see what is going to replace them.

My guesses:

a) more aggressive retargeting - "Customers also bought" suggestions from Amazon will now follow you around the web even when you complete a purchase

b) sign in using Amazon account to read articles

c) retargeting with social proof (you didn't buy X from company Y, but here is a testimonial from a friend of a friend who thinks X is great)

d) revival of popup ads, only a little more beautifully designed - with large clickable area and small, nearly invisible, too far above the fold close buttons

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#43
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If they supposedly pay so well, I wonder where the money for that comes from. Just high ad-density? Probably because ad-networks pay per click, and if you have something SO clickbaity like these ads there's a lot of ad clicks. For example if google ads and Outbrain both pay $7 per thousand clicks (I have never used either so this is just a random number) and google ads bring in 1000 clicks while outbrain brings in 3…

From someone I know who advertised on Outbrain, he said the CTR was way higher on Outbrain than it was on AdWords...so while we may all sit here and talk about how crappy those ads are for general use, they do in fact drive traffic.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Every time I've clicked on one it's been because I've been under the impression it's another story on the Independent or whoever. Of course those clicks generated 100% bounce rate.

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#44
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From someone I know who advertised on Outbrain, he said the CTR was way higher on Outbrain than it was on AdWords...so while we may all sit here and talk about how crappy those ads are for general use, they do in fact drive traffic.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Hell, I've clicked on them before and I could tell exactly what they were. I'd imagine that the average user probably clicks on them significantly more than they click on any other type of ad.

It is mostly just an arbitrage, the site advertising their click bait content just needs to get more money from the numerous ads on their page than they spent on the outbrain click.

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#45
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately the money comes from a mark further down the line. For example some poor sucker desperate to fix their health problem spends hundreds on a flakey high margin product, be it physical or digital. Sure there are legit ads too but I'd guess the greyhat stuff will give higher EPC. Google ads takes the long term view and doesn't tolerate shit like that. They are very strict and would rather not take that money a…

"Google ads takes the long term view and doesn't tolerate shit like that. They are very strict and would rather not take that money and destroy their brand. Result? People still use Google to search for stuff." Are you sure? I've seen loads and loads of some of the trashiest ads through Google's ad network.

People definitely still use Google to search for stuff!

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#47
It is surprising to me how little people seem to know about native/ content amplification ads.

Here is a brief primer: First, as far as quality goes, there are different networks with different quality policies. In general, Outbrain is very strict, Taboola is also, but less so, and RevContent, Content.ad, and the 50 or so other native networks (including mantis targeting marijuana publishers and jewish content network targeting orthodox jewish publishers), Like all channels, there are good actors and bad actors.

Native ads - defined as ,turning the atomic consumption unit into an ad unit, work really well because they dont require switching context. (i.e. adwords, Facebook newsfeed ads, indeed job postings, etc...)

These ads work really well when done properly. (High contrast images, compelling but very descriptive headline that qualifies the visitor, and constant freshness in both images and headlines... pointing to a high quality advertorial that presells a product or service, with links to purchase within the content and as banners on the side of the page.)

Any new channel that is very effective will attract affiliate marketers and some bad actors, but eventually, the networks police themselves, and they become very effective ad networks for everyone (i.e. Facebook newsfeed ads are basically as main stream now as Adwords is, but 5 years ago, it was full of shady affiliates. It still is, but much less so.)

In general, There are five types of native advertisers.

1. Advertising arbitrage sites - These are the the celebrity articles, etc... the folks who do this right are making bank, but for every person who succeeds at this, hundreds try and fail. It is a real skill. It also requires a large bankroll since you get paid net 30-45 for the ads you place.

2. Affiliate marketers primarily promoting info products and digital products - These are the health ads (i.e. secret fruit loses belly fat or nail fungus home remedy ads) and the software security ads. One thing you can be sure of... when it comes to rampant affiliate marketers, if it wasn't driving sales, they would move on to another channel.

3. Direct advertisers (most notably LendingClub & bankrate - I think)Don't be surprised to start seeing Proctor and Gamble to be running detergent native ads and typical Ecommerce sites running ads to their content.

4. Publishers growing their audience. - This is the most natural usage of native ads, but lends itself to arbitrage like the first type of advertiser. I worked with a few very large publishers buying ads on Taboola and Facebook news feed and arbitraging it by serving up Taboola native ads successfully.

5. Remarketing - These networks let you remarket you visitors and I think criteo (for sure some do) run remarketing through taboola, etc... You can also do it natively in the network by using their remarketing pixel.

If you do go this route, expect CPCs in the US on solid publishers to run you over $1.00 and smaller publishers in the $0.30-$0.60 range.

You can still get the junk traffic for about $0.10 a click, but not much cheaper.

All in All, I think native ads will find their place and be a net positive for the internet...but clearly we aren't there yet. One thing is for sure. Affiliate marketers who are spending $10-$20k/day on Native ads, are not losing money. It works and it works well... and not just for arbitrage or info products.

I've run successful Ecommerce product ads via native successfully.

Edit: Spelling

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And at least Google iAds give you the tiny little logo in the corner for you to click so you can report the ad that tries very hard to look like a download button :(

Only they never seem to quite get it: Google: here is x dating site, Me: click, mark as irrelevant. Google: here is y dating site Me: irrelevant Google: z dating site? Me: nope Google: lets try an ad for x dating site again then Me: actually, you got my mail, all my searches for the last 10 years and still you cannot find anything more relevant for a happily married sw engineer?

Unless happily married SW engineers with your search history whom mark dating sites as irrelevant are great for dating site conversions.

Re: Publishers Are Rethinking Those ‘Around the Web’ Ads

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And at least Google iAds give you the tiny little logo in the corner for you to click so you can report the ad that tries very hard to look like a download button :(

Only they never seem to quite get it: Google: here is x dating site, Me: click, mark as irrelevant. Google: here is y dating site Me: irrelevant Google: z dating site? Me: nope Google: lets try an ad for x dating site again then Me: actually, you got my mail, all my searches for the last 10 years and still you cannot find anything more relevant for a happily married sw engineer?

You can change the google settings to specifically give you ads about topics you like

https://www.google.com/settings/ads

Post reply on HN