41–50 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For better results, have that intern gather the email addresses of those 12,000 pre-approved sites, and email them a personal ad placement buy offer, or request a media kit. You'll find all sorts of personalization opportunities and you get to cut out the middle-man.
It's kind of interesting that self-hosted direct advertising hasn't taken off as a technical problem to solve.
This is definitely an interesting tactic, but this is a pretty poor article. #1. Chase is claiming performance hasn't been affected, but it has only been a couple days since they made changes. With display you can't measure performance in only a few days. #2. The author confuses the number of sites with the number of impressions. Chase is buying the same number of impressions - if everyone else followed this strategy…
1 - agreed. A few days is nothing. 2 - The exchange would likely make more because the increased auction pressure from the same amount of advertisers trying to buy the same amount of volume (same demand) on a smaller list of websites (lower supply) would lead to higher prices being paid to show ads.
2 - still a win-win-win-win, Chase get more views for the same budget, few website of good content that attract good traffic get more money out of ads, bad website spamming keywords get less money and the exchange gets the same money but displaying the ads few times as the unit price increase so it has more margin.
It's crazy how many apologists there are for Big Web Advertising! So many commenters are giving the customer a hard time for realizing, "99% of my budget is spent on zero value, i.e. fraud." The biggest lie the online advertising industry has sold is aggregate statistics. Of course a handful of traffic sources convert massively while the supermajority (99%) don't convert at all. Advertising intermediaries rely on the…
It's hard to tell from the article, but I don't think there was any change in Chase's advertising spend. My interpretation is that they are spending the same amount, but restricting bidding to a whitelist of sites. If so, the fact that they don't see an impact in # of impressions means more about the ad exchange's bidding system and inelastic demand (or lack thereof) for inventory on those whitelisted sites. I don't…
"An intern then manually clicked on each of [the 12000] addresses to ensure that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on." - true hero of this article
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 - agreed. A few days is nothing. 2 - The exchange would likely make more because the increased auction pressure from the same amount of advertisers trying to buy the same amount of volume (same demand) on a smaller list of websites (lower supply) would lead to higher prices being paid to show ads.
1 - depends on volume. high enough and you can get goodp-value of the population even in a few days 2 - still a win-win-win-win, Chase get more views for the same budget, few website of good content that attract good traffic get more money out of ads, bad website spamming keywords get less money and the exchange gets the same money but displaying the ads few times as the unit price increase so it has more margin.
In non-online conversion paths (e.g. offline retail, call centers, etc) or branding campaigns, many are measured using offline lift studies or brand lift studies which take at least a couple months to show results.
2 - Not exactly. The prices would be driven up, meaning eventually Chase would get less impressions for the same budget. If both you and I used to buy 1,000 impressions for $5 across 100,000 websites who had a total supply of 2,000 impressions, but then we limit our list of allowable websites to 5,000 websites that only have 1,200 impressions... prices will rise.
The impact is not apparent when only I change my bidding strategy, because I'll buy 1,000 of the 1,200 impressions from the top tier websites, and you'll get 200 from them and then 800 from the bottom tier. But once we both change our bidding strategies, we're now both competing on the same 1,200 impressions. Prices will go up as we compete over them.
This is a simplistic auction, of course. In practice, the ad exchange values different sites differently... but this is just to give a rough mental model about how the increased competition on fewer sites will lead to increased auction pressure thus driving prices up and volumes down for each advertiser. The exchange and publisher will be happy, though.
I remember attending a talk, where this guy talked about their freemium app used by dozens of millions of users. Their in-app popups were cut by 30% or so without losing revenue, all thanks to a few simple if statements (they tried machine learning as well, but this did it).
One can only wonder how much of this excessive advertising there is, I guess it's mostly driven by absolute revenue numbers without much consideration for costs and efficiency.
"An intern then manually clicked on each of [the 12000] addresses to ensure that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on." - true hero of this article
Yeah, success of this entire pivot relied largely on this intern's audit report. I imagine that the intern had a massive list of 12,000 URLs and would click through them, taking care to note why the site passes muster or otherwise so that management can add a layer of justification to the final decision. Even at an average of 3 minutes per URL, that still amounts to >600 hours of repetitive and sometimes traumatising…
It's crazy how many apologists there are for Big Web Advertising! So many commenters are giving the customer a hard time for realizing, "99% of my budget is spent on zero value, i.e. fraud." The biggest lie the online advertising industry has sold is aggregate statistics. Of course a handful of traffic sources convert massively while the supermajority (99%) don't convert at all. Advertising intermediaries rely on the…
On the other hand this huge "fraud" is what makes Google free and has thus powered the information revolution that now looks like a pivotal turning point in human history. Hard to be all that mad that Google made all the worlds information freely searchable by ripping off dumb businesses...
It's crazy how many apologists there are for Big Web Advertising! So many commenters are giving the customer a hard time for realizing, "99% of my budget is spent on zero value, i.e. fraud." The biggest lie the online advertising industry has sold is aggregate statistics. Of course a handful of traffic sources convert massively while the supermajority (99%) don't convert at all. Advertising intermediaries rely on the…