Basically brand advertisers are becoming performance marketing oriented.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ddb-ceo-wendy-clark-mcdonalds...
Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
71–80 of 156 posts
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#72As they say, 80% of advertising has no effect. The trouble is telling which part.
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#73> "99% of my [advertising] budget is spent on zero value,"
This has always been true for advertising. The difference is that before the internet there were zero methods for the advertising client to directly recognize this fact.
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#74In their test they had 12000 clicks, and decided they only wanted 5000 of them. So they miss 7000 clicks, or more than 50%. How is that the same result?
I could understand if they found that click from certain sites did not lead to new business for them. But that is not what the article says. It says they didn't want those 7000 clicks because they were from sites they didn't like.
It seems to me they should already have figured out which sites bring them useful clicks long ago, in an automated way. Isn't that standard procedure for advertising? Then there would be no need for moral judgements. Of course they are in their rights to shut out sites they don't like. But not everybody who browses such a site has to be a believer, among other things.
I think drawing attention to such automated matches of ads can only produce losers. The sites lose out on ads, but the companies force themselves to become political, needlessly driving away users from the other political spectrum. (Again, I assume it is in every companies rights to do so, it just seems bad for business).
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#75I would wonder if the whitelisting is in-house or part of their contract? If it's in-house then the added cost to maintain the whitelist (in-house expertise), while not much comparatively, isn't nothing.
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#76The fix to online ad fraud is obvious: CPA (Cost per action). If a signup occurs, then you pay for the ads. If a user pays for the service, then you pay for the ads. It would align the incentives of the advertisers (people paying for ads) and the ad networks (google). Currently it is the ad networks incentive to use CPC and to hide fraud by not releasing traceable ids, allowing clicks from bots/proxies/adsense holders and allowing ads on unrelated content which cause accidental clicks. CPA would incentivize the advertisers (people paying for ads) to commit the fraud by not reporting the action. This would be easier to maintain since the people paying for ads is a much smaller set. BUT - from my experience there would be almost no money in this system for Google since most of their income is from fraud.
Disclosure: worked in ad tech.
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so sure, but I would love to be proven wrong. The issue I'm seeing is that there are many orders or magnitude more potential content providers out there than people are willing to manually validate and white-list. This might lead us to a situation where only the largest content providers/creators still get access to ad money which in turn will make it impossible for creators targeting a more niche audience to…
Niche creators never had a chance in the first place. The few pennies you get for thousands of impression don't cover the expenses to run the site or the time to write the content.
Tell that to the thousands of niche podcasters out there who sustain their programs through marketing partnerships.
Niche creators do stand a chance. They just need the opportunity to reach their audience with a degree of intimacy and trust that the horrific scourge of mainstream online video and corporate 'journalism' do not and cannot offer. Certain media can enable this for their viewers and others less so. It's no cliche to say that medium is the message in this context.
Native advertising in podcasting is proof that not all online advertising has to consist of bludgeoning ignoramuses over the head with colorful nonsense within the infinite scroll of their Facebook feed. It can be about legitimate respect for a brand and a brand's legitimate respect for it's engaged, targeted niche demographic. But at the current rate of things, the web will require another massive spree of innovation to fix the tragedies caused by Facebook and Google over the past 10+ years to ever reach this point.
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#78So, limiting websites gives the same result? What happens if they change their bidding and did the total amount of impressions change?
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#79The Pareto principle (80/20) most definitely applies to advertising.
If you let google or FB choose where to show your ads, you are going to have a bad time.
Re: Chase had ads on 400k sites, then on just 5k, with same results
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > Of the 400,000 web addresses JPMorgan’s ads showed up on in a recent 30-day period, said Ms. Lemkau, only 12,000, or 3 percent, led to activity beyond an impression. An intern then manually clicked on each of those addresses to ensure that the websites were ones the company wanted to advertise on. About 7,000 of them were not, winnowing the group to 5,000. They're pretty plainly saying that 388,00…
When a major sports apparel company sponsors a famous athlete to wear their gear on televised events, they are getting no activity beyond an impression. Doesn't mean the sporting event is trash. It's up to the advertiser to determine whether or not those impressions have value.
Isn't that the thrust of the article though? They narrowed their ad spend to whitelisted sites and have not seen a drop in sales. If the major sports apparel company stopped paying for endorsements and saw no drop in sales, you might be tempted to conclude that those endorsements are not good investments.