Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
papers.ssrn.com
Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#2The key assumption, I think, is here:
> Among the top 10,000 sites that show third-party capable advertising, we find that typically 15% of users visit the site at least 10 times per month. If one-fourth of such loyal users ultimately subscribe to the site, we estimate that a monthly fee of $2 would generate revenue comparable to that earned from third-party capable advertising, based on current ad rates.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#3The key assumption, I think, is here: > Among the top 10,000 sites that show third-party capable advertising, we find that typically 15% of users visit the site at least 10 times per month. If one-fourth of such loyal users ultimately subscribe to the site, we estimate that a monthly fee of $2 would generate revenue comparable to that earned from third-party capable advertising, based on current ad rates.
Seems like quite an assumption that 1/4 of loyal readers will pay for a website. They cite the NYTimes paywall as evidence, but the NYTimes is hardly a typical site or a typical brand.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#4The real question I have is: Do ads served based on a person's history generate more clicks/sales than ads based on the relevance to associated content, or even randomly selected? My subjective experience with targeted ads is poor - they seems to be ads for stuff I already bought and therefore, don't need anymore.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#5The real question I have is: Do ads served based on a person's history generate more clicks/sales than ads based on the relevance to associated content, or even randomly selected? My subjective experience with targeted ads is poor - they seems to be ads for stuff I already bought and therefore, don't need anymore.
The only website that has ever shown me novel, relevant ads was Feedly. With all my RSS feeds, they have a centralized view of my interests.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#6The real question I have is: Do ads served based on a person's history generate more clicks/sales than ads based on the relevance to associated content, or even randomly selected? My subjective experience with targeted ads is poor - they seems to be ads for stuff I already bought and therefore, don't need anymore.
Hi, co-author of the paper here. To answer your question, yes, there is evidence to suggest that targeted ads work better: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1600259
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#7The key assumption, I think, is here: > Among the top 10,000 sites that show third-party capable advertising, we find that typically 15% of users visit the site at least 10 times per month. If one-fourth of such loyal users ultimately subscribe to the site, we estimate that a monthly fee of $2 would generate revenue comparable to that earned from third-party capable advertising, based on current ad rates.
Seems like quite an assumption that 1/4 of loyal readers will pay for a website. They cite the NYTimes paywall as evidence, but the NYTimes is hardly a typical site or a typical brand.
That's probably due to the 15 odd years of a lack of micropayments on the web, though. I'd pay $2 monthly for every one of the (very few, maybe 15-20) sites that I visit in return for privacy guarantees and no irrelevant advertising.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like quite an assumption that 1/4 of loyal readers will pay for a website. They cite the NYTimes paywall as evidence, but the NYTimes is hardly a typical site or a typical brand.
That's probably due to the 15 odd years of a lack of micropayments on the web, though. I'd pay $2 monthly for every one of the (very few, maybe 15-20) sites that I visit in return for privacy guarantees and no irrelevant advertising.
Unfortunately it's difficult to pull off a model where users can pay to turn off ads because it drastically reduces the per-user value of the remaining ad impressions.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#9The real question I have is: Do ads served based on a person's history generate more clicks/sales than ads based on the relevance to associated content, or even randomly selected? My subjective experience with targeted ads is poor - they seems to be ads for stuff I already bought and therefore, don't need anymore.
IMHO that's because ad targeting and ad profiles are still extremely crude. It sounds like you're talking about retargeted ads -- you look at a product and it seems to follow you around afterwards. The tech is too dumb to know you already bought it, but on average it's pretty effective.
Re: Do-Not-Track and the Economics of Third-Party Advertising
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like quite an assumption that 1/4 of loyal readers will pay for a website. They cite the NYTimes paywall as evidence, but the NYTimes is hardly a typical site or a typical brand.
That's probably due to the 15 odd years of a lack of micropayments on the web, though. I'd pay $2 monthly for every one of the (very few, maybe 15-20) sites that I visit in return for privacy guarantees and no irrelevant advertising.
Funnily enough, I'm developing the technology for exactly this.