Banners these days are good for "Brand awareness" and not good for generating traffic for a website or to deliver actual actions on a site (purchase, sign-up, etc). Having said that, it is also true that banner fatigue is a real thing, and that lots of people already "tune out" of the traditional banner areas on sites.
Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#12I detest advertising. It's literally designed to undermine reason and supplant critical evaluation of ones needs and priorities.
As for web advertising, maybe I was the last person on the planet to figure this out but sometime late last year the web just became unusable on most popular news sites. Popover ads that come up before you can read the content and multiple large ads inline with the content and that "no mans land" on the right.
I seriously hope there is a way to make MS Edge default to the "reading view".
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#13As someone currently working on fighting advertising fraud, the article premise is wrong. Specifically, there is a significant amount of wasted money that currently goes to fraudsters (usually through RTB exchanges). If we are able to eliminate all of them, then that wasted money will be left to split amongst the legitimate players, which is good for everyone. So yes, CPMs will go up, but the value of each impression…
He does say that. He just doesn't trust you to get the price right. I.e., he believes that in "fixing" advertising fraud, the CPM will go up more than the value will go up.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#14Disclosure: I also work for a company that specializes in fighting advertising fraud.
I think this is either willful ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of the fraud ecosystem. It's not about click through rates by a long shot.
But since the OP's main argument seems to be how the bigger ecosystem of online advertising already accounts for fraud, let's take that further. With this attitude, he's effectively saying that:
- They're okay with indirectly sponsoring the spread of viruses and trojans (rationale being: it's cheap!)
- They're okay with paying some dudes with some smart scripts (eg. the fraud mechanisms) the same amount of money as hard-working content creators and publishers
- And they don't care enough about the budget either. Accountability is apparently a fairy tale in this context?
The industry is under heavy fire regarding this subject as it is, and I'm not sure whether this attitude is going to further the conversation.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#15If you've got a team of smart people willing to drop $500k on a banner campaign and you can accurately measure the results and it's still worth it with all the fraud, good for you.
If you're a mom and pop store looking to spend $500 on advertisements they should be made aware there's a good chance they will be defrauded unless they know what they are doing.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#16I can't help but wonder why all advertisers don't switch to payment by click-through-and-buy, rather than just by click or impression. You can't fake that.
Ad networks won't go for it outside of very specific and narrow use cases (high-end ecommerce) because they don't have control over the quality of the landing page, a crucial element in whether the user converts or not.
Exactly. Ad networks will optimize for cost per acquisition but won't charge based on it since they don't control that part of the pipeline.
If advertiser's landing page is down for example, the loss shouldn't fell on the ad network.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#17"Honestly, at first when that article got posted I thought you were going to talk about something else: like maybe how the entire dream of the internet is a bit of a fraud for advertisers in general." Dream of the internet (presumably they mean dream of the web) was not initially one of advertisement.
It's interesting to look back on how idealistic the early web was: http://www.arachnoid.com/freezone/
I think it's actually still the case that the best quality content on the internet isn't on commercial sites.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#18I detest advertising. It's literally designed to undermine reason and supplant critical evaluation of ones needs and priorities. As for web advertising, maybe I was the last person on the planet to figure this out but sometime late last year the web just became unusable on most popular news sites. Popover ads that come up before you can read the content and multiple large ads inline with the content and that "no mans…
Advertising & pop-ups on popular news websites are great! Because they remind me that news sites have zero (or near zero) value, and I should be getting back to work instead of wasting time reading them. If they really had value for me, I'd be signing up for a paid subscription & then they wouldn't have to run ads.
Some advertising is good. I am so glad that Harvest advertises. I know I saw it repeatedly advertised on Daring Fireball, so I was aware of it by the time I needed something like it, and I'm super happy with it.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#19Methinks thou doth protest too much.
This is wrong. It should be: thou dost protest too much. Just saying.
Re: Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
#20If you've got a team of smart people willing to drop $500k on a banner campaign and you can accurately measure the results and it's still worth it with all the fraud, good for you. If you're a mom and pop store looking to spend $500 on advertisements they should be made aware there's a good chance they will be defrauded unless they know what they are doing.
I think the article's point is that, if you compare banners to physical billboards, then you have the same issue but the billboard still works. So even your theoretical mom and pop store is getting value out of the impressions.