Thanks for explaining, I think you've confirmed however that it wasn't the regional news site and that particular ad slot which was responsible for the malware, although it was the start of the process. The same could be said for any website and link though, if you just keep clicking on links you will inevitably land on something bad if that is your intention, it doesn't matter where you begin.
How would you fix digital advertising?
- Thread starter Marmot
- Start date
Thanks for explaining, I think you've confirmed however that it wasn't the regional news site and that particular ad slot which was responsible for the malware, although it was the start of the process. The same could be said for any website and link though, if you just keep clicking on links you will inevitably land on something bad if that is your intention, it doesn't matter where you begin.
I guess I misunderstood your "adception chain" comment as your parents clicking on further 'relevant articles' once they arrived at their click-through destination. This circumstance can be avoided on regional news sites or other publishers by simply implementing a whitelist of verified advertisers. It obviously depends on the ethics of the publisher in question.
Do you not think there is a risk of bias with state funded media? If something is privately owned then typically their only loyalty is to their shareholders. Furthermore there's no such thing as free, it will just be incorporated into tax or from something else being cut. You have to pay somehow.
I get that
I'm just trying to understand if there is a way to make you change your mind about digital advertising without completely gutting the industry.Unfortunately that's not the case. Programmatic advertising is entirely reliant on scripts and multiple parties. The average banner ad you (don't) see on the internet will involve the publisher, an SSP (exchange), a DSP (buying platform), and an adserver - they all need to talk to each other. You might think targeted ads don't work on you but from the industries experience they work very well. You absolutely can get quantifiable results from ad spend, you can use varying attribution models and econometrics. Your suggestion that the best way would be to ask the individual which marketing communication triggered the purchase decision is actually one of the most unreliable methods, some forms of advertising are much more subconscious than others and therefore you would have huge skews towards certain channels. Furthermore people are notoriously unreliable and often just click the first thing they see.
That's called a 'page skin'. Companies responsible for those include InSkin, JustPremium, SublimeSkinz and more. I agree that it's a bit of an eyesore, but I wouldn't personally say that it's particularly disruptive. It doesn't affect the content you're reading in any way. You also mention the subject area that the banners are advertising - if you had an option to disable gambling advertising, and the industry was cleaned up, would you be more open to turning off your adblocker?
@billysielu I'll grant you that the 970x250 banner at the top does push down the content by 250 pixels... But that is solved within a couple of notches of the mousewheel.
Interesting to know. The Liverpool Echo is owned by Trinity Mirror who also own a huge amount of other regional titles. These titles would usually be amongst those quoted if you asked InSkin for a site list.
This used to be the way across most inventory. These days sites typically struggle to sell their inventory because most buys are done programmatically. Programmatic has grown by thousands of percent over the last five years and 'direct buys' from agency > publisher are becoming a drop in the ocean now.
I know you loved this thread (you have the second largest number of replies) but I don't think there's much more to add.
It seems that the majority of us are open to monetization via advertising, provided that it is carried out responsibly. The view is that right now it's no where near responsible.