How would you fix digital advertising?

Not everyone in the world deserves a seat on the Internet. The ones that do and are most welcome to me is the ones that don't sit on my face and call me Charlie all the time suffocating me when I least expect it.

These sites I visit on a daily, weekly and yearly basis deserve my time as my time is valuable.
 
Marmot said:
Great, so if the disruptive element of digital advertising could be removed, you would be happy remain exposed to advertising online?

Can I ask how you feel about pre-roll and mid-roll video advertising? Pre-roll and mid-roll ARE effectively disrupting your experience because you have to wait before you can watch the video you just clicked on etc, but if you're not happy with autoplay and you don't want pre-roll then there aren't many options left for video advertisers. Very few people would opt in to watching video ads unless they were rewarded (with content) for doing so. Obviously video advertising is the primary source of income for YouTube.
Click to expand...

I'm the wrong person to ask about video ads tbh, I hate YouTube because of the ads, so actively avoid it - I tend to consume audio content, a lot of podcasts are sponsored and have ads at the start or end, but you know that advertising is directly helping the content providers so it's acceptable (and you can skip them too!)
I abandoned the channel 4 player years ago when it forced you to watch ads.
 
Marmot said:
But you haven't provided an example as I asked for? You just linked me to a Wikipedia article which states that 4 years ago McAfee identified that malware was a problem on mobile platforms - well of course it's a problem if you're browsing piratebay, but are you honestly telling me I can get a virus from ad placements on Sky Sports? Come on, think about the lawsuits please.
Click to expand...
You may be surprised at the sites that have had malware because they've outsourced their advertising content to third party ad networks who don't check what they serve up.

Before adblockers I would be trying to disinfect my nephew's PC every month or so (usually the fastest way would be to reinstall) as he is a gamer and was visiting WoW related websites, or browser game sites that were always a high priority target for malware.
I've seen malware on some of the biggest gaming and other hobby websites I've visited at various points, I've seen it on serious websites that accepted adverts.

And because of the way the advertising and content networks work it would be very hard for you to have any comeback from them if you get infected due to the advertising they carry - IIRC Farcebook is still serving up malware from time to time and they've got zero excuse for not checking the content of their advertising content properly given the size of them.


Adblockers aren't just about distractions, they're a vital part of protecting yourself from malware, in the same way that even Windows now comes with a firewall and malware protection by default you should be using the browser equivalents.
I feel sorry for the more reputable content sites that rely on advertising, but unfortunately the advertising industry online has long since shown (repeatedly) it can't be trusted to regulate and police itself, and doesn't care about making sure the content it accepts and tries to show you isn't actively malicious.
Hence I only tend to turn the ad blocker off on sites that run adverts directly from trusted companies, so the advert for "New Book", "new game" or "new DVD" is from the publisher/distributor not an ad network that accepts submissions from anyone with a few hundred dollars and thus has a known provenance.
 
Marmot said:
You're worried about being stabbed online? What? I assume you're referencing malware but, once again, could you give an example of a publisher who fills their ad slots with malware please?
Click to expand...

Equifax had ads on their site directing people to a fake Flash plugin installer a few years back. Then there was this spate of ads serving up ransomware on mainstream websites. Oh, and this other piece from Arstechnica neatly explains a huge problem:

Now, researchers have uncovered one of the forces driving that spike—a consortium of 28 fake ad agencies. The consortium displayed an estimated 1 billion ad impressions last year that pushed malicious antivirus software, tech support scams, and other fraudulent schemes. By carefully developing relationships with legitimate ad platforms, the ads reached 62 percent of the Internet's ad-monetized websites on a weekly basis, researchers from security firm Confiant reported in a report published Tuesday. (Confiant has dubbed the consortium "Zirconium.") The ads were delivered on so-called "forced redirects," in which a site displaying editorial content or an ad suddenly opened a new page on a different domain.

Confiant CTO Jerome Dangu wrote the following in an email:

"These forced redirects are a technical mechanism that can be leveraged to deliver a variety of malicious attacks, from those targeting businesses (affiliation fraud), to those targeting individual users (phishing scams, malicious downloads, fake updates etc.)... At a minimum, these forced redirects often make a website unusable for an everyday user, [and] at worse [visitors] are being directly attacked. People need to understand where the issues are coming from (often the website owner gets blamed, even as they themselves are a victim, too) and what the new risks are for them in an ad supported Internet."

Confiant said that most of the fake ad agencies have their own websites, Twitter accounts, and executive profiles on LinkedIn. One such agency called out in the report is known as Grandonmedia, whose website urges visitors to "Buy Website Traffic visitors to our loyal customers!" The Facebook profile for its CEO displays what appears to be a stock business photo, as did an earlier version of the CEO's LinkedIn profile.

The agencies also rely on machine-generated content posted from its accounts on Facebook and Twitter. Grandonmedia bots issued content including "Lasting relations with reliable partner is the key to success in online marketing" and "Do you want to involve on your online profits? Don't hesitate to get in touch." Grandomedia officials didn't respond to messages seeking comment for this post.
Click to expand...

Bold bits for emphasis.

But yeah, keep thinking that your industry is doing absolutely nothing wrong Marmot :p Just know that until you lot get your house in order adblocking will still be a thing!

***edit***

I should add - I'm not opposed to advertising on the web per se. I don't run adblocking on Youtube for example, or on some of the news sites that I trust not to serve up externally hosted advertising that hasn't been vetted. And I pay for online content that keeps advertising to a minimum (Motor Trend's on-demand stuff for example, that will advertise or showcase products in their videos but doesn't show pre-roll or mid-roll ads).
 
If I could be sure that the content I will be reading will be of high quality, then I don't mind moving to a subscription model to avoid ads and support publishers. To me, this is then no different to back in the day when I would purchase magazines on topics I'd be interested in.

In reality though, I'd say that by and large the quality of content has diminished over the past 10 years. In some places, articles are published with the explicit focus of advertising revenue in mind (sensationalist titles, content needlessly split across multiple pages etc.). It was when this started happening that I installed my ad blocker.
 
Programmatic advertising networks, I agree are problematic. There is little vetting of what is served up (I remember seeing an ad on our site that was styled up to look like native content but was a porn ad! Both not allowed of course). So the point about protection from malware introduced by 3rd parties is valid. The issue there is the content providers having trouble filling all their page views with paid ads at their premium rates, so they farm out the page views to some programmatic service for pennies to at least make a bit of money from the otherwise dead page views.

Believe it or not, digital display ads are nowhere near the money maker you think they are compared to traditional, and much more expensive, means of advertising. I recall about 15% of our revenue was from digital advertising, despite it carrying more than 85% of our audience (the majority was in the decaying print ads stream). So huge, established news brands are faced with the struggle to shift their revenue away from the dying print market to where the audience is now: online. That means effective advertising. There are a lot of redundancies happening in that sector right now, so trust me they aren't just raking it in from these ads.

@mrbell1984 I accept that you might think that if they can't get by without ads, they don't deserve to exist, but that's just not how the ecosystem works. A huge amount of views come from links on social media, and sub based models lock people into their preferred source. That may not be a terrible thing, but it means they see and share only one angle on a news story, and their friends do the same. It would only serve to reinforce the polarising echo chamber effect of social media on opinions. Diversity is a good thing, it allows for choice. Tom dick and Harry don't run huge news corporations. Extremely experienced and committed companies do, staffed by people like you and I who actually do care about the stories they write (bar the DM, god knows what soulless people work there).

Anyway, I'm not all for advertising, although it may come across that way. I'm just saying that you can't expect owt for nowt, and if we as consumers can shape the landscape by only blocking intrusive adverts, we can drive the industry towards that model.
 
Marmot said:
The scripts are largely due to something called 'programmatic advertising' which is effectively the movement away from contextual placements into audience buying placements. If you're selling fishing rods then you might think fishing websites are the best bet, but keen fisherman don't only browse fishing related content, they also browse holiday content, they also look at lifestyle and entertainment, sport, cooking, and much more. Programmatic has allowed brands the ability to buy the individual rather than the ad slot.

An end to targeted ads wouldn't stop the need to track people either. Brands still want to know where their money is going and senior business stakeholders are not happy with verbal reassurances that their adspend is working, they need quantifiable results. Thirds parties (such as Doubleclick, Sizmek, etc.) are employed to verify that what the publisher is saying is true, and some code is necessary to do this.
Click to expand...

Except the scripts I am talking about are embedded in the ads themselves, scripts to allow "'programmatic advertising'" could quite easily be run from the website and not some third party.
I would also say tragget ads are mostly pointless too. If I look up something does not mean I want to buy it even if I look up the price/spec of it. To get targeted ads we give up to much to get to little.
Not sure you can get "quantifiable results" from ad spend it is very hard prove someone purchased something due to an ad they had seen. The best way would be to ask where they heard about the item when they register it and that does not need does not need you to be tracked.
 
Dalandius said:
Except the scripts I am talking about are embedded in the ads themselves, scripts to allow "'programmatic advertising'" could quite easily be run from the website and not some third party.
I would also say tragget ads are mostly pointless too. If I look up something does not mean I want to buy it even if I look up the price/spec of it. To get targeted ads we give up to much to get to little.
Not sure you can get "quantifiable results" from ad spend it is very hard prove someone purchased something due to an ad they had seen. The best way would be to ask where they heard about the item when they register it and that does not need does not need you to be tracked.
Click to expand...

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.
 
adblock.jpg


This is why I use ad block plus. Nothing but horrible gambling adverts that take up the majority of the screen when I browse. I have ZERO respect for intrusive advertising like this. Especially since I don't wish to see or look at ANYTHING gambling related.
 
subbytna said:
This is why I use ad block plus. Nothing but horrible gambling adverts that take up the majority of the screen when I browse. I have ZERO respect for intrusive advertising like this. Especially since I don't wish to see or look at ANYTHING gambling related.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Marmot said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually in the mirror group those homepage takeovers are almost always sold directly. They're pretty hard to get availability for because they perform quite well
 
Devrij said:
Actually in the mirror group those homepage takeovers are almost always sold directly. They're pretty hard to get availability for because they perform quite well
Click to expand...

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.
 
Marmot said:
Not really, do you get nervous when you venture out into the big scary world and see advertisements on buses too?
Click to expand...

If these buses were constantly chasing me down the road/pavement trying to slow my progress, block my view and basically being a major annoyance then yes. However, they are not. So your point is moot.
 
Marmot said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know, I worked for TM for a long time ;) It depends which part of the site you're trying to get, but the homepage is usually direct and booked out at least a month ahead
 
Marmot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes but the question was "How would you fix digital advertising?" not "Justify how digital advertising works".
Targeting ads may work but a lot of the time it is wasted, I hear from some when I buy something suddenly all the ads are for things I just bought. I see this on the tree place with "Inspired by your shopping trends" largely showing item I purchased not long ago.
Even works in the offline world my Mum purchased a vacuum cleaner from a shop, this week she got some mail with the full name and address advertising a vacuum cleaner rather odd?

Digital advertising is not going to be fixed by try to sell it in new ways, in its current form it is to intrusive and it is of little or no benefit for the consumer. If it goes wrong the ad companies do not take any responsibility for the damage they cause.

The questions digital advertiser need to ask is should we just because we can. Is a dumb ad is better than no ad from the ad sellers point of view, look at TV this is targeted from the content of the program and channel not the viewer. Look at how much some ad slot can go for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom