How would you fix digital advertising?

I don't mind ads per say. If a website loads and there are set ad boxes in placewhose sizes are fixed from the outset, that's fine.

If it takes a second to fetch an additional from elsewhere and the page redraws and moves the content about .. that's intrusive.

If it plays sounds / videos without being clicked. .. that's intrusive.

If it overlays the main content with a moving thing that won't go away till I click it .... That's intrusive.

If it tries to open another tab, or window or jumps completeley to another webpage ... That's intrusive.

If it jumps to a ransom type page and locks out the browser to the point you have to close it .... A certain MTB forum which I used to like does this a lot ... Then itsn intrusive.


The vast majority of ads I come across fall into the intrusive categories above ... As such , rather than being an invitation to attract me towards the product, the ads become and immediate turn off from the content.

So until that's addressed,I have littll sympathy for moaning about as blockers.
 
ultralaser said:
Interesting, so sites like that don't get their ads via SSPs / exchanges and sell directly to ad agencies?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
This goes beyond advertising, imho. This is now in the domain of stealing my personal data/metadata without my consent; spying on me.

I will never stop blocking this kind of behaviour. Ever.

Tracking me around the internet is just plain unacceptable. Stealing my metadata is plain unacceptable.

I don't use Facebook and the like and I sure as hell block your tracking cookies and everything else that is used to build a picture of me. It's just not on.

This is so far removed from the benign "advert on a bus" it's unreal.
 
Apparently there is this need to track clicks yet companies spend 100s of millions on tv advertising with no way to track how effective it is.
 
ultralaser said:
Interesting, so sites like that don't get their ads via SSPs / exchanges and sell directly to ad agencies?
Click to expand...
It's a mix. You'd have a team of people selling direct to SMEs, a team selling to the agencies who are selling to the big companies, and then any inventory that doesn't get shifted (MEN website was doing 10m unique visitors per month and 40m page views, so that was a fair amount given the £8 to £15cpm rates) gets shifted to programmatic. But the big front page stuff was usually direct or agency
 
My favourite advert is when I was 16-17 on the bus on the way to my YT scheme the big billboard advert of eva in her wonderbra facing me head on every morning.
 
Some obscure unaccountable political campaign group has spent £340,000 on Facebook and Instagram advertising, targeted at voters in the constituencies of selected MPs in order to get across a particular political message and people claim that blocking adverts is tantamount to theft?
 
Dalandius said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's just sloppy ad management, I have a daily feed in to our adserver to exclude purchasers, spending money to target someone who has already converted is bloody stupid.
 
subbytna said:
Hot leads are easier to upsell to, than cold leads.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but that depends on your industry/product offerings.

I don't consider advertising for the exact product I have just bought to be upselling, Amazon loves doing it though. No, I just bought those shoes, I'm not buying a second pair because you emailed me, lol.

We do upsell in my company, but we do that through direct marketing, not display or ads, those are more top- and mid-funnel activity.
 
Marmot said:
snip
Click to expand...

Guessing that you work in advertising, and are fishing for ideas to present as your own ;) :D

In seriousness though, I cannot help but feel, that the current digital advertising just feels like the Wild West - it seems that some websites are using any (and sometimes every) technique to deliver adverts to you. To name but a few: annoying links embedded in the text that'll pop up an advert when you brush past it, full screen adverts that you have to close - often popping up seconds after the page loads, banners that take up ~50% (or more on smartphone) of the screen, and last but not least; annoying auto play video/audio!

I appreciate that websites need to make money, but most are simply turning people (like me) away from them - the content I consume online can be found elsewhere, and with fewer/no adverts; so I'll close the website and move on. And when I am presented with begging messages asking me to close my blocker, I'll go find another source.

The only way I would change my ways, and disable ad-blocking; would be if every site comes to an agreement with advertising layout - if they had a single panel advert on the right (or left) hand side, that doesn't auto play content, or use anything other than a static image (and also doesn't have any 'hooks' into cookies for my browsing). I would accept that, and treat it like an ad break on TV, or an insert into a magazine.

Frankly though, online advertising will not change, and people will still continue to block adverts. Personally, I don't consider it a moral issue or anything; as websites shouldn't be so short sighted and build/hire based on ad revenue - the hit to Buzzfeed was more to do with the fact they're **** I expect.
 
FoxEye said:
This is so far removed from the benign "advert on a bus" it's unreal.
Click to expand...

If the bus has wifi it's quite possible it tracks which buses you use, what stops you get on and leave at - very useful for automatically totting up which parts of which routes are busy (considering most use day passes or longer, not individual tickets for one journey). Unless you turn off bluetooth/wifi every time you leave the house you're placing trust in a lot of organisations that they won't track you.

For example: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/09/lo...rything-we-learned-from-tfls-official-report/

I've read about similar technology being used to track customer numbers and habits in particular areas of large department stores (before this they used cameras and before that dumb IR beams - so it's just a natural progression).
 
Dave M said:
If the bus has wifi it's quite possible it tracks which buses you use, what stops you get on and leave at - very useful for automatically totting up which parts of which routes are busy (considering most use day passes or longer, not individual tickets for one journey). Unless you turn off bluetooth/wifi every time you leave the house you're placing trust in a lot of organisations that they won't track you.

For example: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/09/lo...rything-we-learned-from-tfls-official-report/

I've read about similar technology being used to track customer numbers and habits in particular areas of large department stores (before this they used cameras and before that dumb IR beams - so it's just a natural progression).
Click to expand...

"Free" wifi is never free, people just don't read the T&Cs when they connect :D
 
NoobCannon said:
Its always free when you use a fake name and email address.

If you put your personal one down you deserve all you get
Click to expand...

Not so, your wifi is broadcasting your mac address constantly. Thus unless you turn your wifi off they have a record of a 'unique user' - much like what web advertisers do. Knowing this is incredibly useful - and thus valuable - without ever tying it to a name or contact details.

If you think some company (or consolidating agent) knowing your movements is worth nothing to you fine - but it's worth something to someone.
 
Dave M said:
Not so, your wifi is broadcasting your mac address constantly. Thus unless you turn your wifi off they have a record of a 'unique user' - much like what web advertisers do. Knowing this is incredibly useful - and thus valuable - without ever tying it to a name or contact details.

If you think some company (or consolidating agent) knowing your movements is worth nothing to you fine - but it's worth something to someone.
Click to expand...

I suppose the real question is, do you trust your signal operator then?

I think a lot people put too much faith in their privacy. If you have any sort of radiating device on you, you’re trackable.

You just have to be really boring, or a cave man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom