curious about the advantage you see in doing Medium over blog+Twitter.
à Don, it's a double play.
You earn exposure to a newer and much wider audience for your work, thereby strengthening your brand while at the same time helping the VRM cause.
Plus you could still Tweet to your followers. They'll be impressed by you entering the media mainstream, making it a triple. ;)
Nathan Schor 305.632.1368
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Marti [
">mailto:
]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:27 PM
To: Doc Searls
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Shifting the costs of ad fraud
begin Doc Searls quotation of Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 01:45:42PM -0400:
> Suggestion: publish this, plus additional dollops of your usual wisdom, as a Medium piece.
How about
Who's behind all those crappy ad toolbars on your uncle's PC?
as a title?
curious about the advantage you see in doing Medium over blog+Twitter.
Don
> > On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Don Marti < "> > wrote:
> >
> > Making the rounds...
> >
> > Banner “Fraud” Doesn’t Matter
> > Rick Webb
> >
> > https://medium.com/@RickWebb/banner-fraud-doesn-t-matter-fc84413fe59
> > c
> >
> > We use banners as little billboards now. We use them strategically
> > as incredibly cheap (so cheap) repeat impressions for brand
> > awareness. We know many people don’t see them, we know most people
> > don’t see them.
> > That’s okay. We use them accordingly, and the cost has been
> > adjusted down to make them a perfectly great buy even though most
> > people don’t see them.
> >
> > We use them to measure the efficacy of campaigns we run _our_ way,
> > using _our_ metrics.
> >
> > So Webb's method for dealing with fraud is:
> >
> > * Rely on the presence of huge quantities of
> > fraudulent traffic to drive down CPMs everywhere.
> > Buy a mix of fraudulent and legit banner impressions
> > at massive scale.
> >
> > * Assume that adtech data is bogus, and that you
> > have to measure banner impact with offline tools,
> > as you would for a billboard.
> >
> > That solves Webb's problem. Unfortunately, his strategy makes
> > things worse for publishers and users.
> >
> > * Ad fraud isn't just servers full of bots hitting
> > servers full of ads. Ad fraud is now the number one
> > malware payload. When Webb pays indiscriminately
> > for fraudulent and legit banners, he's funding
> > malware development, along with a bunch of other
> > bad behavior, from copyright infringement to comment
> > spam.
> >
> > * When fraud is priced in, legit sites are in direct
> > price competition with fraud sites. Costs of fraud
> > end up being borne by publishers in the form of
> > lower CPMs.
> >
> > Important implication of this: if you can figure out the minimum
> > quality level that makes banner inventory viable for Webb's "mass
> > buy/offline measurement"
> > strategy, you can focus anti-fraud projects on the _marginal banner_
> > -- whatever inventory is just barely possibly non-fraudulent enough
> > for a real advertiser to consider buying it.
> >
> > How do we spot the low-quality ad buys? This is where brand-unsafe
> > placements and ad-supported piracy could be useful. Spot those, and
> > you can get some idea of where the fraud-tolerant ad money is going,
> > and where is best to move in order to cut it off.
> >
> > --
> > Don Marti < "> >
> > Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?
> > http://www.aloodo.org/test/
>
--
Don Marti < "> >
Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking? http://www.aloodo.org/test/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.