|
|
|
|
|
|
by evv
3081 days ago
|
|
|
> much nicer [ads] that come out of direct negotiation between publishers and advertisers Uh, usually this results in "native advertising", which is advertising pretending to be real articles. This is much more dangerous and insidious in my opinion than an explicit 'sponsored' box with an ad inside. If this continues, successful publishers will be the ones that push the most profitable corporate propaganda, rather than the ones that effectively inform the public. |
|
|
I've actually done native advertising and even something as simple as adding a company's logo to an online catalog can pull in $100,000s in ad revenue. You don't need DFP for that, and it's undetectable by ad blockers because it's just an image.
We need to get out of this concept of thinking of advertising as just publishers selling blank squares of "real estate" on their site, and back to the sort of partnership model that existed in print media. A publisher specializes in reaching a certain audience with certain interests; the right advertiser will pay more to reach that audience. You don't need to track individuals to do that or build profiles on them.
Digital advertising made a new pricing model possible: CPM. But just because you have a new way of doing something doesn't mean it's the best way.