Ad Network Bill of Rights? Huh?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 5:39PMI recently read an article on ImediaConnection by Jay Friedman, regarding a bill of rights for Ad Network verification. Although I personally think Jay Friedman is a pretty smart guy, I have to really wonder what went through his mind while writing this article – and more importantly how many agencies are going to do business after he wrote this article.
According to him, ad networks should basically avoid advertisers that use an ad network verification software, because he sees that ad networks solely function as a remnant sales force, providing service for the millions of unsold advertising impressions. He believes that anything that gains transparency somehow is interfering in the rights of ad networks to “hide” the inventory from the advertiser.
What really bothered me was the following:
You do not have the right to know the list of sites on which your ad appeared during the campaign…You do not have the right to know how many impressions ran on specific sites within the campaign. With the market quickly turning into requiring more and more transparency, I find to be one of the strangest things I’ve seen written in a long time. He bases this claim on the believe that ad networks will cause publishers to run away from networks, never to be seen again, if they start actually revealing where the advertising is run.
WHAT?!? HUH!?!?
Let’s look at this rationally:
1) One reason some crap ad networks have such low CPMS is because of that very reason. They not only hide where the advertising is being placed, but often downright lie to ad network about placement. There seems to be at least 10 junk ad networks located offshore or in a swiss bank account that have the same exact site lists, somehow all claiming that they represent half a dozen websites that never heard of them.
2) More and more advertising networks are turning into being transparent, especially vertical ones, as the advertisers want to know where they are running. Advertising Agencies are sick of being given site lists with premium brand sites on the top and then a note that basically means “1000 other crap sites”. They book thinking they are going to run on Bloomberg or CNN, and then somehow end up on some weird pudgy girls in socks site, because there was a keyword somewhere on the page that sounded a bit like “Finance”.
3) Since when did ad networks need a bill of rights? I didn’t see people at ADTECH exclaiming they were somehow being persecuted by advertisers, hunted in the night like a scene from Frankenstein. Last time I checked, more and more advertisers were asking for a bill of rights from the growing fraud in ad networks, than the reverse.
Jay, love your comments.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
Pace your points are all valid but I think you miss the kernal that Jay is trying to address.
Channel conflict vs. transparency - ie. publishers losing direct sales to adnets because the adnets are selling on site name. Few would argue advertisers do not have the right to (a) specify where their ad run and (b) receive basic reporting on where ads ran post campaign.
But that is the issue - if advertisers now have the power to report on where ads are running in real time and on what sites ads performed best / the most IMPR ran you no longer have non-guaranteed inventory. You have channel conflict with direct sales and non-guaranteed sales coming very close together.
As an industry we should be taking about this (especially as RTB approaches) and IMHO Jay's Bill of Rights is the right direction to start the dialogue.
While i might argue it's publishers who could use a lot more than a bill of right in light of the presumptuousness of Agencies and Ad Networks to insert themselves and feel that by purchasing space -- at remnant prices no less they have the righ to track and profile and use in perpetuity the user data that at times they pay zero for (like when an ad network defaults and passes on filling space but for the heck of it sticks another page-slowing beacon and tracking code while passing it on to the next.)
But given the choice, i'd rather join you and pile on the ad networks. The internet was supposted to get rid of all the middlement with it's efficiency and yet it's bred supersize criminals taking more thant heir fair share from all sides, producing nothing to grow the economy, willing to act unethically, illegally without compunction.
What's really needed is strong independent auditing -- not by the IAB or any other one-sided entity. If there is anything but 100% transparency-- which there will not be-- we need some certification both that the full dollars spent by advertisers are buying the most media possible and are only subject to the publicly noted commissions.
There's not even any shame about it --at a time our eco9nomy needs all the working assets possible. One ad network servicer used this as a selling point, telling potential ad network builders that part of the beauty of their system was they would never get involved with what the advertisers actually paid, only what what network operators reported. (So, in cases i'm aware of, that meant 30% off the top and into the Ad Network builers' pocket. That's $3.30 if you'be been convinced to spend $10 CPM, leaving $6.70.) Then the company serving for the network takes its 10-20% for managing the back office, and not asking questions about the amounts submitted. So, call it $6.00 which is reported to the publisher, along with the customary 50% commission, sometimes higher. Where does it end up? Publisher gets $3.00 . Advertiser spends $10.00 $7 of value in the cost of sale and that is supposed to make your buying "more efficient?" hardly.
How about a standard such that full auditing from end to end--the details of which could even remain confidential--so long as there is some kind of certification that's trusted and there's some credibility that what's going in one end is coming out something close to intended at the other end.
I will agree with the previous comment as well and say it's naive to want premium access but wanting to pay remnant rates. if you want full transparency and to know every aspect of the campaign then may i recommenc calling the big name sites you want to be on. i'm sure they would be happy to sell at a fair price to you.
@Phil I could not agree with you more. The ad Networks are manipulating both ends of the buy. Overcharging the advertisers and paying out the least to the publisher.What's more concerning is the AD networks lie through their teeth. Then proceed to offer contracts that excuse them from delivering on any of their commitments. This is an impossible situation for the two entities that do the real work for consumers. It eroding the relationships that support and grow industries and marketplaces. This dubious practice not the exception, its the norm. Anyone with any experience as a buy or publisher knows this. Such a blog is not surprising. AD Networks feel justified taking advantage when no one has penalized them for it. Which is why there is such a great need for transparency between AD buyers and Publishers. More than ever, we need to help enhance these relationships to support their marketplaces. There really needs to be a process for identifying the evil AD networks with no Integrity to discourage such predatory behavior.