Re:After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and k...
by SiempreViernes on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @09:09AM
(#18920931)
If you are a small publisher, why would your ad prices endanger any but the smallest of advertising budgets?
Re:After GDPR, The New York Times cut off ad exchanges and k...
by nemothekid on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @11:22AM
(#18922151)
As an advertiser, you go down the tracking route and you decide to spend 1M targeting women 21-35.
With tracking, you spend all on an exchange that has a ton of supply. ELLE competes with JennyBlogger. You potentially hit a ton of women across different properties. You may be advertising to women on male dominated outlets (the “promise” of digital tracking)
With the direct route, an ad manager may spend that 1M on specific properties, maybe between ELLE, Vogue and InStyle. This is a bit of a simplification as most firms have separate direct and programmatic spend, but the amount of money allocated to each depends on the perceived return of each inventory type.
If you are a smaller publisher, unless you get particularly active in courting advertisers (i.e. spend time going into sales), the niche advertisers will never even look at your content. The 20-something digital ad manager has no motivation to risk his job doing speculative ad spend. As a result your ads are less relevant and your inventory’s CPM drops as a result.
If you are a large property, then tracking affects you less (in fact tracking might be worse for you). Large publishers already have sales and marketing teams and ad managers will just choose you because you are “safe”. If brands are moving to a world where tracking data is less and less reliable, then by default they will move to spending more money on a smaller amount of “safe” inventory