And they certainly do contribute a massive amount of value to our community -- and as far as I can tell, they've always tried their very best to be good folks.
I'm not going to tell you how to think, but they have built up a lot of trust and goodwill in my book over the past decade.
I believe them when they say they'll work hard to do the right thing.
How large reputable sites trust third party ad servers is a mystery to me.
Besides, native ads that could be served from StackOverFlows own servers would be harder to block.
There are private marketplaces and "automated guaranteed" deals to isolate their inventory in its representation and pricing from the rest of the market but the actual campaigns they get exposure to, and the creatives delivered, aren't special to them.
https://www.stackoverflowbusiness.com/advertising
They do sell job postings and have sponsored tags so it's not all network ad revenue, but that's a minority of the income. Since they released their Q/A SaaS product now, maybe they’ll shift to selling that as the primary revenue stream.
Is SO smaller business? Possible... just surprised.
He also sells three ad spots on his mostly weekly podcast for $6000 each. He’s a one man business grossing over 1 million a year without a sales team.
It doesn't just scale up linearly and getting to $10M is magnitudes more work, especially if they're going to place their own requirements on campaigns and creatives. Even buzzfeed went back to programmatic ads with layoffs because their custom articles didn't sustain the business.
1) He has a sales person that sells ads on his podcast: http://neat.fm
2) Extrapolating from published rates is not very reliable. Nobody except John Gruber and his accountant knows how many sponsors really pay the sticker price.
In my mind major respected operation like SO should have an easier job. I interpreted OP to imply "nobody is big enough to run bespoke ads".
I guess I don't have metrics for it and my impression that's clearly a more reliable investment of one's advertising dollars is a mistaken one :-/
I suspect there's a demand problem: while a bigger site might be better at gaining the attention of those buying non-network ads, there may not be a sufficient volume that is even considering buying ads in that market to support a larger site, and changing that takes either more or bigger sites than even SO.
Does it? If native ads were blocked less, couldn't these units reach more eyes than RTB trash?
Liquidity becomes an issue, which is why Reddit is a good example. They also use adzerk and built their own custom self-serve ad network but they make very little money compared to similar traffic using standard programmatic demand.
Companies basically have to advertise, and they'll buy time with whatever outlet serves the eyes they want to reach. Ford Motors isn't gonna let MyPillow.com take over ESPN.com on Super Bowl day just because they don't like the advertising provider, method, or architecture.
I appreciate you trying to fight the argument that's being made, and you have a background for a valid opinion people are dismissing.
That being said, I'm on the buying end and work a lot of different channels, and would argue that there are definitely direct buy models that SO could utilise.
Lots of smaller sites have started offering direct buy inventory in larger quantities recently, and pretty much every media package I've bought this year has had some internally served display with it. I'd expect this to work its way upwards, and would fully expect something self serve to come soon for internal buys.
Also, SO seems prime for a self-serve product akin to AdWords, Reddit, or even Facebook. We already buy on those channels (even though through an agency, the agency is just buying self-serve on their end - and they put their insurance, tracking and ASBOF & TI on the cost).
That's be a really cool project actually, self-serve ad platform for a forum/knowledge base.
I covered it in other comments but yes, SO could start their own self-serve ads like Reddit (since they both use adzerk). The problem with that ends up being lower quality ads and the inevitable support costs, and the fact that they don't have unique formats other than banners. Reddit, Quora, Pinterest, and others have custom formats but it's definitely something they can pursue.
Separately, in your opinion, what sort of stack should a publisher consider if they want to be privacy-friendly? Obviously if certain values are left out of the bid request, fill RPMs will suffer, but that may be acceptable for some publishers as the cost of striking a better balance between privacy and ad revenue.
I realize there's a lot to unpack, but feel free to get technical with me, I'm on both the buy and sell side.
If you have that volume, then the first step is to create private marketplace deals (with deal ids) and negotiate with all the big agencies and trading desks. It's mostly about getting the right intros and meetings but is good outcomes for both sides and is easy to maintain.
Privacy-friendly is a whole different game though and the industry is not ready. Everyone is still focused on cookies even though we're rapidly getting to 50% of impressions not having them at all (or having no persistent ones). One option is running your own adserver (several that you can buy on the market) to control the endpoints (reduce adblocking and cookie loss) but that doesn't really affect the bid requests and creatives as you say. It's really just fixing the final layer and it's also a lot of work for most pub dev teams. Hard for anyone but big sites that can dedicate enough resources to a self-serve system and back it up with a sales team.
The long-term solution is working with and upgrading RTB to handle privacy compliance. This is a new project that my team has started called Privolta [1] which is a privacy-first ad server and SSP that removes all PII and identifying marks in a bid request while still allowing buyers to maintain frequency caps and aggregated targeting. The biggest challenges are in working with DSPs to clear a supply path and also monitoring and modifying creatives safely so no tracking data is collected while the ad is rendered. Happy to discuss more if you're interested, let me know.
Yep, direct buy with the site, I'm in a niche with a lot of sector specific media - some mix it with other inventory (so I guess serving it as bespoke through a standard DSP), and some only have direct bought. We also buy a lot through standard platforms too for reach and retargeting, but I've noted a marked increase in the last year-18months of sites offering it directly (often at competitive rates).
> Also it seems like you're in the UK, is that right? Aren't the privacy laws having a major effect on the programmatic market there?
Not massively to be fair, the market has just consolidated a bit more - so large scale buys are going more and more through Google (as the industry trusts them to either know their stuff or pay the fines if they get caught). Perhaps the rise of sites offering it is as a result, thinking they can offer a more privacy conscious option, but my assumption is that they're just trying to offer a more niche offering with closer alignment between content and ads (and trying to slowly push CPMs up - which is somewhat fair, my CTRs are higher on direct bought vs prospecting ads).
> SO could start their own self-serve ads
I think that's why other commenters have been getting agro, the fact is they could do it, and they have some very useful 1st party data to make it quite a compelling offering, but they're relying on all our old tools. I'd like to see them get the revenue in and then build it out.
At that point I'd expect sites like Stack Overflow to point out that they have a specific of way of running their sites as well - and that shouldn't include having ads execute arbitary javascript.
While those requirements would certainly exclude a significant number of ad agencies, I can't imagine that there aren't enough advertisers left that would happily play by Stack Overflow's rules to reach a rather large and specific target audience with (likely) disposable income.
It's very hard to scale and again there are networks and agencies that aggregate channels for most campaigns and buyers. Anyway, Stackoverflow isn't producing their own content and the pricing mechanics of Youtube/video advertising is very different than display ads so this isn't really comparable.
Then there's layers of targeting, accountability, measurement, and insurance that gets requested and bought from anti-fraud, brand-safety and verification vendors. That's likely where this fingerprinting came script came from.
Going to individual agencies with your own different supply path is not going to get any attention and nobody is going to change the way they buy millions in advertising just for you. No single publisher has that much power these days, not even Stackoverflow.
There are private marketplaces and other deals you can work out with agencies but this is usually for inventory against existing campaign RFPs, and comes with all of the typical creative requirements. They're not going to run an entirely custom campaign under your own terms and restrictions, not at any sustainable scale.
Advertising at big companies is the only space left for traditional sales teams and it's all outsourced to agencies. Adtech vendors and publishers sell to these agencies, not the client (and if they do, its just redirected) but there aren't any long-term deals because everything is constantly shifting. Agencies have lots of teams, they win and lose accounts, work on multiple campaign initiatives and strategies with constantly changing budgets and requirements, and use dozens of vendors to create and execute campaigns.
This is the opposite of a traditional SaaS contract sold for a term directly to the people that will be using it. There's also a steady trend towards all inventory being traded programmatically which will eliminate most of the sales negotiations. Unique inventory and formats can still stand out but they also cost more in effort and money so there's less overall demand. It's very hard to scale custom sales like that, especially if one of your requirements is to avoid all the javascript verification, brand-safety and measurement.
Most media sales these days is more about biz dev to get the pipes connected to exchanges and represent your inventory in the best way possible while letting the market work.
I'm curious what you think the world wide demographics of SO are.
Techies expect the world to bend over backwards because they make money. A decent chunk of that is basically funded by ads.
That being said, techies—unlike admen—are still builders and the people who build the shit will always ultimately have the clout. It’s just a question of using the clout effectively.
I don’t just mean Silicon Valley/West Coast.
The big gap is in licensure and education. You can get a high paying job in tech starting with a GED if you play your cards right. That is because demand is so high, and the field has zero professional standards (in the sense of an actual profession with an actual organizing body, like nursing or medicine or engineering, etc.). The latter part is important. There may be lots of demand for nursing, etc., but real professional organizations do not lower their standards in order to accommodate demand.
Two things will happen this century. First, there will be many, many more people who know how to build basic systems (Web applications, etc.). Second, people will have a much better understanding of the risks involved in software development, which are now still mostly abstract to the public (but this is already changing). Once those risks become apparent, there will be an attendant demand for actual professionalization (standards bodies, licenses, codes of ethics, etc.). There will be greater regulation and classification of software development as a profession (i.e., you might not need a license for some kinds of work, but for other kinds, you will have strict licensing). This will drive up the compensation of (credentialed) developers to the level of doctors and engineers, but will also create many more barriers to entry in the process.
If we're adults, lets also acknowledge that this relationship between me and SO is not really symmetrical and that forcing me as a user to accept privacy invading ads has a hint of blackmail in it. This is not about supporting the site's content. If they would introduce a paid service that lets me have the exact same site, but without ads, I would sign up in a second. Hell, my employer would likely want to foot the bill, so they wouldn't even have to be modest with their pricing.
Why is this not an option, I ask you. Why keep sites like this insisting on their surveillance model?
> and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue.
It's very hard not to be cynical about this. They care about their image. I'm not convinced that they care about my feelings. They is absolutely no evidence for that.
And then do that and then suddenly users think it's not worth the money for reason X and they tank. It has happened many times before and few companies can pull that off when their products were established as free.
Any ad that fingerprints and tracks users is not "passive".
Sure, SO is easier than parsing a forum thread, but the actual value that I care about is the answers provided for free by their users. I could easily return to 90's era usenet, it wasn't as convenient but it worked. What I couldn't deal with is a lack of a platform where people ask technical questions & get answers, I remember being on dial-up and reading paper manuals that were out-of-date/incomplete. But SO isn't irreplaceable, and I am oftentimes frustrated with finding questions closed for incorrect reasons, normally my answer is buried 2 links deep in SO because my DDG search (and Google too) takes me to an improperly closed question where the 'previously addressed' question is adjacent to my query.
StackOverflow does not provide an irreplaceable service; like github they do some nice things but there isn't any reason they must be the dominant platform. And the real value is in the answers, which SO gets for free.
I'm sure you could return to the old internet, but many billions of other internet users enjoy the content they consume for free. Use your adblocker and stick with paywall/subscription sites because we're unlikely to ever go back to a pre-commercial internet.
As far as a non-commercial internet goes... well, we can always hope. We just have to wrangle the means of content production and control (heh, heh, see what I did there?). The resources are there to do that and have a free (both as in beer and in freedom) and high-quality internet, what we are missing is... attention of the masses, the most expensive thing.
Yes, most people would not be "fine" if they lost their googles and youtubes and stack overflows. But then in a few weeks or maaaybe months they'd get over it, because none of these "free" services are in any way essential. Paid alternatives will pop up where needed.
And paid alternatives have been tried for decades (ExpertsExchange if you want a specific example here). It's not a revolutionary idea, it just doesn't work for most content.