Zeronomy - Latest Comments

Re: Facebook (almost) to 500 million users…

Miami Personal Injury Attorney — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:36:00 -0000

The company detailed its mobile strategy and scored low in user satisfaction. Facebook then hit the 500 million user mark officially, while the company received a billion hits per day.

Re: Facebook (almost) to 500 million users…

Miami Personal Injury Attorney — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:26:52 -0000

Facebook has 500 million users. Assuming a valuation of $65 billion, each user is worth $130. Or consider that at $65 billion, Facebook is worth not much less than global

Re: Multiple Social Network Messages

Chrisweber1337 — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:53:36 -0000

Oh well:)

Re: Facebook (almost) to 500 million users…

how can i get pregnant — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:13:16 -0000

That's one of many reasons why there are more than 500 million active Facebook users. Other reasons include: connecting with friends and planning events. And, there may be yet another reason. One, not many would admit or even consider. ...

Re: Facebook (almost) to 500 million users…

landlord thermostat — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:51:44 -0000

Think about it, Facebook has more than 500 million users in the .... has placed the value of the popular site at almost $50 billion and will ...

Re: Southwest using OpenX to serve ads on boarding pass screen

Vitaly — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:24:53 -0000

On the other hand you can blame the site admin for inserting ad tag that halts the whole page load. IFrames eg. don't do that.

Re: Necessary Waste in Advertising

Remove Spyware — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:09:43 -0000

Your point of view is very interesting.

Re: Merrill Lynch (BofA) Mortgages - Nothing has changed

dragon master — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:19:21 -0000

ML private client wasn't the problem. Countrywide etc were the problem. ML has and had a very low failure rate. They only lend to people that can pay them back.
ML IBK sold packages of subprime mortgages that other mortgage companies put together. Where they screwed up was keeping these pieces of garbage.

Re: voicefive.com - more comScore tracking stuff

Thexeez1 — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:05:07 -0000

The problem I have with voicefive.com is my progam "W.O.T", tells me that the site has a poor reputation so I will not open it up. JS

Re: Wordpress Blackberry app

John Smith — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:05:23 -0000

it worked!

Re: Adblocking behavior is relatively stable, geeky

Kanangra — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:11:14 -0000

More intrusive ads, for one. As advertisers and publishers throw sensibility out the window and start to do things like page takeovers, the problem will become significant enough to cause users to look for a solution. But of course, the solution needs to be made easier to find and install, or be bundled with something that delivers other value to users.

If you look at the active user base as a % of a larger group (by country or by OS as you've quoted) it's not so interesting. But viewed as 10 million users who could be connected through the common element of the plugin, and whose attention is being lost, then there's an instant 10m user base up for grabs. ABP could hitch a ride on a higher-value download, carried as an optional install.

Re: Mobile phone scams + perils of contextual advertising

orlando — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:20:42 -0000

I don't care about this companies anymore: In my experience admob and mobclix are showing the same ads over and over and most of the ads are just trying to scam people for cell phone subscriptions, and some of the ads I have seen are so horribly done they have a lot of misspellings and bad syntax in them. When are the real advertisers going to come to them, I mean like real well known brands? And my eCPM is ludicrous, I'm producing them around 300,000 impressions a day, and my pay it's only like $7 to $9 a day!!! Not worth the time I spent developing my seven Android apps!! I'm very angry!

Re: Cheap is Expensive in online leads (”goedkoop koop, is duur koop”)

abassseo — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:35:36 -0000

How To Make money with affiliate programs Today. Affiliate marketing is the easier and probably the most effective method to make money from the internet. It is basically, a kind of selling technique where potential buyers from your website are directed to the websites of sellers. For every click, the website owner gets a small commission.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Re: The Difference between a “Market” and an “Exchange”

Michael — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:18:16 -0000

excellent

Re: Wrong-headed Thinking about Publisher Inventory

JT Batson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:42:17 -0000

While your comment is misinformed, I think the larger point is that there are tons of people talking about the benefits of more automated ways of buying for advertisers, there is no one actually helping the publisher. We see that as our job.

This is what premium publishers tell us— they are worried that in a rush to chase after new sources of (still small) dollars, publishers put themselves in a position that hurts their business long term. RTB and other 3rd party platforms generally make sense for publishers, but they want the controls to manage all aspects of their business properly.

We’re always happy to talk with anyone in more detail about our technology, in fact it’s something we spent a fair amount of time doing at ad:tech NY. To learn more about our optimization technology, for example, visit http://www.rubiconproject.c...

Re: Wrong-headed Thinking about Publisher Inventory

Philip — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:24:45 -0000

Jason, you are absolutely correct! Although I question the long term viability of the Demand Side networks, you are right in Rubicon's flaws

Re: Wrong-headed Thinking about Publisher Inventory

Jason Schechter — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:28:33 -0000

The real truth is that if Rubicon had any real technology they could support RTB. But because they don't, they have to run from it and fearmonger. Get real. RTB is nascent but eventually will power a meaningful (certainly not all) portion of indirect display advertising.

Re: Wrong-headed Thinking about Publisher Inventory

JT Batson — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:49:35 -0000

Hi Rob-- thanks for your comment on our market report.

I agree with you-- and certainly not all demand side platforms are the same. And over time, I would imagine many if not most would have the ability to distinguish all the different characteristics you reference. But with how most dollars are being transacted today, loss of brand value is something publishers should be concerned about.

I am a huge fan of bringing technology and automation to this space -- and of publishers embracing third party technology and channel partners to help them connect to profitable dollars. We are still in the early days here-- I imagine lots more innovation to come.

Good stuff!

Re: Cheap is Expensive in online leads (”goedkoop koop, is duur koop”)

california_mortgage — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:26:48 -0000

I'll post the same information to my blog, thanks for ideas and great article.

Re: Getting your Money’s Worth (ouch) on your ad buy: who’s to blame?

cjmacd — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:04:17 -0000

my educated guess - it would have to be the traffic person at the newspaper.
probably generated 3 different advertising.com remnant tags - 1 for 728x90, one for 160x600 and one for 300x250. The scheduled the 160x600 tag in the 728x90 spot, caught it quickly, corrected it.
i really doubt if it had any effect on response rate for westin or revenue for sun times. at an average $.40 CPM paid out by advertising.com to the newspaper, that ad would've needed to be screwed up like this 2500 times to cost the paper $1 in revenue (not that anyone would EVER catch that). since the CTR is probably .05 %, the potential for 1 missed click isn't even worth calculating.
nobody's perfect. I don't see the point?

Re: Flawed Methodology? in Advertising Fraud Study

zeronomy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:03:31 -0000

Good post, thanks Kirby. When you say "Further, your tone implies that one should expect to be defrauded if one buys CPC or CPA inventory via exchanges" - not at all. We do in general steer cleer of not only CPC buys buy also CPC-targeted CPM buys on some of the exchanges because they have the tendency to attract sites that would index more highly for questionable clicks. Note that Google's optimization on GCN (Adsense) does exactly the same thing, as do many other systems - but at some point you have to find the high-click sites and then assess if they are really clicking because of ultra-relevance or fraud. CPA campaigns are less susceptible to fraud and we run them on exchanges that offer CPA as an option - but it really shows you the poor quality of some of the "bottom of the barrel" inventory as we've seen decent campaigns run over 10 million impressions with a handful of conversions. I strongly believe that anyone representing advertisers' interests in buying on exchanges, whether a demand-side platform like CPM Advisors (http://cpmatic.com) or an ad network needs to understand the dynamics of the marketplace.

Finally, your point about not sensationalizing the fraud point - that seems a little disingenuous and I have to call you out on that one. In your press release (point 1 - you put out a press release) you say that these are "initial test campaigns" but nowhere do you provide any countervailing stats to indicate that these figures are not representative. Your subhead is "Initial test campaigns using AdXpose demonstrate more than half of the impressions delivered and 95 percent of clicks came from suspected fraudulent sources" and the quote is "Click fraud and impression fraud is far more pervasive than the industry has been willing to admit".

I agree with you that daisy-chaining is a huge issue and needs to be addressed specifically. And I think that many people reading the release know that it benefits you guys (which doesn't make your argument flawed BTW - one of the biggest logical fallacies we fall prey to is discounting someone's arguments because their point is in their interest) and discounts it vs. an industry analyst type of report, but clearly your hope is this gets picked up and there are lots of hooks for it to do so and sensation doesn't hurt.

We've been working with folks in the industry on initiatives around this as well, and would love to collaborate with you guys and others to more effectively create some best practices in the industry. It will benefit our advertisers for whom we work every day.

Re: Flawed Methodology? in Advertising Fraud Study

Kirby Winfield — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:52:07 -0000

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the thoughtful review of and response to the study. I would expect no less.

I did want to respond to some of your concerns. First, this statement: "Certainly, you shouldn’t create an experiment and call it representative of the marketplace when your experiment by design will seek out the very thing you are looking to measure."

It should be boted that this was not an "experiment". This was simply the data we collected during the period in our normal course of business of buying media for clients.

Secondly, the goal was not to paint the entire marketplace with this brush. The fact that some news outlets read the report and saw fit to sensationalize it is (while an admittedly happy PR development for us) is beyond our control. If you read the methodology (as Leigh Morrison and Kevin Lee assumably did before publishing their stories) you would see the following:

"Mpire conducted 11 RON buys across nine different ad networks (directly and via one exchange) in July. The buys delivered more than 20 million impressions, to ads from 53 different advertisers. These impressions were filled by the initial nine ad networks via downstream daisy-chaining on at least 45 additional ad networks on more than
100,000 sites."

As you note in your post, this is a small and skewed sample set. We made this fact pretty darn transparent in the report. Anyone who takes this sample set and assumes we are claiming to represent the entire ad network universe is missing the point. We conducted buys during our normal course of business, wrapped the ads with our analytics code, and shared the results. You can and should interpret the data with your own filters based on your own experience – this is a data point, not a universal declaration of fact.

Maybe some clarification will help here: We believe the real issue is with “daisy-chaining” – that’s where we collected most of the data and hence that’s where we believe the highest volume of fraud occurs. I know for a fact there are top 20 ad networks who fill their buys via exchanges, and despite their best efforts, fraud and bad content issues still occur. Why? Because fraud and obfuscation are endemic to daisy chaining and create huge blind spots for bad actors to exploit. Therefore, we believe that daisy-chaining is irresponsible and does in fact make those networks who do it complicit in waste and underperformance if not outright fraud.

On the CPM versus CPA versus CPC issue: you are right to assume the lion's share of the results came from CPC buys. I am not sure how this invalidates the conclusions, however, especially given that poor traffic/fraud was prevalent on the CPM buys as well. While you may not be surprised by the learnings here, we feel a majority of advertisers will be, as witnessed by the strong response to and demand for the research and the product.

Further, your tone implies that one should expect to be defrauded if one buys CPC or CPA inventory via exchanges - that those who do purchase CPC are getting what they deserve. That's news to us, and we're sure to a lot of other, less sophisticated buyers.

All in, however, I think you make some valid points. We aren't a research shop nor are we former analysts, and it may show. But the data should still speak for itself.

Thanks again for your patronage and your candor, Rob. We need dialog around these issues more than ever, and anything that helps shed light and bring the topic of quality and safety for advertisers and publishers to the forefront is a good thing.

Kirby Winfield
CRO
Mpire

Re: Where’s the consumer in all of this online ad stuff?

cpmadvisors — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:14:40 -0000

Worth noting - when you receive a piece of direct mail at your home, you are not told how /where the data came from to enable that to show up there... that should probably change too IMO!