This is a problem I have seen first hand. But this is not really as big a problem as it is made out to be. The real issue here is that it is hard to predict of the given impression is a bot impression or a genuine impression. As a consequence any CPM based dealing is difficult. Difficult only means falling CPMs. That is what I have observed.
The advertisers will not have to put in more efforts to measure conversions and accordingly bid for the traffic.
I am also working in ad yield analytics, so while I wait for a DFP report to run, I'll also say, it's also in the network's interest to address this issue. In the meantime we'll just see more CPA line items and a drop in price for CPD and CPM. Being an auction, I'm sure Appnexus already sees this. When the issue is addressed we'll see a rise in CPM that reflects the increase in value with less bots. There is money in fixing it so I'm not calling the end of the on-line advertising world like the article, which is written by a general reporter not someone in the field (Cost Per Mile? oh really?)
Just wait until cross-channel attribution (particularly dynamic attribution vs. fixed model which is more commonly available) really takes off. CPA-based buys are going to come under a LOT more scrutiny when Joe Advertiser suddenly realizes that his retargeting campaign didn't actually add a ton of value to the path for the vast majority of his conversions, especially if he's giving <gasp> 100% credit to view-throughs.
That's awesome that PerfectAudience does that, and more and more DSPs are definitely waking up to that as well which is great.
What do you do to help inform what the settings should be? Unless an advertiser has a solution like VisualIQ, Convertro, Adometry, etc. (and they've all been bought up so who knows what will happen to them), or GA Premium, they likely don't have a dynamic attribution solution in place to help inform them as to what those values should be and how they are shifting over time (because in reality those weights are anything but static).
I really wish DSPs did more in the way of thought leadership on how to properly value view-throughs and other ways of measuring contribution as view-throughs are the majority of what they drive, and that metric is coming under increasing scrutiny (as it should).
I'm in advertising too. What I'm really hoping comes out of this is greater transparency in inventory. Give me greater control over my blacklist and I'll be a lot happier.
Comments
This is a problem I have seen first hand. But this is not really as big a problem as it is made out to be. The real issue here is that it is hard to predict of the given impression is a bot impression or a genuine impression. As a consequence any CPM based dealing is difficult. Difficult only means falling CPMs. That is what I have observed.
The advertisers will not have to put in more efforts to measure conversions and accordingly bid for the traffic.
I am also working in ad yield analytics, so while I wait for a DFP report to run, I'll also say, it's also in the network's interest to address this issue. In the meantime we'll just see more CPA line items and a drop in price for CPD and CPM. Being an auction, I'm sure Appnexus already sees this. When the issue is addressed we'll see a rise in CPM that reflects the increase in value with less bots. There is money in fixing it so I'm not calling the end of the on-line advertising world like the article, which is written by a general reporter not someone in the field (Cost Per Mile? oh really?)
Just wait until cross-channel attribution (particularly dynamic attribution vs. fixed model which is more commonly available) really takes off. CPA-based buys are going to come under a LOT more scrutiny when Joe Advertiser suddenly realizes that his retargeting campaign didn't actually add a ton of value to the path for the vast majority of his conversions, especially if he's giving <gasp> 100% credit to view-throughs.
It's funny how much business we've won just by making it easy for clients to take control over their view through attribution settings and counting.
That's awesome that PerfectAudience does that, and more and more DSPs are definitely waking up to that as well which is great.
What do you do to help inform what the settings should be? Unless an advertiser has a solution like VisualIQ, Convertro, Adometry, etc. (and they've all been bought up so who knows what will happen to them), or GA Premium, they likely don't have a dynamic attribution solution in place to help inform them as to what those values should be and how they are shifting over time (because in reality those weights are anything but static).
I really wish DSPs did more in the way of thought leadership on how to properly value view-throughs and other ways of measuring contribution as view-throughs are the majority of what they drive, and that metric is coming under increasing scrutiny (as it should).
I'm in advertising too. What I'm really hoping comes out of this is greater transparency in inventory. Give me greater control over my blacklist and I'll be a lot happier.
Actually, the article (correctly) expanded the acronym as cost-per-mille (note the 2 L's). Mille is latin for thousand.