The test marked a first for Google, not only in the introduction of banners in the search results, but in presenting ads that were explicitly branding- rather than performance-oriented. ]]>
The study is by Nanigans, one of the biggest buyers of Facebook ads, and it focuses on retailers, saying that in the past year on Facebook’s desktop ads, clickthroughs are up 375% and overall return on investment is 152%.
But it’s when the report focuses on mobile advertising that the really surprising numbers pop up. Advertising on Android returns only 90% of what it costs. However, it might take some time for the first-order effects of this - whatever they actually are - to come through.]]>
That wasn’t something Buescher had run into much. She kept digging. After about three weeks, Carat was blacklisting 77 more sites for Red Bull beyond FreeStreams. Many of the sites didn’t actually sell pre-roll ads, which was what the client was supposedly paying for. Some were merely gaming sites with interstitials. Some were sites that didn’t even exist or were blocked by her company. Others ran video inventory continuously. Many were simply a case of “fraud,” she found. Maybe what we need is less fake advertising content.]]>
+ Perhaps unsurprisingly, websites where ads are most often blocked tend to cater to the technologically savvy: Gaming sites had their ads blocked by one of every three visitors, technology sites by one of every four. For travel websites, by contrast, the figure was only 5% (chart below): If you use ad-blocking software: what would you do if your favourite site (whichever it is) took countermeasures against ad-blocking? (Ars Technica experimented once by showing a blank page.)]]>
While desktop web usage is still increasing, and tablet now accounts for a meaningful share, we can see that smartphone usage is the biggest driver of growth. Desktop/laptop time up 14%; smartphone used quintupled; tablet time from zero to more than one-fifth of the 2013 desktop/laptop time (and equivalent to a quarter of the 2010 figure for desktop/laptop time).]]>
Recently, we launched a new version of the Google Maps app for Android, iPhone, and iPad where we introduced several new features. Today we’re introducing an updated ad experience we think is more attractive for users and more effective for advertisers.]]>Relevant ads on the Google Maps app can now appear at the bottom of the screen after a user performs a search. They include a title, ad text, and a link to get directions. Users can tap or swipe upward to see more information — this is a new click type known as “Get location details” and results in a standard CPC charge.
For example, this afternoon Motorola tweeted out a photo of the phone with a customized back casing with the message, "Yep. We've got wood." (No explanation necessary.)… "Motorola replaced the penis joke on the Moto X page with a ... goldilocks reference?"…To advertise Moto X's touch-free voice control, Motorola wrote "Touch each other, not phones. Moto X responds to your voice, no touching necessary. (That's what she said.)" Put online, and then changed.]]>
The answer is surprisingly obvious. It’s a fact well-known to advertisers, though it’s not always appreciated by people who use Facebook or even by folks in the Web ad business: Clicks don’t matter. Whether you know it or not—even if you consider yourself skeptical of marketing—the ads you see on Facebook are working. Sponsored messages in your feed are changing your behavior—they’re getting you and your friends to buy certain products instead of others, and that’s happening despite the fact that you’re not clicking, and even if you think you’re ignoring the ads.
This isn’t conjecture. It’s science. It’s based on a remarkable set of in-depth studies that Facebook has conducted to show whether and how its users respond to ads on the site. The studies demonstrate that Facebook ads influence purchases and that clicks don’t matter. ]]>
In essence, this has set up two tiers of advertising: those we have paid for white list privileges, and those who haven't. This is heavily in Google's interests as they are the only advertiser powerful enough to get by with only text adverts - nobody else has a platform like Google search where text only adverts are enough to overcome costs and provide viability.
By using Adblock Plus as a weapon against non-Google adverts, Google is removing the ability for other players to compete on level footing. It's very similar to the idea of paying AT&T for prioritization for Google traffic, and it destroys a lot of the foundations that the web is built on. It definitely crosses into 'evil' territory for me, in the same way as paying AT&T to slow down access to Bing would be.
While [AdBlock] is just an add on, it's a bad precedent to set.]]>
Jonathan Mayer, a graduate student at Stanford, is among the most visible and technology-fluent members of the privacy constituent within the working group. And he is losing faith in the negotiations.]]>
CJ Takeaway #1: As Apple AAPL -1.83% extends its lead in mobile advertising app developers should prioritize new features and applications on iOS over Android. Note that Android tablets account for less than 1% of all mobile ad spend.
CJ Takeaway #2: It could become more difficult for other platforms such as Windows and BlackBerry to gain traction with app developers. The iPhone accounts for just over half of all mobile ad spend through MoPub.]]>
So why, exactly, is Google bringing the ban hammer down on these unfortunate souls? Well, they seem to violate section 4.4 of the Play Store developer agreement. More precisely, it violates Google (and others) making money from ads. What would be the reaction if news sites refused to serve news to people who use ad-blockers (as Ars Technica once did)? This is the same.]]>
That’s a big deal for advertisers, for which iPhones and iPads are a rich channel for mobile marketing. Without being able to identify users–or more accurately, their phones–they can’t track whether those ads produced a sale or other “conversion” such as an app installation. And they may not to spend a lot on iOS ads until they can do that again. “It’s crucial for the advertising market,” says Ravi Kamran, CEO of the apps marketing platform Trademob, which discovered the problem. “It drives the whole ecosystem.” So it's bad, except when it's not working, when it's bad. When Google does ad tracking, it's good. Except when it's not working, when… it's good.]]>
Clearly, the folks who do this for a living are shameless and awful. But this morning I learned they’re striving for even greater levels of shamelessness and actually achieving it. Today's helping of karma with a side order of belly laughs.]]>
Polonetsky recalls conversations within the online ad industry about "not wanting to do things like targeting users based on donor history" because "all of that was considered far too sensitive and likely to alarm users and set off privacy concerns."
"Today, those barriers have been leapt over with abandon," he said. Google and Facebook don't sell access to details of users' political alignment, though Facebook will allow campaigns targeted at predefined groups of voters.
Would data protection laws stop this in Europe? (Thanks @modelportfolio2003 for initial pointer.)]]>
Given its vast cash reserves and the glacial pace of business reckonings, that will sound hyperbolic. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. A dramatic exposition of what happens when growing inventory (space to put ads in) meets limited advertising numbers. Extreme, but none of it seems impossible.]]>
I present Exhibit A, which I discovered thanks to Twitter. If you’re signed in to your Google+ account and you search for pet meds, a little ad module appears at the top of the search results, with your email address already filled in. Less obvious outside the US, but just wait for the EC antitrust decision.]]>