Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

2016 By The Ad Business


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 03:32 PM

A few interesting US web ad facts from 2016:

* third party ad networks skim 60-70% of ad spend.
This means that unlike the old mantra 'half is wasted but I don't know which half" in the new advertisers can know absolutely that two thirds is wasted before having to worry about the old half and half remainder.
Note: the worst numbers are seen with programmatic ad buys.  

* remember a few years back when the 'impressions' scandal hit and advertisers learned they were paying for ads served but not seen? Heard much of that lately? Me neither. The new standard is 50% visible for 1-second. Guess what? unless an ad is fully visible for several seconds odds are it's a bot clicking it. Oh the more things change...

* Google AdWords click through traffic is significantly/largely/mostly bots; up to 98% depending on the study. The lowest number I've read is "more than 18%". The studies' average is 40%, weighted average is 61.5%.

* remember the FaceBook video streaming 'miscalculation' (as in overstating by ~75%) scandal of last year? Did you know that, for some reason it was worst in Australia at over 94% overstated? Heard much of that lately? Me neither.

* outside of China Google and FaceBook account for 72% of online ad revenue. Did you know that last year ad spending growth went primarily to Google (+23%) and FaceBook (+68%)? Did you know that for pretty much everyone else 2016 saw a 2-5% drop. As in negative compared to 2015.

* did you know that online spending growth last year was half that of 2015?

* do you remember back in 2014 when Julie Fleischer of Kraft 'caused' the impressions scandal by reporting that Kraft rejected 85% of impressions billed by ad networks?

Well this year (29-January-2017) saw Marc Pritchard of Proctor & Gamble say they will no longer pay agencies or networks that don't use industry-standard viewability metrics, fraud protection, and third-party verification. Now, his accepted metrics are pretty slack (as mentioned above) and the fraudsters are generally well ahead of the fraud defences but that third party verification ?should? hit the ad networks black boxes (looking at you FB, G) hard.
His words:

...wasting way too much time and money on a media supply chain with poor standards adoption, too many players grading their own homework, too many hidden touches and too many holes to allow criminals to rip us off.

Intriguing enough to keep an eye on at least.

* did you know that over 80% of enterprise CMO's are on record as having never seen quantifiable results from social media?

I could go on for hours. It is a nasty Mafia (aka Werewolf) game world out there.
And it all feeds the (by comparison) pure awesomeness that are my offerings. :infinite-banana: :infinite-banana: :infinite-banana:

 



#2 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3233 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:10 PM

* remember a few years back when the 'impressions' scandal hit and advertisers learned they were paying for ads served but not seen? Heard much of that lately? Me neither. The new standard is 50% visible for 1-second. Guess what? unless an ad is fully visible for several seconds odds are it's a bot clicking it. Oh the more things change...

* Google AdWords click through traffic is significantly/largely/mostly bots; up to 98% depending on the study. The lowest number I've read is "more than 18%". The studies' average is 40%, weighted average is 61.5%.


Anything more on this part which I can read? Not so much of the stats stuff but more like an exposé: How, Who, What for, on Whose behalf and all the other dirty stuff happening under the blankets. If you feel it is not proper to post here then PM.



#3 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 07:26 PM

Citations? We don't need no stinkin' citations!

* Where did the money go? Guardian buys its own ad inventory by David Pidgeon, mediatel newsline, 04-October-2016.

* Here’s Why Facebook’s Repeated Measurement Mistakes Matter by Mathew Ingram, Fortune, 09-December-2017.

* Facebook streaming numbers plummet 94% after Nielsen recalibration by Simon Canning, Mumbrella, 07-February-2017.

* P&G Tells Digital to Clean Up, Lays Down New Rules for Agencies and Ad Tech to Get Paid by Jack Neff, Advertising Age, 29-January-2017.

Note: if interested in this subject I recommend bookmarking/joining World Federation of Advertisers.

WFA is the only global organization representing the common interests of marketers. It brings together the biggest markets and marketers worldwide, representing roughly 90% of global marketing communications spend, almost US$ 900 billion annually. WFA champions responsible and effective marketing communications.

eg:
* Compendium Of Ad Fraud Knowledge For Media Investors (PDF file), World Federation of Advertisers & the Advertising Fraud Council, 2016.

* WFA Guide to Programmatic Media: What Every Advertiser Should Know about Media Markets (PDF file, 2MB), 2014.
Note: a look back never hurts.

Note: also:
* SMI - Standard Media Index

Standard Media Index provides the only clear picture on how ad dollars are being spent — from television to digital, sourcing our expenditure data directly from the leading global media buying firms. Data that covers 75% of all agency spend and is available in 15 global markets.
Actual ad spend. Not estimates.

* SMI 2016 Ad Spend Summary, Press Release, SMI, 24-January-2017.

Note: also:
* DCN - Digital Content Next

Digital Content Next is the only trade organization dedicated to serving the unique and diverse needs of high-quality digital content companies that manage trusted, direct relationships with consumers and marketers. The organization was founded in June 2001 as the Online Publishers Association (OPA).

* etc. ad nauseum. There be lots of cool industry and data sources available, some totally free, some partially, some inexpensive, and some rather. It just means stepping back from SEO and Google and looking at the real world where the money actually comes from.

 



#4 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6279 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 08:39 PM

Thanks for the report and for the links.  Very interesting.

 

Here's what I learned this year.....

 

**  Ad blockers kill between 20 and 50% of my ads.  The percentage varies enormously based upon the topic of the pages.

 

**  Mobile ads don't pay very much.  Fortunately, most of my sites still have more than 1/2 of the visitors on desktop. 

 

**  One topic area where I have been most actively writing lately has the highest percentage on mobile and the highest percentage blocking my ads.

 

**  During 2016 I believe that I was making a bundle on political ads.  My revenue was pretty good and I saw lots of political ads on the site.  Revenue fell right after the election.

 

**  Google's Adsense slider was an eye-opener for me.  I could cut off a huge percentage of my impressions without hurting my revenue.  So, instead of cutting them off, I am using DFP to show house ads that promote content and merchandise from my own retail pages.  That keeps the scummy bottomfishin' ads off of my site and promoting my own content is smarter than showing blanks.


Edited by EGOL, 18 February 2017 - 08:40 PM.


#5 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:18 AM

Ya, ad blockers are become 'da thing'; depending on who's doing the counting there are half a billion to a billion visitors who've deployed some form of ad block. Now, some of this is a bit of smoke and mirrors as the big commercial blockers do accept payment to allow some ad networks through; so the numbers are rather hazy but the effects are definitely real and definitely worsening.

Of course if the ad networks switch from scripts and third party servers to APIs and publisher servers current ad blockers would be dead in the water. As it would require giving up a good deal of control it would need much greater publisher backgrounding and behaviour accounting than can be done via algos alone; and hurt the bottom line that is still growing if slower so I don't expect this to be considered viable ... until cornered.

Given the pushback of the big advertisers against the ad networks history of, umm, creative metrics, and black box information behaviour and the users' perception of intrusion and incompatibility/inappropriateness of mobile ads either the third party networks will manage some major metamorphosis or they will be sidelined as ad agencies (or some new aggregator) on their clients behalf become the replacement middleman connecting publishers and advertisers. Some of us already deal direct, in part or whole; and our types of ads are not affected by ad blockers.

That this would pretty much kill off MFA could be viewed as a public service rather than collateral damage. :)

Given lag times far too many mobile ads load after that block has been scrolled past. Oops. If you haven't tested initial mobile ads lower, i.e. below the first screen visible, give it a try. And far too many sites jiggle and jump and spasm as all those scripts do battle; if yours isn't smooth and seamless regardless of what might be late to the party; if you haven't, as Pierre and others of us, have mentioned tested on a 2G or equivalent connection you really should. Sometimes the site that appeared fabulous becomes quite brutal.

I remember years, no decades, :(  ago now I spoke with a businessman who had grown his operation to over 20 million US (current equivalent) gross revenue, 4-million gross profit; he was exhausted with all the effort required. So he cut out the bottom two thirds of his products and related services. The result? 12 million revenue, 3-million profit and a much less stressful life. That has always been how I've viewed AdSense. Never more than two blocks so rarely un- or trash subscribed; sort of the slider effect before the slider.

As search results become increasingly 'paid' and 'house odds' I expect not only the value of third party ads to stay low but search traffic referral quality to decline. If you are not tracking page conversion rates by referrer, i.e. Google, you should be.



#6 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3233 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:34 PM

In case someone else is reading this and has the same interests as me (dirty stuff happening under the blankets) this is the one you want to read first:

Compendium Of Ad Fraud Knowledge For Media Investors (PDF file), World Federation of Advertisers & the Advertising Fraud Council, 2016

 

...and it answered 1 question I had. It seems for every dollar a publisher makes the advertiser has paid $2.50.. That's a lot of middlemen.


Edited by bobbb, 19 February 2017 - 03:53 PM.


#7 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2363 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:59 PM

Thanks for the report and for the links.  Very interesting.

 

Here's what I learned this year.....

 

**  Ad blockers kill between 20 and 50% of my ads.  The percentage varies enormously based upon the topic of the pages.

 

**  Mobile ads don't pay very much.  Fortunately, most of my sites still have more than 1/2 of the visitors on desktop. 

 

**  One topic area where I have been most actively writing lately has the highest percentage on mobile and the highest percentage blocking my ads.

 

**  During 2016 I believe that I was making a bundle on political ads.  My revenue was pretty good and I saw lots of political ads on the site.  Revenue fell right after the election.

 

**  Google's Adsense slider was an eye-opener for me.  I could cut off a huge percentage of my impressions without hurting my revenue.  So, instead of cutting them off, I am using DFP to show house ads that promote content and merchandise from my own retail pages.  That keeps the scummy bottomfishin' ads off of my site and promoting my own content is smarter than showing blanks.

As someone using adwords, and also in the local realm....it is amazing how many clicks there are on our mobile ads.  Enormous CTR's.  Cripes the ads take up all the mobile real estate!!!!    We don't pay as much for mobile ads as we do for desktop ads--> per ad.  In aggregate we pay a lot more for mobile ads than desktop.

 

....and congrats on advertising your own stuff!!!!!  Bravo!



#8 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Light Speed Member

  • 500 Posts Club
  • 784 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 05:29 PM

We don't pay as much for mobile ads as we do for desktop ads--> per ad

 

Good idea Dave. I'm gonna give that a try. See how my positions change. Frankly with my business who can really see what they need to see on a mobile device? Besides, page views are 50% lower with ads on mobile..seems to be saying something. I think they could be the low price shoppers, yet some of the ads say "high end." Younger generation (under 35, first time home buyers etc) that can't afford what I offer anyway. Champagne tastes, beer budget. Of course I haven't spent much time digging into this stuff as you have.

 

In aggregate we pay a lot more for mobile ads than desktop.

 

I am seeing that in one ad, but others have the desktop leading the way.



#9 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 07:03 PM

I've banged this drum before a few times but think it might be useful to reiterate for Ken:

Americans over 50:
* would be the 3rd largest economy in the world, if they were a country.
* control over two thirds of the wealth in the U.S.
* online, per-capita, they outspend adults under 50 2:1.
* are responsible for over half of all consumer spending.
* dominate 94% of consumer packaged goods categories.
Note: regarding last two points: they pay for a third of the goods purchased by their children/grandchildren.
AND
* will grow at ~3-times the rate of adults under 50 between now and 2030.
BUT  
* are the target for only ~10% of advertising/marketing.

 



#10 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Light Speed Member

  • 500 Posts Club
  • 784 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:19 AM

are the target for only ~10% of advertising/marketing.

 

Wow! Gotta think into that one. I wish I could eliminate the clicks in the under 35 age group.



#11 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2363 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:44 AM

 

Good idea Dave. I'm gonna give that a try. See how my positions change. Frankly with my business who can really see what they need to see on a mobile device? Besides, page views are 50% lower with ads on mobile..seems to be saying something. I think they could be the low price shoppers, yet some of the ads say "high end." Younger generation (under 35, first time home buyers etc) that can't afford what I offer anyway. Champagne tastes, beer budget. Of course I haven't spent much time digging into this stuff as you have.

 

 

I am seeing that in one ad, but others have the desktop leading the way.

 

Different strokes for different folks.   My gut is that your more serious or potentially better buyers are visiting your website via desktop.   Hardwood flooring is NOT the nearest pizza pie!!!!

 

Of course that is for you to figure out and confirm or not.

 

I've banged this drum before a few times but think it might be useful to reiterate for Ken:

Americans over 50:
* would be the 3rd largest economy in the world, if they were a country.
* control over two thirds of the wealth in the U.S.
* online, per-capita, they outspend adults under 50 2:1.
* are responsible for over half of all consumer spending.
* dominate 94% of consumer packaged goods categories.
Note: regarding last two points: they pay for a third of the goods purchased by their children/grandchildren.
AND
* will grow at ~3-times the rate of adults under 50 between now and 2030.
BUT  
* are the target for only ~10% of advertising/marketing.

 

 

and that last part.....that may well be true...but it clearly depends item for item, product for product.     We have two types of smb's.  One is geared toward younger, one is geared toward older and more affluent.  Traffic patterns are widely different and potential places for marketing advertising are VERY different.



#12 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Light Speed Member

  • 500 Posts Club
  • 784 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:57 AM

more serious or potentially better buyers

 

It's the age group...over 55 and into their 70's. I get northerners (planning new homes ect) in here in the season (now) I never see them pull out a phone to show me "this one" or that one I like. They don't use them for this. Talk and text yes.. Interesting... In about 30 minutes I have a woman and her mother flying in from Atlanta just to see the showroom, me and samples. That's a serious candidate. She works for Delta, but is taking an entire day just to see my stuff.



#13 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:08 AM

 

One is geared toward younger, one is geared toward older and more affluent.  Traffic patterns are widely different and potential places for marketing advertising are VERY different.

As I would expect.

 

The info shared in my last post is general, across the board. Every site, every business, every niche, vertical, industry is different. The strange thing is that huge gap - generally speaking - between where the money is and where marketing is targeting. Depending, I say again depending, on one's business model there at least may be a huge disconnect and so a huge competitive advantage available for the taking; the gold is just laying there waiting to be picked up.

 

Of course, even if one wants to target a specific age group (as with targeting any audience segment) one needs to identify where they congregate and how best to engage and direct and acquire. Seach engines are NOT very good at this. If SEs are a primary traffic source it becomes critical to differentiate the queries used and the directions (title, description) preferred by each target segment to force the SEs to work in your best interest.

 

And, of course, the landing pages need to appeal appropriately as well. Just as an example, what works/converts best for my English language audience is NOT what works best with the Chinese language one. And vice versa. Yet the copy (language aside) is the same for both. :)



#14 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3233 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:46 AM

 

It's the age group...over 55 and into their 70's. I get northerners (planning new homes ect) in here in the season (now) I never see them pull out a phone to show me "this one" or that one I like. They don't use them for this. Talk and text yes..

I've been saying this like forever and everyone keeps telling me no. Mobile schmobile. It's for games, tunes, videos, texting, quick answers, FB and the like. Useful but limited by a tiny screen.

 

IAMLOST:
 

* are responsible for over half of all consumer spending.
* dominate 94% of consumer packaged goods categories.
Note: regarding last two points: they pay for a third of the goods purchased by their children/grandchildren.
AND
* will grow at ~3-times the rate of adults under 50 between now and 2030.
BUT  
* are the target for only ~10% of advertising/marketing.

Does this ~10% include this third of the goods purchased by their children/grandchildren or should it?
It targets the right segment but aimed for payment by parents/grandparents. Seems to me the advertising/marketing done for these goods should be.


Edited by bobbb, 20 February 2017 - 11:57 AM.


#15 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:13 PM

Does this ~10% include this third of the goods purchased by their children/grandchildren or should it?

It targets the right segment but aimed for payment by parents/grandparents. Seems to me the advertising/marketing done for these goods should be.

The 10% - mostly - does not include the third of goods purchased for (not by) their children/grandchildren.

Heck it doesn't include the other 40% of goods directly purchased by the over 50 crowd.

 

I target as many influencers and serve on context as much as possible to aid conversion percentage. Most do not.

I offer suggestions, most are ignored or shrugged off; sometimes for good reason as business models do differ, other times, well one can lead a horse to water...



#16 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2363 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:41 PM


 

I target as many influencers and serve on context as much as possible to aid conversion percentage. Most do not.

I offer suggestions, most are ignored or shrugged off; sometimes for good reason as business models do differ, other times, well one can lead a horse to water...

 

Influencers:   We've been working on that term.  Influencers....I wonder if Iamlost uses the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, and the like??  :D    We don't.  We generally tend to use WOM as our most effective influencers.   Unfortunately for WOM to be effective it means that one has to keep creating endless WOM sponsors, each one hopefully capable of influencing 1 or more others, none of which have enormous "INFLUENCE" to a general public.

 

Overall volume of reviews are "influencers".  In the aggregate they are anonymous.  I would like bigger name influencers.  We've found it hard to find them in our niche's.



#17 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 5339 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:00 PM

Word of Mouth.
The very best form of SM advertising because it is the very best form of advertising, period.
Which is why reviews and testimonials, if done right, are are also so powerful.

Sluts 'R' Us, the celebrity queendoms built on the backs of the raspberries of raspberry porn videos?
Ummm, NO.
Ah, I say again, NO.

For a more accurate albeit back in the beginnings of my efforts with leveraging 'influencers': A (Revised) Facebook Campaign, Cre8, 10-March-2017.
earlpearl (you may know him) was first commenter: "Thanks, LOST!!! "

10 years ago! Time flies.

 

 

 

Influencers: ... Unfortunately for WOM to be effective it means that one has to keep creating endless WOM sponsors, each one hopefully capable of influencing 1 or more others, none of which have enormous "INFLUENCE" to a general public.

Note 1: not necessarily.

Note 2: remember that magazines run similar stories same time each year. And few/none notice.

:infinite-banana: :manicure: :infinite-banana:



#18 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2363 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:15 PM

Touché Lost, touché 🤡

#19 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3233 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:06 AM

Google is getting a video ad audit. The company's YouTube service will allow independent agencies to double check metrics such as viewing times. The revelation comes two weeks after Facebook agreed to undergo similar scrutiny. More digital advertisers are growing skeptical that reporting data is flawed.

 

https://www.wired.co...k-google-opens/

 

https://www.wsj.com/...erns-1487678403





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users