,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Okay, so I read the underlying piece. There’s a major conceptual problem with. Behavioral targeting is simply not very effect in ROI terms. That’s one issue. But the point of the article is that behavioral targeting/tracking isn’t paying off for publishers. This is correct ...
2/ but misses a couple essential points. According to the study, advertisers are willing to pay 2.5x for behavioral. Only a tiny sliver of that premium goes to publishers. This fact has nothing to do with behavioral. It’s a monopoly effect of consolidation in the ad industry ...
3/ full stop. Another point is missed. Publishers get a tiny sliver of that premium, according to the study and the article. But that misses the key point. The power of publishers is that they, in theory, have hold over particular audiences. TPM has educated progressive ...
4/ professionals. Field and Stream has sportsmen and people into fishing, etc etc. That’s the logic of their ad business. But the point of behavioral is that advertisers don’t need to pay a given publications rates to access certain audiences. They can follow those ...
5/ audiences wherever they go through tracking and behaviorist targeting. This has two structural effects. One is to reallocate the premium publishers get through holds on particular audiences and reallocates it to ad tech. It also lowers rates in general because ...
6/ publishers have less market power to defend rate structures. Ad tech/platforms don’t care as much because they’re a scale play looking for consolidation. What all of this tells you is that yes, behavioral/targeting isn’t benefiting publishers at all. Indeed, if you ...
7/ know the structural dynamics it’s taken from them multiples more revenue from the tiny premium they receive. But is monopoly power and ad tech, nothing really to deal with behavioral targeting one way or another.
