SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43
  1. #1
    SitePoint Guru defiance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Which ads network accept publisher...

    Hi

    Do you know any ads network that accept publisher, not a single site publisher, but another ads network publishers?

    Like CJ accept casale as their publishers?

    Is it even possible?

    Just a thought.
    Thanks

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard CLKeenan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,266
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    huh? do you mean like share userbases?

    why in the world would they do that?
    -Chris

  3. #3
    Level 8 Chinese guy Archbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in this vast universe
    Posts
    3,741
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, he doesn't mean that.

    he means if like Cj would accept casale's applicaton to join their affiliate program. I don't see why not actually, it would be a beneficial relationship since the two are no direct competitors.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Guru defiance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob
    Well, he doesn't mean that.

    he means if like Cj would accept casale's applicaton to join their affiliate program. I don't see why not actually, it would be a beneficial relationship since the two are no direct competitors.

    Yes,
    that is what i meant

    Thanks for clearing that.


    Yea..
    Do you think they would actually do that??

    or am i just asking the dumbest question ever asked?

  5. #5
    SitePoint Guru RevenuePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    877
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most network donít accept such things unless you have established reputation but bluetime and rightmedia do in some cases.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Archbob
    I don't see why not actually, it would be a beneficial relationship since the two are no direct competitors.
    But CJ is owned by VC which is a direct competitor.

  7. #7
    Jeremy Maddock WealthStream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess there are some situations where an agreement like this would be beneficial, but there aren't any big "alliances" like this currently in the industry that I know of.
    -- Jeremy Maddock
    SEOMix.com - Search Engine Optimization Tips
    My Blog - Business, tech, and politics from a webmaster's perspective

  8. #8
    SitePoint Guru RevenuePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    877
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are wrong they are just on purpose kept under low profile, I personally know about number of them!

    Quote Originally Posted by WealthStream
    I guess there are some situations where an agreement like this would be beneficial, but there aren't any big "alliances" like this currently in the industry that I know of.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Guru defiance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RevenuePilot
    You are wrong they are just on purpose kept under low profile, I personally know about number of them!

    I would believe so..
    The dark side of the business...

    Do their publishers know about this?
    That they are serving other network ads?

    Thanks

  10. #10
    SitePoint Guru RevenuePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    877
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well this is really not a dark side or anything like that, its just something that certain people in the industry know about. My guess is that most of the times publishers have no idea about this but in reality most wouldnít care about this anyways since at the end of the day you pick the banner network which pays you good and has quality ads. So even if they resell but still pay you good and have quality ads why would you care?

  11. #11
    SitePoint Guru defiance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RevenuePilot
    Well this is really not a dark side or anything like that, its just something that certain people in the industry know about. My guess is that most of the times publishers have no idea about this but in reality most wouldnít care about this anyways since at the end of the day you pick the banner network which pays you good and has quality ads. So even if they resell but still pay you good and have quality ads why would you care?

    Fair enough....


    And why would one ad network want to have this kind of relationship with another ad network?

  12. #12
    SitePoint Guru RevenuePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    877
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    more distribution = more revenue : )

  13. #13
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Sitepointers,

    This is a really interesting thread, and something we think a lot about at Right Media. I just wanted to weigh in with a couple thoughts.

    Sounds like the core questions are;

    1. Why would networks share distribution with direct competitors?
    2. What should end publishers do about this?

    Intermediation has been going on in our industry pretty much since the beginning. Consider an example. At any given time, Network A may have more advertiser demand than supply, while Network B may have supply than demand. Both problems can be solved by Network A buying from Network B. Network A gets more revenue b/c they deliver on campaigns they can't deliver on their own inventory. Network B gets more revenue because they are able to sell space that would have been sold for less, or gone unsold.

    From the network perspective it makes a lot of sense.

    It's a little trickier from the Publisher perspective.

    Network B will argue that their publishers make more revenue than they would have if they hadn't sold space to network A. This is true. BUT, the publisher might argue that they would make more money still if they had a relationship directly with Network A, and got the buy directly from the seller. This is also true...and that's the quandary.

    Networks generally do their best to create efficient markets, but even the largest networks do not get on every ad-buy. Sales force, relationships, market perception all drive buyers to different sellers.

    Market theory tells us that the broader the market, the more efficient the market will be. Networks share distribution as a means to broaden the market, and to find the efficiencies in the non-overlapping ad buys. However, the way this has historically been done is quite inefficient for the end publisher.

    Back to the example.

    If I'm a publisher who has a relationship with Network B, I'm likely to notice ads from Network A serving on my site. My logic would likely be, well if Network A has enough demand to be buying from Network B, then I should consider moving my inventory to Network A. This makes a ton of sense. Assuming that Network A is taking a 30-40% cut of the ad-buy it is brokering to Network B, that means diluted earnings to me, the end publisher. Logically, I'm going to try to move my relationship to Network A.

    But here's the rub. What happens when market dynamics shift and Network B has more demand than supply and Network A has more supply than demand. Roles are reversed, and after going through the effort of shifting my inventory from Network B to Network A, I'm now faced with shifting it back. It's a lot like trying to momentum trade stocks. You run the risk of sub-optimizing by missing the supply and demand shift that occur in real-time.

    It's a tricky problem.

    What a publisher really wants is the ability to have a relationship with both network A and network B (and networks C, D and E as well) and to have access to their combined advertiser reach. In an ideal market, inventory will flow seamlessly based on the real-time demand economics of both partners and the ad-impression will be sold to the highest bidder on each ad-call.

    In order for this to happen, our market is going to have to start behaving a lot more like the financial markets. What I'm talking about is single platform efficiency - the ability to see all the bidders for each impression at the time of the ad-call, and determine for each unique ad call who should receive the ad. It's too easy to say that intermediation is inefficient. In fact, intermediation is efficient in almost any market (when was the last time you bought a stock directly from another seller?). It's how we intermediate that has to change.

    The solution to the problem involves both a technological and business process innovation. And I better stop now before I start breaking self-promotion rules.

    -Michael Walrath
    CEO, Right Media

  14. #14
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the example given above... isn't it Casale's job to get as much quality distribution for their advertisers as possible? And if so, why not buy from another network?

    Similarly, it's CJ's job to find the highest paying advertisers for their publishers. If Casale can afford to pay for it (and their ads are high quality and they pay their bills on time and so forth) why not sell them inventory?

    The ugly alternative to this would be a world in which one network wins and can then assert total leverage over both advertisers and publishers. In this world, they don't have to let other networks in, even if it would be better for publishers if they did... and then we end up with less efficiency, lower CPMs, and anti-trust suits.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bokelley
    In the example given above... isn't it Casale's job to get as much quality distribution for their advertisers as possible? And if so, why not buy from another network?

    Similarly, it's CJ's job to find the highest paying advertisers for their publishers. If Casale can afford to pay for it (and their ads are high quality and they pay their bills on time and so forth) why not sell them inventory?
    Yes, absolutely - which is why I say this makes sense for both networks.

    Quote Originally Posted by bokelley
    The ugly alternative to this would be a world in which one network wins and can then assert total leverage over both advertisers and publishers. In this world, they don't have to let other networks in, even if it would be better for publishers if they did... and then we end up with less efficiency, lower CPMs, and anti-trust suits.
    Yup, that's right. That world will never exist though, and it shouldn't. No one network can be as efficient as the broader market. I'm not suggesting that there should be 1 network. I'm suggesting that there will always be lots of networks and there are better ways for publishers to work with many networks to take advantage of the volume of intermedaries in the market.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Great post Mwalrath. I think I knew and assumed that stuff, but it is a great explination post for other users. For that I tip my cap to you.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Guru defiance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 321web
    Great post Mwalrath. I think I knew and assumed that stuff, but it is a great explination post for other users. For that I tip my cap to you.
    Second that

    I think you have answered my curiosity for making this thread.
    Thanks a lot.


  18. #18
    SitePoint Guru RevenuePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    877
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Michael can you please tell more about your network without using any hype words such as creating efficient marketplace, etc.. since thatís all I was able to hear from your reps. How exactly is your network different from others, what is the benefit for companies such as adtegrity using your platform, etc..?




    Quote Originally Posted by MWalrath
    Hey Sitepointers,

    This is a really interesting thread, and something we think a lot about at Right Media. I just wanted to weigh in with a couple thoughts.

    Sounds like the core questions are;

    1. Why would networks share distribution with direct competitors?
    2. What should end publishers do about this?

    Intermediation has been going on in our industry pretty much since the beginning. Consider an example. At any given time, Network A may have more advertiser demand than supply, while Network B may have supply than demand. Both problems can be solved by Network A buying from Network B. Network A gets more revenue b/c they deliver on campaigns they can't deliver on their own inventory. Network B gets more revenue because they are able to sell space that would have been sold for less, or gone unsold.

    From the network perspective it makes a lot of sense.

    It's a little trickier from the Publisher perspective.

    Network B will argue that their publishers make more revenue than they would have if they hadn't sold space to network A. This is true. BUT, the publisher might argue that they would make more money still if they had a relationship directly with Network A, and got the buy directly from the seller. This is also true...and that's the quandary.

    Networks generally do their best to create efficient markets, but even the largest networks do not get on every ad-buy. Sales force, relationships, market perception all drive buyers to different sellers.

    Market theory tells us that the broader the market, the more efficient the market will be. Networks share distribution as a means to broaden the market, and to find the efficiencies in the non-overlapping ad buys. However, the way this has historically been done is quite inefficient for the end publisher.

    Back to the example.

    If I'm a publisher who has a relationship with Network B, I'm likely to notice ads from Network A serving on my site. My logic would likely be, well if Network A has enough demand to be buying from Network B, then I should consider moving my inventory to Network A. This makes a ton of sense. Assuming that Network A is taking a 30-40% cut of the ad-buy it is brokering to Network B, that means diluted earnings to me, the end publisher. Logically, I'm going to try to move my relationship to Network A.

    But here's the rub. What happens when market dynamics shift and Network B has more demand than supply and Network A has more supply than demand. Roles are reversed, and after going through the effort of shifting my inventory from Network B to Network A, I'm now faced with shifting it back. It's a lot like trying to momentum trade stocks. You run the risk of sub-optimizing by missing the supply and demand shift that occur in real-time.

    It's a tricky problem.

    What a publisher really wants is the ability to have a relationship with both network A and network B (and networks C, D and E as well) and to have access to their combined advertiser reach. In an ideal market, inventory will flow seamlessly based on the real-time demand economics of both partners and the ad-impression will be sold to the highest bidder on each ad-call.

    In order for this to happen, our market is going to have to start behaving a lot more like the financial markets. What I'm talking about is single platform efficiency - the ability to see all the bidders for each impression at the time of the ad-call, and determine for each unique ad call who should receive the ad. It's too easy to say that intermediation is inefficient. In fact, intermediation is efficient in almost any market (when was the last time you bought a stock directly from another seller?). It's how we intermediate that has to change.

    The solution to the problem involves both a technological and business process innovation. And I better stop now before I start breaking self-promotion rules.

    -Michael Walrath
    CEO, Right Media

  19. #19
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RevenuePilot
    Michael can you please tell more about your network without using any hype words such as creating efficient marketplace, etc.. since thatís all I was able to hear from your reps. How exactly is your network different from others, what is the benefit for companies such as adtegrity using your platform, etc..?
    I'll do my best not to use hype, but I do think those words have an exact meaning - and that's what we mean by them. Anyway, here goes:

    We are not just an ad-network. We provide a technology platform called Yield Manager which allows advertisers, publishers and networks to seamlessly buy and sell advertising in the first truly open exchange for interactive advertising. We run our Right Media ad network on this platform, as do several other major ad networks. The exchange model ensures that advertisers can find the value they are looking for from each ad impression, and that the publisher can maximize eCPM.

    When another ad-network uses our YieldManager platform for ad-management they are effectively able to "link" to other networks, publishers and advertisers who also use the platform (presuming the business details can be agreed upon.)

    What YM does is make the relationships between networks, buyers and sellers more efficient by reacting seamlessly to changes in buy-side demand and sell-side supply. The guiding principle behind this is that everyone wins when advertisers get better reach and ROI and publishers get better eCPM.

    One of the biggest challenges for us is to differentiate this approach to publishers who think of us as just an ad-network. While it's true that we operate an ad-network business - we strongly encourage our publisher partners to use YieldManager to create more demand for their inventory by making buyers and networks compete on a level playing field for their inventory (even if that means we get to sell less of it).

    I hope that this is helpful.

    -Mike

  20. #20
    SitePoint Guru defiance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United states
    Posts
    663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MWalrath
    I'll do my best not to use hype, but I do think those words have an exact meaning - and that's what we mean by them. Anyway, here goes:

    We are not just an ad-network. We provide a technology platform called Yield Manager which allows advertisers, publishers and networks to seamlessly buy and sell advertising in the first truly open exchange for interactive advertising. We run our Right Media ad network on this platform, as do several other major ad networks. The exchange model ensures that advertisers can find the value they are looking for from each ad impression, and that the publisher can maximize eCPM.

    When another ad-network uses our YieldManager platform for ad-management they are effectively able to "link" to other networks, publishers and advertisers who also use the platform (presuming the business details can be agreed upon.)

    What YM does is make the relationships between networks, buyers and sellers more efficient by reacting seamlessly to changes in buy-side demand and sell-side supply. The guiding principle behind this is that everyone wins when advertisers get better reach and ROI and publishers get better eCPM.

    One of the biggest challenges for us is to differentiate this approach to publishers who think of us as just an ad-network. While it's true that we operate an ad-network business - we strongly encourage our publisher partners to use YieldManager to create more demand for their inventory by making buyers and networks compete on a level playing field for their inventory (even if that means we get to sell less of it).

    I hope that this is helpful.

    -Mike
    So, network can also join the marketplace?

    This seems to be promising.
    Publishers, Advertisers, network in one place, will it affect the revenue?

    Thank

  21. #21
    SitePoint Guru RevenuePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    877
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mike thanks for the explanation!



    Quote Originally Posted by MWalrath
    I'll do my best not to use hype, but I do think those words have an exact meaning - and that's what we mean by them. Anyway, here goes:

    We are not just an ad-network. We provide a technology platform called Yield Manager which allows advertisers, publishers and networks to seamlessly buy and sell advertising in the first truly open exchange for interactive advertising. We run our Right Media ad network on this platform, as do several other major ad networks. The exchange model ensures that advertisers can find the value they are looking for from each ad impression, and that the publisher can maximize eCPM.

    When another ad-network uses our YieldManager platform for ad-management they are effectively able to "link" to other networks, publishers and advertisers who also use the platform (presuming the business details can be agreed upon.)

    What YM does is make the relationships between networks, buyers and sellers more efficient by reacting seamlessly to changes in buy-side demand and sell-side supply. The guiding principle behind this is that everyone wins when advertisers get better reach and ROI and publishers get better eCPM.

    One of the biggest challenges for us is to differentiate this approach to publishers who think of us as just an ad-network. While it's true that we operate an ad-network business - we strongly encourage our publisher partners to use YieldManager to create more demand for their inventory by making buyers and networks compete on a level playing field for their inventory (even if that means we get to sell less of it).

    I hope that this is helpful.

    -Mike

  22. #22
    fad (n): a craze; interest... Fahd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    India/US - Depends!
    Posts
    2,737
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I feel the general publishers perception about rightmedias yield manager technology is as follows (or maybe I'm speaking just for myself!)

    Great concept in theory, but in reality publishers end up with poor sub-par net eCPMs. (This is since the switch to YM; before when we used to login through manage.rightmedia.com eCPMs were far better.)

  23. #23
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The concept is great. Its sort of, in my view, a trading floor for internet advertising. I don't think that it will ever reach fruitation unless you open this up as a seperate entity and focus on getting all the major advertising agencies involved. If they know that your running an advertising network yourself, that might scare them away because they might feel that you have to much control over the environment and might take advantage in one way shape or form.

    My opinion is closing down the network and focusing on yield manager. If that becomes an effective tool for internet advertising then in the future you can charge a small fee for publishers to join and possibly larger fee for advertising agencies to join.

    When your working directly with a supply and demand market, such as the one your purposing, it could directly change the market for the better. You will make advertising agencies compete, which will help everyone, and you will also make the good publishers stand out from those whom are not getting good click-thru rates etc. You would basically take the market from a command structure to a capitalistic structure.

    Thats just my two cents, i'm sure this would make an extremely good thread.

  24. #24
    fad (n): a craze; interest... Fahd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    India/US - Depends!
    Posts
    2,737
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah but they already do have strategic partnerships or simple intermediation arrangements with most networks...a short list off the top of my head from what I could make out...(I could be absolutely wrong!)

    MaxOnline
    Advertising.com
    Adtegrity
    Revenue.net

  25. #25
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok, a few questions here I'd like to address - apologies in advance for the length of this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fahd
    Great concept in theory, but in reality publishers end up with poor sub-par net eCPMs. (This is since the switch to YM; before when we used to login through manage.rightmedia.com eCPMs were far better.)
    Yield Manager will increase your CPM, but you do need to use it as designed. This means setting up other networks through YM so that there is a dynamic auction on every ad impression. Our team is available to help you with this. It's an alternative to chaining that requires less work, and increases eCPM.

    Quote Originally Posted by DreamTitan
    The concept is great. Its sort of, in my view, a trading floor for internet advertising. I don't think that it will ever reach fruitation unless you open this up as a seperate entity and focus on getting all the major advertising agencies involved. If they know that your running an advertising network yourself, that might scare them away because they might feel that you have to much control over the environment and might take advantage in one way shape or form.

    My opinion is closing down the network and focusing on yield manager. If that becomes an effective tool for internet advertising then in the future you can charge a small fee for publishers to join and possibly larger fee for advertising agencies to join.
    We agonized over this. On the one hand you're right - initially other networks were reluctant to work with us. The basic objection was - if you're the platform provider and a competing network how can you be unbiased. the reality here is that the numbers can't lie. If we're not selecting the highest paying ad on every ad-call it will be obvious. Our partners realize that we bring more demand (advertisers) and distribution (inventory) to the marketplace by continuing to operate a media network, and they make more money because of it. This issue was a perception issue early on - which is really non-existent today. We now have over 1000 publishers and networks running the Yield Manager platform, including some of the largest ad-networks in the world.

    We don't yell from the mountain top too much, but to give you a sense of where we are on the road to critical mass - we'll do well over 20 Billion impressions in the Yield Manager marketplace this month. This is up from about 3 billion in March of 2005.

    -Mike


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •