I’m sure Kaiser Permanente, Ford and Oral-B will be very happy to see their ads showing up all next to each other, having a great time there not only together but also at the very bottom of the page on 50 Cent’s website, Thisis50.com.

Now of course it’s probably not a big deal since there are already two 160×600’s and a 728×90 ad above this one in better view. They’re not actually paying a lot for the ads at the bottom of the page, are they?

Oh did I mention the ads also rotate every 60 seconds? Right now things have changed I’m looking at three Palm Pre Plus ads and another two Oral-B ads (I guess that’s what they mean by showing “3 ads per 24 hours per person”). A small example that illustrates a lot of what is wrong with display advertising — it would be like billboards along the highway if anyone who owned any property could put up as many as they liked.

Ooops by the time I wrote this, I saw ANOTHER two Oral-B ads, a Scion ad, an eBay ad, and a Bestbuy/Windows 7 ad. Thanks Traffic Marketplace, Specific Media and Advertising.com! What a great way to make money and offer incredible consumer value at the same time (not). It’s one thing to ferret out bad sites and fake impressions, but here is a problem that is less about the publisher in my opinion than it is about the ad networks’ incompetence.

And their CPM number seems very high. See release here.

Based on my estimates, I’d guess they came in about 50% on the impressions numbers and about doubled the CPM. But then what do I know?

My guess is around 24.1 billion impressions a day whereas theirs comes in around 12.2 billion a day (or around a trillion in the US for the first quarter). $2.48 as a CPM is high; the true number is quite probably in the $1.00 to $1.50 range. Especially when you look at Facebook - the CPMs there for an ad unit are in the $0.20 range on the higher end and if you look at three ads or max four ads per page, that’s $0.60-$0.80 or so.

Would love other people’s thoughts on this, back of the envelope or not.

Mozilla has a lot of interesting information and statistics about installed plug-ins, and one of my personal favorites to examine is AdBlock Plus by Wladimir Palant. Here is the stats page for it. Looking at a chart over the last 12 months, the number of active installs is fairly stable except for times like Christmas when a lot of people are seemingly not at their computers. Weekly ebbs seem pretty reasonable as well:

Right now there are 10.63 million live installs (of 78 million-odd total), with 3.5 million of those in the US, or 33%, followed by Germany at 2.1mm (19%) and Russia at 1.01mm (10%). France trails a bit further behind with 813k or 8%. The most common OS is Windows but Linux is right up there which clearly also adds to the fact of this being Firefox, to make it a far less mainstream crowd that our Internet Explorer group. It’s geeky.

While these numbers are significant they are not huge (about the size of the 400th biggest US website or so at the 3.5mm mark, if you believe the Quantcast figures) and no immediate looming threat to the advertising market. The Adblock product, on Firefox and with some configuration needed, is simply not a mainstream product. Me wonders though what some of the catalysts would/might be to make this a more mainstream phenomenon.

I’m not going to let you run your adserving tags and rotate creatives on your end when I have a CPA campaign I’m running for you. I have to optimize the ad mix on my side. So don’t ask.  Happy to put whatever you want into our tags for you - campaign verification, pixels, Twizzlers…

I tried to access Twitter on the Freefi/Jiwire network here at the Oakland Airport, and kept getting weird page refreshes from the bar at the top of the screen that loads banner ads, a small and a 728×90. The thing that sucks though is that at least half the large ads and all the small ads seem to be PSAs or house ads. This is a common issue with high-frequency websites, but then again, this is not an unplanned-for situation with a service like this. Also the PSAs are interspersed with paying ads which leads me to believe that their ad network rotation is horribly misconfigured at best.

Worse - a lot of sites just won’t load - like the twitter problems above - and amazon.com is inaccessible probably because of javascript conflicts with the shitty browser bar. The pop up window for inserting images into wordpress is also broken by it.

I’ve written about this before about this service here. I would much rather pay than deal with this crap, especially for public service ads that are making nobody any money. I wonder how last this company will last with this kind of revenue model. It looks like Collective Media is providing some of the underlying advertising.

I checked out Freefi’s twitter page which hasn’t been updated since November 2009. They are apparently located in “Wooldland Hills, CA” [sic]. I’m going to tweet this post to Freefi.com and their 12 followers, and encourage them to respond :-), once I can get onto twitter from my blackberry of course.

There’s always something fun about real-time data, especially when it’s related to money like this map of where Chitika is making money right now in the US.

I’m amazed that a senior executive at a major ad company like The Rubicon Project would write something like this (in their Q3 update):

“Many of these platforms ultimately value all inventory equally, from the New York Times or Sports Illustrated, to a niche Wordpress sports blog,” [JT] Batson [,Rubicon’s EVP of Revenue and Global Development] said. “And for certain ads, that is OK. But publishers correctly argue that a reader seeing an ad against the trusted brand of a well-known site is more valuable than a reader seeing the ad on a site they don’t fully trust.”

Referencing the “agency-backed buying platforms” which presumably encompasses all demand-side aggregators. Any company on the demand side of the display ad business (agency-backed or not) that does value all inventory equally is surely going to fail. Having a set of well-known branded sites in a campaign is certainly going to create more confidence for brand-sensitive advertisers, but that is of course one of many determinants of the value of inventory. Audience, position on page, user frequency, number of other ads on the page — these are all certainly factors in valuing ad inventory.

As I mentioned on CPMa’s blog recently, some very well-known publisher brands appear to be giving themselves liberally to anyone with an ad to show. Those in our business who have real technology and a real understanding of media know that the way we make this business work is to get past the irrational, emotional responses that “nobody cares about my brand” and bring data to the table to support our suppositions.

I was trying to post a comment to this story on Mediapost about newspapers arguing for behavioral targeting online, but it crapped out on me. So i figured I’d post it here:

I believe there should be more disclosure around BT. I also believe if done properly it can provide a lot of lift for advertisers and the ability for publishers to make more money and have a more sustainable business online. There are, however, double standards as applied to online advertising versus what happens in the offline world. When I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times (or most publications), they make money on selling my name and address (PII) and the fact that I’m a subscriber to various third parties. When I get one of these third-party direct mailings sent to me at home based on my address and data-matched to other information about me in various databases out there, I don’t get to find out who gave it up and how.

Consumers already ignore irrelevant mailings offline and irrelevant ads online, and with silicon being cheaper than paper and BT being non-PII, why do we devote so much more attention it seems to this online side of the equation and make it extra hard for the publishers to stay in business?

Don’t try to add yahoo.com as a website targeting option in Adwords (placement targeting) or the new Google/Doubleclick exchange. If you try to add yahoo.com to a campaign you will see a screenshot similar to this.

Google will allow you to add all other 199 sites in the Quantcast top 200, including Microsoft.com, Bing.com, Facebook.com and others (even google.com). Looks like some engineers were having some fun. It seems silly to single one site out among a large variety of ones, friend and foe alike.

Great piece by Jay Weintraub borders on rant but makes very good points as he lets rip on Google. Alas it is true but there is a lot to criticize.

Anytime I or any individual criticizes Google, it requires a delicate balance, because a single voice against an established system always struggles not to sound like whiny and scorned. When a system becomes ingrained and accepted, dissenting voices get marginalized and those with dissent often relegated to the same category as conspiracy theorists.

As Jay points out, Google still doesn’t get advertising, despite hype to the contrary and billions in revenue. But that as they say, is a story for another day.