News of the Day

By Adam Glantz   |   Posted at 6:54 am on February 10, 2010   |   No Comments

Google Disses the Yield Optimizers

This morning, Google released information on how publishers maximize revenues using the DoubleClick Ad Exchange as well as other Google products. The post by Neal Mohan, VP of Product Management, on the Google blog includes a one sheeter. View the post here. And, download the one-sheeter here. There’s not much that’s new here except for an explanation on dynamic allocation. Interesting that the one-sheeter sticks it in the eye of “traditional ‘yield management.’” They put ‘yield management’ in quotes. Google is clearly positioning DART For Publishers (DFP) as the yield optimization solution of the future as its “dynamic allocation” allows publishers to set minimum floors with exchange buyers when managing between direct sold inventory, ad networks or buyer relationships managed through DFP. So, if you’re a publisher, you get to test the market for your impression, compare it with your other relationships and then sell wherever you want.

Read More: AdExchanger

comScore Releases 2009 U.S. Digital Year in Review

comScore presents the 2009 U.S. Digital Year in Review, its annual report on the prevailing digital trends of the past year and their implications for the future. The report looks across the digital landscape to highlight the industry’s leading stories of the year:

  • Which consumer trends dominated the digital media scene in 2009?
  • How did the economic environment effect e-commerce spending throughout the year?
  • What is the state of the digital advertising market?
  • How has the popularity of Hulu influenced the consumption of online video?
  • How are market enablers such as unlimited data plans, 3G penetration and smartphone adoption driving mobile media usage?

Read More:

AdSafe Media on Transparency Into Display Ad Inventory and the iFrame Challenge Given your observation of a decrease in non-transparent inventory in Q4, what is your sense of momentum for transparency into inventory?  Is UGC becoming more or less transparent? Any other momentum stories you can discuss?

DH: We see inventory non-transparency (meaning the lack of real time, source level disclosure of the URL on which an ad is to be served) as a large and growing concern in the display markets, especially with the recent increase in “audience buying” via networks and exchanges. Lack of source level transparency is primarily an unfortunate side effect of inventory “daisy-chaining” (or inter-network reselling) that currently helps facilitate high inventory liquidity in the display marketplaces. As more advertisers begin using these platforms as a primary buying channel, it’s essential that we as an industry balance the positives of liquidity with the risks of not knowing where an ad is being placed. In short, liquidity is good because it equates to more efficient markets and greater inventory utilization; non-transparency is bad because it results in more brand safety risks to advertisers in the form of bad ad placements, and thus less dollars online.

Read More: AdExchanger

Leave a Reply

ABOUT's core mission is to maintain a community inside digital media (in 'dot' media). We will keep you informed of the most important news stories, discuss issues and opportunities facing our industry and provide those who are working in the trenches a vehicle to voice their own opinions.


facebook twitter linkedin rss