Can Ad Networks & Exchanges Help Increase Ad Prices (Instead of Driving Them Down)?
Is the question asked by Dorian Benkoil - Over on Poynter.org - This is a good article (well worth the read) and invites my own reply, as follows.
Tim Cadogan's solution in the "limiting of the number of airplanes flying" is surely the way to go. And technology can so easily (further) ensure, that the much talked of 'bidding wars' do occur for a desired or, targeted user/s/audience and based on all the existing kind of demographics being or, are to be used, as are currently known.
Especially when (as Cadogan predicts, in time), technologies will come along that let publishers flexibly manage ad inventory pricing in real time. But by introducing one or, two 'hard and fast rules', as follow.
Clearly divide publishers into both Premium (safe) and secondary (remnant) marketplaces. Two separate, boundaried divisions. Have a combination of bodies (IAB, OMMA, OPA etc) collectively "set" (fair, reasonable) minimum (floating?) eCPM "rate" for the Premium marketplace. Where all quality publishers involved get to enjoy with a minimum-set, payment. (As an eg, say a $5.00 eCPM)
From that point, normal efficiencies of an auction (price and availability) will always determine the end price that is or, will get to be engaged. The 'fun' of tailoring content to users, begins in earnest. And too, will (also) get to fluctuate. Quality publishers will then be rewarded on a more consistent basis. (Simply by the fact of their content consistently attracting of that certain 'desired' user/audience, and more regularly).
They can adjust pricing upwards and will do so, accordingly. The use of all forms of data in that Premium marketplace can ensure that this will/can then, safely happen. (Including the much maligned or, feared BT)
The only proviso being, is that this same "data" can ONLY be collected on users (or, 'mined'), from down in the secondary marketplace. But cannot be "used" in targeting down (in) there.
This then allows (compels) data mining Co's to then "work" in both marketplaces, but collect data (only), in that secondary field. Publishers can also get to 'control' the (those) un-desired advertisers in both marketplaces, at will.
Advertisers (and big Agencies) wanting to guard their own "special sauce" (of or, relating to their own data), will (not only be encouraged to), but will then be virtually forced to "shop" for users in that lower (open) auction based marketplace.
One, where a 'no minimum price' is set or, exists. To then apply their 'magic' data across the premium Exchanges, for a more quality targeting. This will then almost eliminate a user (who just may happen to regularly visit a so called 'unsafe' site - and considered by many, as remnant), of ever then being (behaviorally) targeted in his/her visit to any of the premium sites, when being regularly used by that user. And again, publishers can also 'control' the (those) un-desired advertisers in both marketplaces, at will.
An independent Co working directly with or, between Exchanges (providing 'inter-operability') can then adopt (build-in) technology that ensures this not only occurs, but is fully transparent to all it's (both advertiser and publisher), partner users. - And ensure BT (behavioral targeting) can then, only get to occur in that premium marketplace. (So, all sites, deemed as being as 'unsafe' can only operate in the secondary market.)
All (other) publisher's inventory (both premium or, other) can or, should have that flexibility to be able to choose to 'work' (or, sell) within (or, across) that secondary marketplace, like-wise. (Ensures a consistent and a dense enough or, broader range/quality in the collection of data. (With premium publishers, having a right of being able to sell in both marketplaces). www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp...