Talk:Online advertising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Internet marketing)
Jump to: navigation, search

Online marketing platform[edit]

I'd like to propose merging Online marketing platform here. It's a short, unreferenced spam magnet, talking about what appears to be simply online marketing. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Change News Feed Ads to Native Advertising[edit]

The correct title for the "news feed ads" section under display advertising, is Native advertising. Everything it describes is native advertising and the correct term should be used to avoid ambiguity. native ads wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsguru (talkcontribs) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Programmatic Media article - delete, merge?[edit]

The first of those articles just came up in a discussion at WP:AN/I#Programmatic Media. It seems to have much overlap with other online advertising articles, as does Online Target Advertising. Merge? Delete? Send both of those to AfD? Comments?

(On an unrelated note this Gizmodo article[1] has a readable explanation of how online advertising works, including all the bidding and intermediaries. Could be useful as a guide to making this subject more understandable.) John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Article set improvement[edit]

The discussion at the AfD for Programmatic Media indicated that the Online advertising area needs an article more accessible to the general reader. Somewhere, we need something which describes what happens when the user clicks on a link to a page with ads. All that tracking, bidding, ad selection, and delivery is covered across multiple articles in Wikipedia, but there's no overview. The Gizmodo article above is such an overview, and drawing from that, with new graphics, might be helpful. There are other articles on how online advertising works, but most of them are aimed at advertisers. See, for example, these videos on the digital advertising ecosystem: [2] [3]. The Internet Advertising Bureau has a good animated overview video.[4] Wikipedia needs something as understandable. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Added some images which attempt to summarize the IAB's description of the process. These are all SVG files; they can be edited in any SVG editor. Some of the arrowheads point in the wrong direction when viewed in Mozilla. They're correct in Inkscape, and it's not yet clear whether the browser or the editor is at fault. Formatting fixes to follow. John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The reversed arrowheads are due to a bug in the Wikimedia system's server-side renderer. The SVG file is correct, but the PNG created by the server is wrong. Filed Wikimedia bug: [5]. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
All arrowheads now pointing in correct directions. Refresh page if you see a problem. John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Reworked ad exchange, supply-side platform and demand-side platform by adding a graphic to show where they fit in the system, and marked this article as the main article on the subject. John Nagle (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Who pays for advertising data transfer?[edit]

I viewed this article to clear up the question of who pays for advertising data but did not find an answer. When I view an online advert is the data displayed deducted from the data I have left to use under my data plan? I understand the need for websites to make money from advertising but wonder whether I should pay for it to be shown on my computer. Do ISPs deduct advertising data they carry from consumers' bills? Perhaps this question could be addressed under a new heading on the main page.truthordare (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"When I view an online advert is the data displayed deducted from the data I have left to use under my data plan?" Generally, yes. John Nagle (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on pending change[edit]

Concerning this revert by RunnyAmiga of Bharathrajaeie's changes; not only was every word unsourced, it seemed entirely copy-pasted from this post on "smartinsights", which licenses its posts under CC-BY-NC-ND, prohibiting derivative works ("If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material."), so apparently incompatible with Wikipedia. So the material might not be (re)usable even if a source is provided. ~ benzband (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Benzband: Wow, thank you for doing this legwork. I can admit that I'm terrible about trying to suss out copyvios, even in situations like this where Bharathrajaeie didn't even try to hide it. I just warned them and hopefully that'll be that. RunnyAmigatalk 18:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not my favourite sentence[edit]

Consumers view online advertising as an unwanted distraction with few benefits and have increasingly turned to ad blocking for a variety of reasons.

  • blanket view of consumers
  • some people profess to watching the Superbowl just to see the ads; it's the blunderbuss nature that turns advertising into an unwanted distraction
  • increasingly turned to — as written by every tech journalist with six deadlines per day
  • for a variety of reasons — buh bye, cogency

How about we try something more informative?

I'm just spit-balling here to suggest a different tact:

Online advertising took on its present shape at the height of the browser wars during the Dot-com bubble of 1997–2001, a period notorious for its Wild West departure from the staid norms of traditional print and broadcast media.

Three technologies gain prominence during that era substantially altered the balance of power between the content creator and the content consumer: Macromedia Flash Player, and a pair of unrelated technologies with similar names, Java and JavaScript, each of which provided novel degrees of interactivity and delegated control, at a time in the history of computing where the home PC was gaining multimedia capabilities by leaps and bounds, combined with the broadband revolution augmenting the deliver of rich content.

A race to the bottom soon developed among the least ethical content providers aimed to ensnare the unwary consumer—many of whom had very little experience or understanding of this new and face-paced technology—in an inescapable house of mirrors in which pop-up ads would rematerialize faster than a non-technical user could manage to close unwanted windows, rendering what had formerly been viewed as a productivity appliance (the home PC) unusable for its original purpose.

With no mechanism of formal complaint to industry oversight or central control of the Internet (which famously doesn't exist) consumers were left to their own wits and resources to avoid becoming ensnared by aggressively toxic advertising tactics. An industry of browser extensions took shape, beginning with simple blacklists which evolved over time to become sophisticated ad blockers.

A core problem with the technologies used to distribute interactive content is that the user has no guarantee the content is well behaved until it already passed through your front door and has helped itself to your couch, your Cheezies, and your liquor cabinet, Uncle Buck style. Increasingly, consumers have come to the realization that not letting Uncle Buck into your house in the first place is the most effective strategy at enforcing house rules of guest etiquette.

From the industry side, this strategy has the unfortunate bycatch of depriving legitimate content of a viable revenue model, yet the industry has been slow to enact a code of advertising conduct where empowers the user to specify and enforce their own standard of house etiquette.

Instead, industry powerhouses like Google and Facebook have evolved into advertising networks with internal controls over the advertising delivered, though these controls do not always prevent malware from being delivered to the trusting consumer. When this happens, the consumer has essentially no recourse for damages. The third party advertiser is hard to track down, typically far away, and next to impossible to sue in small claims court; under the terms of service of Google and Facebook, neither of these behemoths can be sued, either.

For these and other reasons, many consumers now view online advertising as an unruly house guest with few benefits to offset serious risks to privacy and security, and have increasingly adopted a blanket ad blocking posture.

That would take some editing. There might be problems with tone, length, and POV. The upside, however, is that it actually explains something, always a good thing to bear in mind why authoring an encyclopedia. — MaxEnt 15:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)