-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo Having faced this multiple times on all sides of the argument the answer to that is yes. Every publisher I've worked with has had multiple conversations about ad practices decreasing traffic and where the balance is in willingness to hurt pages per visit vs ad density.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +1 🙂
-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo Yeah, we all know that more readers or at least more reader depth would occur if there were no ads, but then we couldn't afford to operate, so publishers must optimize performance on both sides and carefully measure the breaking point where ad load impacts profitability.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo Most ad tech is shit, most performs like shit, but agencies have created an ecosystem where heavier ad loads lead to more rewards for them so... here we are.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -4 🙁
-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo I have a whole presentation on defensive programming against bad & heavy ads for publishers. We can always do better. But at the same time, a percentage of the population will always just prefer no ads and no paying for content so... I dunno? Overturn capitalism? I'm pro that.On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo But until that happens: yes publishers are definitely measuring the breaking point between time on site and operating at a profit to determine ad density. At the end of the day we all need to make a living.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +3 🙂
-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo And yes smart publishers calculate subscribers into that consideration as well.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
sonyaellenmann bluechoochoo That said, The Daily Mail gets more traffic then anyone and their ad footprint is huge. So there is a degree to which consumers will forgive ads for the right (in their eyes) value exchange.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂