-
"AMP hasn’t solved the core problem; it has merely hidden it a little bit... "[T]he incentives being placed on AMP content seem to be accomplishing exactly what you would think: they’re incentivizing AMP, not performance." tkadlec/975759721570492417Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -1 🙁
-
The problem of the 'slow web' is and always has been a question of leverage in the ecosystem. AMP persists because Google retains leverage over all other players, and that is fundamentally the *only* reason it persists.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
But the only real solution comes from fixing the ecosystem. This is not a problem solved by code. This is a problem solved by cooperation and policy on the part of advertisers and publishers. Here's a brief list of possible approaches:Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
1a: Real certification for vendors, with requirements for quality. As the ad tech ecosystem currently stands, the number of vendors seems to be multiplying year over year, many providing identical competitive services with few of the entities failing. Why?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
1b: The reason is that ecosystem is protectionist of middlemen. Because most ad tech works within a black box, its quality, capabilities and efficacy are invisible to people at either end of the chain. As a result vendors can assert their quality, regardless of effectiveness.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +7 🙂
-
1c: So when things fail, and no one will take the blame, more middlemen are added to the chain to try and work out the issue. The number of network calls we see from an ad are the result. Your average ad has 3 to 5 vendors measuring the same exact thing.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -5 🙁
-
1d: The only officiating entity is the IAB. It has yet to step up to measure quality. Instead it mostly measures who pays in to its coffers. So there's no independent entity certifying *any* of the code actually works. As a result it often does not.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
1e: So the obvious solution here is to place technical--especially performance focused--requirements on vendors and require continual per-version certification of their technology. This is badly needed in the metrics and programmatic arenas.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
2a: Transparency. Almost all digital ad transactions that you encounter online are untraceable. That's the nature of the programmatic marketplace as it is currently formed. That's why publishers have a hard time back-tracking and removing browser hijacking ads.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
2b: What is, essentially, the supply chain of programmatic digital advertising is hidden to almost everyone. Though arguably these systems are visible to the programatic vendors running them, they are mostly engineered not to pay attention to that data. This is bad.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -4 🙁
-
2c: There is absolutely no reason it needs to be constructed this way. Advertisers should request and require clear and audit-ready chains of actions and transactions as to how their money gets spent.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
2d: Publishers are already seeing that need as well, when only ~30% of ad transactions reach publishers it's clear that fundamentally unaccountable middlemen are not fair players in this space.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
2e: So the solution? The programmatic marketplace should be reformed and re-coded into clear audit-ready chains of data for transactions. There's absolutely no need for blockchain. This should be JSON data that rides along with every ad. It should be transparent to readers too.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
2f: There's zero incentive for the middle men to accede to this. So there is an additional action needed. Publishers and advertisers should lobby to make any transaction chain in digital advertising that isn't clearly traceable by the consumer illegal.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -6 🙁
-
3: Make performance a factor in the bidding process. All digital ad systems (servers and exchanges) should measure the performance (load speed) of ads that are added to their systems and penalize the bids of ads--perhaps whole client--that fails to match performance standardsOn twitter.com
Mood -4 🙁
-
4: Ad servers should limit technology. This is the only genuinely clever and decent use of AMP. Don't just make it an option in DFP--require it! Ad servers should reject known bad technology and examine code to assure it is safe. This is achievable through automated process.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
5: No search engine or social network should reward the use of an arbitrary technology as a stand-in for performance. This is mostly AMP, but also FBIA. These technologies don't guarantee performance and operating in this way quashes innovation and hurts advancement.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
So yeah. AMP solves nothing, it only hides the real issues which are enormous, persistent, and systematic. It doesn't fix anything, it just papers it up. The only way we will really fix the web is to solve the underlying issues.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
Great piece by anneapplebaum. Yes to all of this, but not just political ads. We need to end anonymity for all digital ads: washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/20/were-you-a-victim-of-cambridge-analyticas-dirty-tricks-the-fact-you-dont-know-is-the-problem/?utm_term=.55db9364e5b1Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +4 🙂