Invisible Traffic, another reason for Direct buys (4)
The Amount of Questionable Online Traffic Will Blow Your Mind
The World Wide rip-offBy Mike Shields
Here's a quote from a researcher, According to Augustine Fou, founder of the Marketing Science Consulting Group; regarding traffic exchanged between collegehumor.com, Break, Gamespot and Crackle:
"“invisible traffic”—i.e., these companies deliver their entire sites via iframes or tiny pixels on other sites that no one else can see.Consider the guy-oriented Break (which last week was reported to be merging with Alloy Digital). Edelman found that Break.com loads invisibly through a variety of complex methods. In one instance, a company called Ptp22 redirects Break traffic through a variety of middlemen before it is loaded invisibly via iframe. (The list of go-betweens includes Marketwithmogul and TooShocking.)"
Link to article in adweek-
http://www.adweek.com/news/technolog...ur-mind-153083
Another reason to stick with direct buy's.
Interesting article. In regards to "Another reason to stick with direct buy's", the article says on the first page "We see this even with direct-to-publisher deals."
It would be great to hear from some members who're experienced in both sources??? Yeah, i'm no pro on direct buys; i am extremely leery of buying anything from platforms. "
http://www.chmedia.com/advertise
15M monthly views, 80M video views
I do know that direct buy's by their nature, give you far more control to identify and avoiding things like this. I'm also interested in the legitimacy of the big bold massive claims made in the article, is it really 30% of some traffic sources?
Some traffic sources have more of a problem with this than others, but it's definitely a real problem.
I recall Sitescout being particularly notorious for having sites with a lot of bot traffic - but some great legit placements too.
Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Display / Media Buying