Do you guys making more money with campaigns that has certain zone ids excluded (black list), or with a campiegn that includes only good zone ids (white list)?
Usually, whitelist campaigns are smaller in volume, since you are cherry-picking just the best placements/targets, which means lower volume and lower overall revenue. On the other hand, these can have higher ROI so it's well worth using that strategy too. I'd say it's not a question of picking one or the other, simply utilize both approaches based on which one fits your current sources.
Most of the time I'm running several tight blacklists on pops.
With bid adjusted to the EPV for those lists (bid baskets).
I've never got this confirmed from a traffic source rep, however I feel that many pop traffic sources punish you for running whitelist campaigns.
They need to get the mediocre and bad traffic out there, if everybody runs a whitelist they will sit on it.
I always got better results running blacklist.
More traffic and better position.
Even a blacklist where I literally blocked everything besides 2-3 big placements out performed the whitelist with the same 2-3 targets.
It depends however a bit on the traffic source.
Just give it a test and figure out what works better on what source.
Traffic also gets very very slow when optimizing too much
I was always a blacklist guy, but on the side I have whitelist campaigns as well.
One problem with whitelists is that they tend to die fast.
If you moved a zone into whitelist without enough data, it might became a loser fast (as you might be just lucky at that moment).
However I recommend you to read this older, but still valid post from Finch where he talks about WHITELIST vs BLACKLISTs: 2 Optimisation Strategies: Which Do You Use?