
Dutch national broadcaster saw ad revenue rise when it stopped tracking users - paol
https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/03/stop_tracking_increase_revenue_effectiveness/
======
deleted_account
This article discusses the Dutch national broadcaster NPO's switch from
targeted ads to _contextual_ advertising, placing advertisements based on the
content of the publisher site instead of user features of the person reading
the page.

STER mentioned in the article is NPO's ad agency. The whitepaper is available
on STER's site: [https://www.ster.nl/onderzoek/een-toekomst-zonder-
advertenti...](https://www.ster.nl/onderzoek/een-toekomst-zonder-
advertentiecookies-het-kan/)

I haven't read the whitepaper (waiting on the English language version.) Where
the increased revenue is coming from isn't really clear. It seems really
unlikely they're increasing revenue by charging more per impression.

Cutting out the ad network could make up for it, but then this seems like a
case of STER setting itself up as supply platform. It works great for large
publishers, but doesn't really scale.

Totally related: expect to see more if these articles. The demise of third-
party cookies is coming and groups like W3C's Web Advertising Business Group
[[https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/](https://www.w3.org/community/web-
adv/)] and efforts like Chromium's privacy sandbox
[[https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-
sandb...](https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox)] are
picking up steam.

~~~
wastedhours
I still struggle to understand why people seem surprised when contextual
advertising works better than targeted.

Targeted works on social media because that's the context, the user is looking
for a distraction and ads can be as effective a distraction as your aunt's
cat. Showing me ads for a new car when I'm reading about a terrorist attack is
just the stupidest thing I can imagine. There's no context, no intent.

If I'm on a car site reading about the best new hot hatches and you show me an
ad for your new hot hatch, then that's a whole different scenario.

It doesn't "scale", but advertisers get higher intent traffic, publishers can
charge a higher premium, and the ads feel native so the customers might
actually appreciate them. The extra effort is worth it.

~~~
abakker
OOC, what does "Scale" even mean here? is the OP saying you cannot infinitely
serve ads because a given piece of content only attracts a finite number of
viewers? or that there are a finite number of subject for a piece of content
that can have relevant ads served?

To borrow your terrorist example, presumably there are no advertisers (that we
permit and condone) who would like to advertise terrorism related products?

Do we have any reasonable numbers for what portion of actual web traffic is
related to either product/service research or future purchase plans? My
impression of my own browsing traffic is that it is probably about 50% by
number of page loads.

~~~
deleted_account
"what does "Scale" even mean here?"

I meant in context of the number of publishers that advertisers need to deal
with to purchase impressions.

Cutting out the ad networks probably makes sense for Ster and NPO. I know
nothing about Dutch media, but I'm guessing they're big enough to court large
brands with big marketing budgets on their own.

[edit: The "Mass media in the Netherlands" Wikipedia page is bananas:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_the_Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_the_Netherlands).
I'm gathering advertising on NPO is regulated by a public body; the STER from
the article.]

~~~
aden1ne
NPO is the public broadcaster umbrella organization. It could very roughly be
compared to e.g. BBC, with the big caveat that NPO itself does not create any
content. Instead, its member broadcasters do. That's a relic of the Dutch
pillarized system. NPO is funded both through taxes, and through
advertisements. STER is the organization that handles the latter, and indeed
it is a public body.

------
code4tee
I’ve always thought that the “advanced tracking” touted by some in AdTech was:

1\. Generally not that advanced (yes I searched for hotels in Florida and so
yes I’m probably taking a trip to Florida... don’t need fancy ML to figure
that out.)

2\. Not that smart. (Hey we actually got back from our Florida vacation two
months ago... don’t need to keep seeing hotel offers for Florida!)

It totally makes sense that just “dumb” targeting (show people adverts related
to the content on the page they are currently looking at, which requires no
tracking) might actually work better than all the black magic products
companies promote.

~~~
Swizec
My girlfriend is currently experiencing the dark side of smart tracking.
Female who hit 30 and is in a stable relationship.

The ML just can’t figure her out. One day every ad is for dating sites, the
next day it’s all babies and pregnancy, then engagement rings, wedding
locations, more dating sites, a few days of houses to buy ... it’s like the
algorithms can’t decide what life stage she’s in.

~~~
ceejayoz
> it’s like the algorithms can’t decide what life stage she’s in

Or, it's working on figuring that out.

~~~
synthc
When my first kid was born, all the ads I got where either baby clothes,
daipers etc., or Second Love. A clear separation between A and B

~~~
mcv
Makes me wonder if there are a lot of people who start cheating once they get
a child. What exactly is that algorithm trained on?

------
mrweasel
It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about. Sure, you may be
interested in buying fishing gear, but not while reading an article about Tour
De France.

One of the reasons Google have been able to make a ton of money on ads on
google.com is because they are able to deliver contextual ads based on you
search. Google isn't using targeted ads on google.com. Think about that for a
second. The worlds most visited site and largest ad company is NOT displaying
ads based on tracking users on their own main site. They are showing you
contextual ads.

Search for "cement" on Google, you're not getting ads for the washing machine
you looked at on another site yesterday. Google most likely have the data to
target you and show you washing machine ads, but they choose to show you an ad
relevant to your search.

Are we really surprised that contextual ads might generate more revenue?

~~~
viraptor
> Google isn't using targeted ads on google.com.

They sure are targeted. The ads depends on your location, demographic, past
browsing, past ad interaction, and many other things.
[https://support.google.com/google-
ads/answer/1704368?hl=en](https://support.google.com/google-
ads/answer/1704368?hl=en)

They have more context of what you're after and what's more effective + the ad
keywords limit the audience. But in your situation if there's any crossover
between washing machines and cement that will bring clicks, you can be sure
they know about it and will serve it.

~~~
mrweasel
That's a fair point, the ads are almost always localized at least. Still
they're also not random, they are related to your search.

You don't really need much more that a GeoIP database to figure out where in
the world you user is coming from, and that should be enough to deal with the
location targeting. I'm not sure you'd need much more information about the
users than that.

~~~
MiroF
But they're still incredibly targeted. They're not just using info from your
search, although that information is highly relevant in choosing what ad to
display.

------
libertine
>STER says that non-personalised ads are "just as effective", measured by
number of clicks an ad attracts, though the click-through is not a complete
analysis of effectiveness.

The fight against Google and Facebook (and soon Amazon) is still strong in the
trenches.

How to fight the massive data hoarders that have no competition, and have
their data locked down so no publisher can access it? Well you try to dismiss
the value of data.

Then they make the mistake of evaluating the effectiveness of ads by the
number of clicks and CTR... yeah... big red flag there.

It's easy to see a publisher get more money out by cutting out players in the
value chain, and probably dropping the bidding of their inventory (doesn't
matter if it's on cpm or cpc).

The problem always ends up with the inventory left out to be monetized, greed
is a hell of a thing...

~~~
krisgenre
>> data locked down so no publisher can access it?

Maybe I didn't understand but are you suggesting hoarded data shouldn't be
locked down and any publisher should have access to it?

~~~
libertine
I'm saying that at some point in time, MAYBE, there was the discussion of
large media groups to pressure policies to make that data available to them.

Thankfully it never happened, and things like GDPR came forward instead.

------
smabie
Presumably because the ads are already hyper targeted, because the site is
written in Dutch! Now imagine you run an English ad for say, a local micro
brewery in LA. It's totally obvious that you don't want to waste money on
people who don't drink, don't live in America, or are 12 years old.

Clearly there's significant diminishing returns to how specifically you
target, but it's completely ridiculous to claim that untargeted ads are even a
fraction as good.

~~~
mfontani
I think the implication is that using the context of the _page_ to serve ads
to users (i.e. you're reading an article on beer, so I'm serving you an ad
about beers) is better than using context _about the user_ to serve ads (i.e.
you're reading an article about beers, and I'm serving you ads about that one
item you've searched on Amazon last week).

~~~
nicoburns
> I think the implication is that using the context of the page... is better
> than using context about the user

I think this is largely true. My favourite ad-supported site is The Online
Photographer, a blog on photography which has ads about... camera equipment.
No tracking or 3rd party script required.

[0]:
[https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photogr...](https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)

~~~
libertine
Part of the problem os contextual ads is wastage.

One of the advantages of tracking users is to optimize your spend, taking into
account your reach and the frequency a user see's your ad.

The result could be during one month you're seeing a Guitar Brand Ad in your
favorite music blog, and you're a saxophone player. Yet the ad was shown to
you 30+ times, when in reality it could have been capped to 10-12 times.

Some brands can afford this wastage, and factor in for it - hell some brands
thrived with wastage (like those who grew in TV golden age, for example P&G) -
but for a lot of them, this is too much.

~~~
simias
Is it really wasted though? Back when I still bothered to watch TV with ads, I
felt like seeing the same ad for the same product dozens of times per day had
a brainwashing effect. It gets into your head.

At the very least it creates brand awareness and you're unlikely to forget
about the company or the product. It also forms a strong association between
the subject (in the parent's case, professional photography) and the
brand/product.

Even if it doesn't result in a direct sale it might still be highly beneficial
for the brand.

I mean if it wasn't, would we see so much product placement in movies and TV?
Those are not proper ads, there's no call to action, the viewer has to go
looking for the product if they like it. But it does wonder for brand
recognition and prestige.

~~~
libertine
>Is it really wasted though? Back when I still bothered to watch TV with ads

The world was a very different place back then. Where the majority of
"housewives" (as in the person who makes the decisions - and bought - all
house purchases) were actually the wives, and ad jingles was part of the
soundtrack of our existence. Attention was less split and focused mainly on
TV, and fewer players had access to it.

And you're right, it did have a brainwashing effect, and I bet to this day you
still know the lyrics or you can hum songs from jingles, or you know brand
claims by heart. People underestimated that.

But still like you, hundreds of million of people never consumed, became
customers, recommended or influenced any decision for a lot of those brands -
but for those brands it was still worth it. It was part of their business
model - mass media + a big share of shelf in large retailers. Coca Cola
Company, P&G, Mars, and many other mammoths grew with this.

>I mean if it wasn't, would we see so much product placement in movies and TV?

The problem is that TV is different from the Internet, still to this day. Just
because they share the same type of media (video), it's different how you
watch and how you manage your attention.

A banner in a website is very different from a spot in break on a TV show.
Even a preroll on youtube is different from a tv spot - because if you're not
watching the tv spot and you're fiddling with your phone, the sound is there,
and it grabs your attention for a fraction of time.

I'm not saying that high frequency doesn't work - it does work very well! Does
wonders! But wastage makes it expensive, and it works differently depending on
the media..

------
Deukhoofd
I'd really need to see actual numbers for this, especially as this is kind of
contrary to the yearly report Ster released two weeks ago. In this they stated
that while the first couple months of 2020 were more or less in line with
their budget, they dropped to below budget after corona. I have some trouble
believing they made a budget based on a 60% increase from the preceding year.

[https://www.ster.nl/media/2ssmp5p5/ster-
jaarverslag_2019.pdf](https://www.ster.nl/media/2ssmp5p5/ster-
jaarverslag_2019.pdf)

~~~
Phemist
Also noteworthy is that the Dutch government has decided to seriously limit
the amount of ads on NPO TV channels and websites. No ads before 8 PM on TV,
no ads at all on the websites.

~~~
deugtniet
I don't think they implemented the `no ads before 8PM on tv` yet. I'm actually
surprised about how open they are about advertising costs per second for each
block on the npo1 channel [1].

[1]
[https://www.ster.nl/media/rrifn3t0/npo-1-juni-2020-gewijzigd...](https://www.ster.nl/media/rrifn3t0/npo-1-juni-2020-gewijzigd-
op-22-juni.pdf)

~~~
odshoifsdhfs
I don't speak dutch, but does this mean that cost on average 1000 euros for a
30 second ad? Or is it per minute? (it as 30" on top not sure if it is minimum
block you need or per 30 seconds)

I would expect a lot more to be honest! (I know it changes and I bet those
values around some specific events to be bigger, but still)

~~~
itcrowd
The price list is indeed for a 30-second television ad. However, it seems like
you can't just buy one slot, you need to spend >€30k before they start to do
business with you.

[in Dutch] [https://www.ster.nl/hoe-werkt-het/tv-reclame-bij-
ster/](https://www.ster.nl/hoe-werkt-het/tv-reclame-bij-ster/)

~~~
odshoifsdhfs
Cool! Thank you for the info!

------
zaroth
In essence they cut out adtech middlemen who rake up to 70% of the ad revenue
for themselves to run the real-time bidding which underpins tracking-based
ads, and sold less effective content based ads but, by taking the revenue all
for themselves, ended up way ahead.

------
Fragoel2
I'd need to see the site before and after to confirm but maybe it is due to
the faster page load speed? Tracking scripts these days are quite heavy and
really affect loading times (especially on mobile)

~~~
soared
If tracking scripts are correctly set up they’re asynchronous and don’t affect
load times.

~~~
ricardo81
They load over the wire quickly though the rendering of them and the jitter
they can cause on the page gives the impression the page hasn't loaded.

------
halflings
I don't get why people are viewing user-based and content-based signals as two
totally separate things.

Aren't most ad providers using both to serve ads? Some people here are saying
_of course_ basing ads on the page will work better, and hence tracking
cookies (or for some, even ML/AI) are useless... if that was the case, why are
all these different players building all this infrastructure and developing
these complex models? Just for fun?

Clearly, knowing that this is an article about pets helps. But knowing that
you've been specifically reading articles about dog food gives you that extra
information to serve particularly relevant ads (rather than say, display
hamster cages).

------
daneel_w
Why does the NPO, the Dutch equivalent to the PBS, even run commercial
advertisements? Aren't they funded by the people's taxes?

~~~
timwaagh
because otherwise we'd pay ourselves blue.

~~~
daneel_w
With 17 million citizens I think that's unlikely.

------
jeffbee
Everybody knows that bad targeting and bad ad quality results in a _temporary_
bump in revenue. This is because there are short-term quality assumptions
baked into the advertisers' bids. Eventually the bad quality cycles back
through the market and prices fall.

Within Google I saw several post-mortem reports where the "impact" was extra
revenue, not lost revenue. As in, due to an outage of the xyz subsystem, we
booked an extra $$/minute of ads revenue. Everyone knows this is bad, not
good.

------
teekert
My favorite Dutch blog, tweakers.net, also does personal ads. I never ever
clicked on them, I don't know what they are smoking to conclude that I'm
interested in what they offer. They also have a "pricewatch" section, and boy
have I clicked on their recommendations often. They are usually spot on! Of
course they are contextual and geared to what I want to buy and searched for.
If only they'd do the same with their news articles.

------
annoyingnoob
> RTB "is a cancer eating the heart of legitimate media, and a business model
> for the bottom of the web."

RTB is actually a huge waste of power too.

------
egypturnash
I don’t understand what is going on with the graph they present at all. What
is the cyan line? What are the bubbles with percentage changes in them? Why is
there a “+18%” bubble right after the huge dip in the cyan line past the
“Covid market shock” label?

I _think_ the bubbles are maybe “revenue increase per month” but what the hell
is the cyan line?

LABEL YOUR GRAPHS PEOPLE

------
wolco
As an old time adsense publisher I remember when they made the switch.
Everyone revenue/click rate dropped. I thought perhaps in time this would
improve but it kept dropping. I guess google believed they could sell more to
ad buyers with an ml approach regardless of the results.

------
JJMcJ
"Targeted ads" \- hmm. Real galaxy brain stuff.

Not me but read a few days ago, someone (male) did a search for pages on the
Battle Of Quatre Bras (part of the Battle Of Waterloo).

You guessed it, now he is seeing ads for brassieres all the time and someone
is paying for those ads to appear.

------
orijing
If this were true, why would anyone choose the option that generates lower
revenues?

~~~
Barrin92
hype and a huge amount of fancy jobs at stake who know how to keep themselves
employed. Take another example, Cambridge Analytica's "psychographic
targeting". There's no solid scientific evidence that it actually works. Yet
the media and press, as well as CA themselves have somehow convinced
themselves that they're the real world version of James Bond's spectre

