Linkblogging: Ads and Users

First post in a WHILE… Need to stretch out, limber up, reintroduce myself to the mental calisthenics of bloggery or else I will injure myself.

So I figured I would ease back into it with some linkblogging, specifically around the things I am paying a lot of attention to, disrupting advertising.

Ad Fraud
Big Publishers’ Fraud Rate is 2.8%, Wider Web’s is 11%, Studies Say

2015 DCN Bot Benchmark Report: What Makes a Publisher Premium

How much of your audience is FAKE? Marketers thought the Web would allow perfectly targeted ads.Hasn’t worked out that way.

How Filtering For IAB Bots is Like Bringing a Butter Knife to a Machine-gun Fight

Ad Blocking
Everything has a price: Publishers weigh options for buying their way out of blocked ads

REFORM ADVERTISING …before it is too late

Ad Age Imagines a World Without Ads — and It’s Not Cheap

Mozilla’s Vision for a Healthy, Sustainable Web

Cost of ad-blocking will only be $1 billion, research firm says

Adblockers: The Only Way Out

The web has become a hall of mirrors, filled only with reflections of our data

The Economist’s Tom Standage on digital strategy and the limits of a model based on advertising

Data Doppelgängers and the Uncanny Valley of Personalization. Why customized ads are so creepy, even when they miss their target

How much are you worth to Facebook? About $48

How adtech, not ad blocking, breaks the social contract

If marketing listened to markets, they’d hear what ad blocking is telling them

A Web Without Ads? No Thanks.

The Adblock War Series

Ad Blocking: The Unnecessary Internet Apocalypse

A Way to Peace in the Adblock War

Ad Blocking and the Future of the Web

Adblocking And The End Of Big Advertising

Tracking

The Web-Tracking Tipping Point

Innovating
a16z Podcast: Advertising vs. Micropayments in the Age of Ad Blockers

Goldman Sachs: Online advertising is about to be ‘fundamentally restructured’ by Apple, Google, and Facebook

Consider some of the things that have bound our nation together:

Universal postal service at a flat rate, whether you live in Santa Monica or Sitka, Alaska. Interstate highways, built with taxpayer funds and free of tolls. Regulated phone and electric service, with lifeline rates for the economically disadvantaged.

These were all based on a social contract honoring the notion that essential infrastructure should be available to all — indeed, that those normally left by the side of the economic road might be most in need.

But you can kiss that notion goodbye, because today’s model of building public infrastructure is to let private companies do it.

Americans are becoming more dependent on privately operated toll roads to get where we’re going, and on private delivery services like FedEx and UPS to carry our parcels. But the greatest shift has occurred in the sector that is most crucial in the information age: communications and data networks.

That brings us to Google — as happens sooner or later with any discussion touching on digital technology. The Mountain View, Calif., behemoth has branched into the Internet service business by introducing a fiber-optic data network for homeowners in Kansas City, Mo., and its neighboring namesake in Kansas.

The service, which is expected to be fully functional by the end of this year, is upending the traditional business and regulatory model for phone, video and data communications. But Google managed to exempt itself from the regulations that typically force cable companies to wire all neighborhoods, rich, poor and in between, for the Internet. The result threatens to leave underprivileged neighborhoods in the digital dust.

Ceding such a crucial service to a private company with minimal regulation is something that happened with virtually no public discussion about its implications for society. […]

It was obvious from the start that the removal of regulatory obstacles would count heavily in the race. The victors promised sedulous cooperation, including a team to provide “on-the-spot” exceptions where rules and regulations threatened delays. The two Kansas Cities even bowed to the demand they “obtain Google’s approval for all public statements” about the project.

Notably, they didn’t insist that Google guarantee service to their most disadvantaged communities. The reason is obvious: They didn’t have any real choice about the terms; it was fiber on Google’s terms, or no fiber at all.

Hiring

Hiring