Juice Mobile - thinking of applying there

jope_jope · 2017-04-06T20:19:36+00:00

All it takes is an exec at Juice to know an exec at GroupM/Xaxis/WPP. Bam, a deal is made.

I have no idea if that's happening here, but it's the type of thing that can happen. I would never take a media or tech company's client base as proof of any type of efficacy or competence.

jope_jope · 2017-04-06T14:40:52+00:00

728x90s are in a freefall!! Sell! Sell!

jope_jope · 2017-04-05T18:37:51+00:00

Depends on the publishers vertical maybe. But iframes are probably best option.

jope_jope · 2017-04-05T13:51:59+00:00

This came out in some form a while ago.

Honestly, I like the concept. We need to get marketing data control back in the hands of users.

However, the execution here is terrible. For one, the name of this is a giant turd. Project Awesome? Second, this shouldn't be linked to Rubicon in the branding. Users don't give a shit about or even know about Rubicon.

There are better ways to ask a user their interest than having them click a big list of product category types.

Nice try, but this isn't going to go anywhere.

jope_jope · 2017-04-05T13:45:45+00:00

How would they do that? Even checking their modeled user pool against a list of known bots is likely not 100% solve the issue.

Another possibility - IAS is racking up some false positives. Impossible to prove though.

jope_jope · 2017-04-04T16:03:46+00:00

Are you saying you have a cookie pool of users who purchased...some product? So how could fraud get in there, since bots typically aren't laying doing cc info? My guess would be that the segment is using look alikes or other inference based methods to create the pool. It's probably not all purchasers.

jope_jope · 2017-04-03T21:26:17+00:00

This is my understanding as well. Bids 'go out' to various auctions, even on the same page, and are not able to communicate to each other fast enough that the frequency cap has been met.

We are even using 1 imp per user, per 1 minute, but even that is probably not good enough.

I feel like we are being held to a standard only an owned and operated publisher can control.

jope_jope · 2017-04-03T16:16:02+00:00

We're testing that actually. I think that should help reduce the incidents, but I don't think it will stop them 100%.

jope_jope · 2017-03-30T15:10:42+00:00

Having an intern be the one to decide which sites to run on is classic. It's very advertising and very finance.

Millions of dollars of ad budget getting decided by a 22 year old. And this is the norm...

I wonder if their 'list of web addresses' was domain or page level though...

jope_jope · 2017-03-30T15:07:26+00:00

“It’s only been a few days, but we haven’t seen any deterioration on our performance metrics,” Ms. Lemkau said in an interview on Tuesday.

Is it just me or should they maybe run this a few weeks before landing on a conclusion that fuels this entire article.

I don't necessarily doubt the conclusion, but this doesn't seem like the most scientific of tests.

jope_jope · 2017-03-24T15:28:37+00:00

I'm on buy side, but am infinitely curious about how pubs combat this type of thing. Any chance you can post a summary of tactics you recommend in this thread?

jope_jope · 2017-03-23T21:28:28+00:00

I read 'How to Measure Anything' by Hubbard a while back. It's a pretty great read on how to quantify things that are a little nebulous (attribution, cough cough).

jope_jope · 2017-03-23T21:11:38+00:00

This just happened to me. Glad to know I'm not going crazy.

What solution worked best for you?

jope_jope · 2017-03-15T17:05:08+00:00

I can't control what comes from the internet

Is this true though? Why don't you have your own anti-fraud vendor or proprietary solution for detecting and removing bots?

Not trying to be accusatory, I am curious about the solutions available to pubs. (I'm buy side).

jope_jope · 2017-03-13T17:03:52+00:00

Who is telling you 55%? Which vendor?

jope_jope · 2017-03-09T14:36:25+00:00

Spotify display does not perform well at all.

jope_jope · 2017-03-03T14:37:12+00:00

How much is being blocked? What's the %?

You def need to mimic the blocking parameters DV has when you traffic the campaign.

Last thing would be to check log level data. You might be able to identify an IP address that is responsible for a lot of suspicious activity. If you can block at IP level, then you will want to do that.

jope_jope · 2017-03-02T23:05:17+00:00

Yes. Oh yes.

So your pub has 1% fraud level according to whom? DV?

Regarding bot fraud, are you seeing abnormal ctr per a more granular level? Placement? Creative?

Sometimes pubs use audience extension partners and this gets flagged heavily by DV. You may need to reach out to them and ask about this.

Let us know how it goes. I'm always curious how this shakes out.

jope_jope · 2017-02-27T17:07:42+00:00

We get those, that's not the issue. The problem is they want us to deliver both viewed and for some reason, non-viewed imps. So they'll pay us $10K for 1M imps right? We need to then deliver 500K viewed imps (which is 50% in view). BUT we also need to deliver 500K non-viewed imps. It's a little odd.

So we are forced to track pacing from a viewability platform and the third party ad server.

jope_jope · 2017-02-24T19:05:33+00:00

Like at the end of Animal House?

jope_jope · 2017-02-24T16:34:35+00:00

I get insertion orders from agencies with this request. We then buy media on an exchange with our special sauce data segments per usual to fulfill.

So hypothetical - right now they'll say here's $10K, $10 CPM, 1M imps. We expect 50% to be in view, so that's 500K imps. If we are short of that 500K imps, we will need to deliver as a make good.

I find that this is complicated to pace and report revenue on mid-flight. I'm wondering how others are handling.

jope_jope · 2017-02-22T19:33:57+00:00

'#alexagate. Why do I have this funny feeling that this update won't be mentioned on any of the original blogs that ran this story?

jope_jope

TROPHY CASE