NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Cached ad views
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Cached ad views
Don Westrich (don_at_thethinkingmedia.com)
Thu, 14 May 1998 11:44:42 -0400
Per Bruce Morris' post:
>I would be interested to hear what others have to say about
>counting ad views for cached ads.
Definitely check out the recent O-A debate on tracking impressions, sent as
a separate thread.
<snip>
>"ÖMatchLogic is the only ad serving system able to bust cacheÖ"
CLIQNOW!'s statement as you quote it is inaccurate on two counts.
In the first place, MatchLogic doesn't use cache busting as their technique
for tracking impressions from proxy servers -- see below.
Nor is MatchLogic is the only *system* to count cached impressions. The
operative phrase in this quote may be "serving system"; Thinking Media's
ActiveAds system is one that track cached views, independent of any
proprietary serving system (pretty subtle plug, eh?).
<snip>
>Our prop head says it's not really a technically difficult
>to prevent the ad images from being cached. So why doesn't
>everybody it right?
"Busting cache" is just one method to read cached impressions. It works by
forcing a fresh download directly from the originating server (bypassing
proxy servers) each time the ad is called by a browser, so that the
originating server can count the impression. Not hard, but it defeats the
perfectly valid & important purpose of proxy servers as a way to reduce
traffic and improve flow.
Other methods include MatchLogic's TrueCount, which, if I understand their
explanation correctly, uses light-weight code written into the ad's header,
which then pings back to the TrueCount server each with each download,
marking each interim stop on proxy servers.
ActiveAds uses another, pure client-side reporting, which cuts out the
server chain entirely as part of the reporting mechanism, so that the ad
itself reports only when it's run on a client machine. In the case of
ActiveAds, this is done via a few bytes of Java code. Another, less
efficient method is via an app is resident on the surfer's machine (which
involves getting the user to load it, a major stumbling block).
Why doesn't everyone do it? My response:
1. Because it would overwhelm proxy servers, defeating their purpose.
2. Because not everybody knows about it.
3. Because there's no agreed standard about how to use methods other than
server-side counting.
4. Because rates are based on server-side counting, and a stable method of
calculating rates is the underpinning of the advertising sale business model
on the web.
<snip>
>"CLIQNOW! will comply with industry standard practices of
>tracking, charging, and paying on the primary (non-cached)
>ad views only."
This may change when thereís a consensus on counting cached impressions.
However, since counting cached ad views increases impressions (by some 25%
over primary impressions, in our experience), you can either consider them
something that's mucking up estimating the effectiveness of your media
budget, or a freebie.
Don Westrich
Thinking Media Corp.
www.thethinkingmedia.com
Phone: 212 352 0606
Fax: 212 352 0904
34 West 17th Street
6th Floor
New York, NY 10011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
24/7 Media
"We chose 24/7 Media because of their
proven success selling online advertising."
-- Howard Lefkowitz, VP Business Development, EarthLink Network
24/7 Media -- Always Serving You http://www.247media.com/join.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
