Publishers ‘make next to nothing’ from behavioural targeting
Behavioural targeting using cookies pays publishers around 4% more than for ads served without using cookies, according to a study of millions of ads at a large U.S. publisher (Wall Street Journal).
- Research conducted by University of Minnesota, University of California, Irvine, and Carnegie Mellon University
- Contrasts with premium advertisers pay for behaviourally targeted ads, most of which goes to middlemen
- Findings could shape incoming privacy legislation
- “All of these externalities with regard to the ad economy - harm to privacy, the expansion of government surveillance, the ability to microtarget and drive divisive content - were often justified to industry because of this ‘huge’ value to publishers.” - Ashkan Soltani, California Consumer Privacy Act co-author and former FTC chief technology officer
- “Behavioural targeting has been completely overhyped in its value for publishers from the day it was first invented.” - Michael Zimbalist, chief strategy and innovation officer at Philadelphia Media Network
Publishers have spent big on targeting in a bid to stay alive. Has it been worth it? Not really, this study suggests, at least based on one large publisher’s experience. As privacy issues climb the political agenda, others have to decide whether it’s worth continuing to plough in money, or refocus on contextual targeting – and that very much depends on the publisher, the intent of their audience to buy stuff, and their ability to package and harness that data.
Ultimately, the question could be academic if the age of cookies is drawing to a close. That’s my 4 cents on the dollar’s worth.
