Comments on: Let’s Take the Google Ad Exchange Conversation to the Sell Side for a Minute http://www.adexchanger.com/the-sell-sider/let%e2%80%99s-take-the-google-ad-exchange-conversation-to-the-sell-side-for-a-minute/ Digital media optimization news and discussion website. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:33:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Zach Coelius http://www.adexchanger.com/the-sell-sider/let%e2%80%99s-take-the-google-ad-exchange-conversation-to-the-sell-side-for-a-minute/#comment-2383 Zach Coelius Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:29:33 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=8951#comment-2383 In the long run I have to agree with Tim, more buyers with better technology will result in higher prices for publishers. In the short run multi-channel will certainly work better as we on the buy-side get up to speed on the exchanges. Nice work Michael In the long run I have to agree with Tim, more buyers with better technology will result in higher prices for publishers. In the short run multi-channel will certainly work better as we on the buy-side get up to speed on the exchanges.

Nice work Michael

]]> By: togilvie http://www.adexchanger.com/the-sell-sider/let%e2%80%99s-take-the-google-ad-exchange-conversation-to-the-sell-side-for-a-minute/#comment-2380 togilvie Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:55:04 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=8951#comment-2380 Agree that this is a great post and love seeing some sell side thinking. That said, I'm a skeptic that publishers will be better off using a multi-channel approach to non-premium inventory. Auctions achieve the highest price when there are lots of participants and every participant has full information. That's true across every domain: financial markets, high-end art, ebay, & online advertising. This doesn't change the potential conflicts between premium sales and non-premium, but if you're going to sell non-premium inventory via an auction, you need a crowd. Agree that this is a great post and love seeing some sell side thinking.

That said, I'm a skeptic that publishers will be better off using a multi-channel approach to non-premium inventory. Auctions achieve the highest price when there are lots of participants and every participant has full information. That's true across every domain: financial markets, high-end art, ebay, & online advertising.

This doesn't change the potential conflicts between premium sales and non-premium, but if you're going to sell non-premium inventory via an auction, you need a crowd.

]]> By: Ciaran, FarneyMedia http://www.adexchanger.com/the-sell-sider/let%e2%80%99s-take-the-google-ad-exchange-conversation-to-the-sell-side-for-a-minute/#comment-2371 Ciaran, FarneyMedia Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:47:52 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=8951#comment-2371 Great post, Michael. I am delighted to finally see some proper debate on the sell-side about the exchange model. I agree with Mark Cassidy’s assessment that a multi-channel approach is probably better than using “one transparent channel at lower rates”. Clearly, not all publishers are going to have the same success with the DoubleClick Exchange - and I'm not convinced it will become the one-stop shop for publisher trading. I think some will continue to use RightMedia and Contextweb to sell inventory. And, as Darren Herman pointed out yesterday at the AdRevenue 09 conference, more publishers will look to build private exchanges using the likes of the RMX platform. The yield optimsers will offer a great option to manage the "ad network" channel. And of course if you can't sell that inventory at your requested floor price, cut a deal with one of the performance ad networks. Data trading, in my view, will also develop into another important channel. We are still waiting for the likes of Bluekai and Exelate to roll out their service her in Europe though. It's a very confusing market, but it's great to see publishers starting to realise the potential of the exchange model. More debate and education is necessary though. Great post, Michael. I am delighted to finally see some proper debate on the sell-side about the exchange model. I agree with Mark Cassidy’s assessment that a multi-channel approach is probably better than using “one transparent channel at lower rates”.

Clearly, not all publishers are going to have the same success with the DoubleClick Exchange - and I'm not convinced it will become the one-stop shop for publisher trading. I think some will continue to use RightMedia and Contextweb to sell inventory.

And, as Darren Herman pointed out yesterday at the AdRevenue 09 conference, more publishers will look to build private exchanges using the likes of the RMX platform.

The yield optimsers will offer a great option to manage the "ad network" channel. And of course if you can't sell that inventory at your requested floor price, cut a deal with one of the performance ad networks.

Data trading, in my view, will also develop into another important channel. We are still waiting for the likes of Bluekai and Exelate to roll out their service her in Europe though.

It's a very confusing market, but it's great to see publishers starting to realise the potential of the exchange model. More debate and education is necessary though.

]]>