Home The Sell Sider As Google Rolls Out Its Attribution Tool, How Should Publishers Respond?

As Google Rolls Out Its Attribution Tool, How Should Publishers Respond?

SHARE:

The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community.

Today’s column is written by Tom Noyes, CEO at Commerce Signals.

A popular sports adage is “The best defense is a good offense.” That’s sensible advice for digital publishers in responding to Google Attribution.

Historically, publishers used data on audience traffic, engagement and interests to drive yield and to help sell ads. In response, buyers happily incorporated those measures into their own ad effectiveness programs. Unfortunately, along the way, two serious unintended consequences resulted.

First, measuring on clicks incentivized disreputable sources to monetize bots and nonviewable inventory. Second, these measures also fueled the growth of nontransparent intermediaries that ultimately harmed publisher yields and created buy-side confusion on what ads really cost. In short, we can trace many of the ills in the ad tech ecosystem to how it’s measured.

Now, we have Google Attribution, which measures credit card purchases post-ad impression. This is an important breakthrough: Ad effectiveness now can be determined by whether real people, responsibly deidentified and aggregated, actually buy online or offline. Advertisers can now perform this measurement at scale and cost-effectively.

Measuring post ad-impression purchases begins to address some of those unintended consequences. Most notably, since bots and nonviewable inventory can’t buy anything, disreputable sources get naturally deprioritized. This could significantly reduce the need for separate viewability verification, eliminating both its expense and technology between ad seller and buyer.

Publishers may play defense by seeking to measure credit card purchases post-ad impression, but they can and should instead become two-way players and go on offense by emphasizing real business outcomes through the value of their own content.

The key to becoming a good two-way player requires reimagining the value proposition to ad buyers. That is, publishers ought to transition from selling impressions or actions to guaranteeing real business results for buyers. This implies less defending semi-commoditized CPMs and more ensuring that content really drives revenue for the buyer.

Measurement is often thought of as the buyer’s friend, but in this case, it also offers at least three strategic advantages for two-way playing publishers.

First, the publisher’s narrative and business model are more aligned with the core interest of ad buyers, directly answering the question of whether customers buy advertised products. Traffic, engagement and profiles are interesting enough; however, connecting ad impressions to real revenue for the buyer is a fully aligned discussion.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Second, publishers will develop valuable yield-optimizing insights as they tune results on behalf of the buyer. Even more importantly, knowing what drives value for buyers creates pricing power for publishers. In time, publishers will learn to arbitrage this insight across buyers, creating interesting new business model possibilities.

Third, publishers can leverage their own low incremental costs to deliver outcomes that are of much higher value to ad buyers. Rather than defending the indefensible – premium CPMs in the face of virtually unlimited supply – the publishing narrative focuses on driving and getting paid for meaningful business outcomes for buyers.

It’s time for publishers to go on offense.

Follow Commerce Signals (@CommerceSignals) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Must Read

A comic depiction of Google's ad machine sucking money out of a publisher.

DOJ vs. Google, Day Five Rewind: Prebid Reality Check, Unfair Rev Share And Jedi Blue (Sorta)

Someone will eventually need to make a Netflix-style documentary about the Google ad tech antitrust trial happening in Virginia. (And can we call it “You’ve Been Ad Served?”)

Comic: Alphabet Soup

Buried DOJ Evidence Reveals How Google Dealt With The Trade Desk

In the process of the investigation into Google, the Department of Justice unearthed a vast trove of separate evidence. Some of these findings paint a whole new picture of how Google interacts and competes with its main DSP rival, The Trade Desk.

Comic: The Unified Auction

DOJ vs. Google, Day Four: Behind The Scenes On The Fraught Rollout Of Unified Pricing Rules

On Thursday, the US district court in Alexandria, Virginia boarded a time machine back to April 18, 2019 – the day of a tense meeting between Google and publishers.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Google Ads Will Now Use A Trusted Execution Environment By Default

Confidential matching – which uses a TEE built on Google Cloud infrastructure – will now be the default setting for all uses of advertiser first-party data in Customer Match.

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Unraveling The Mystery Of PubMatic’s $5 Million Loss From A “First-Price Auction Switch”

PubMatic’s $5 million loss from DV360’s bidding algorithm fix earlier this year suggests second-price auctions aren’t completely a thing of the past.

A comic version of former News Corp executive Stephanie Layser in the courtroom for the DOJ's ad tech-focused trial against Google in Virginia.

The DOJ vs. Google, Day Two: Tales From The Underbelly Of Ad Tech

Day Two of the Google antitrust trial in Alexandria, Virginia on Tuesday was just as intensely focused on the intricacies of ad tech as on Day One.