Ad Networks Subscribe to Ad Networks

Are Ad Networks 'Dancing With The Ones Who Brung Us'?

6 comments, Latest by Jack Hurwitz

It always interests me to see how much time some ad networks spend focusing on advertiser relations, optimization and other internal processes as compared to the little time and resources they spend on the relationships they have with their publishers. I find it surprising because, without publishers, there wouldn't really be  any Internet at all…let alone Internet advertising. These publishers are the owners of the very inventory that ad networks exist to monetize. In treating the publishers' inventory like a commodity, ad networks miss the delicate balance between the needs of both sides of the online advertising equation. It truly is, after all, the willingness of publishers to make their money through advertising that keeps the Internet a mostly free platform.

Obviously I’m not suggesting ignoring clients' needs nor turning away from the importance of enhancing efficiency. Paying attention to both of these corner stones is critical to the long-term success of all ad networks, but publishers must not feel like a silent partner in the process. By forging solid relationships with publishers ad networks can ensure that they are getting the best possible inventory to put into the system and that quality and prices of inventory remain constant. 

At the end of the day, publishers want to know that they are working with an ad network that understands the real value of their inventory and that has their best interests at heart.  Whether they have 20,000 uniques a month or 20 million, their user base is both their own life's blood and the life's blood of Internet advertising, as a whole.

I suggest we start paying more attention to our publishers. We should educate them on what advertisers want and we should understand what they need to operate their businesses.  If we treat our publishers with the respect they deserve, it will make the industry a better place for all those that play in this proverbial sandbox.

Return to the top.

RELEVANT POSTS

6 Comments Subscribe to this discussion

Jack Hurwitz's headshot

May 26, 2009 at 10:21 AM EST

By Jack Hurwitz

WARNING PUBLISHERS! CPX Interactive are probably one the worst AD networks I have worked with. They approached us with a deal and broke it 2 days after launching. The campaign. They don't listen to you, they are slow, and they won't spend time to get to know your sites. What they say here could not be further from the truth. They wanted an enormous amount of traffic next to nothing. Trust me, Google is a better deal. These guys are total sharks!!!

Jack Hurwitz's headshot

May 27, 2009 at 10:03 AM EST

By Jack Hurwitz

PUBLISHERS BEWARE! Michael Seiman has been removing my comments about his very own company abusing publishers. CPX Interactive is one of the worst networks we ever dealt with. They solicited us then led us on for 5 months before giving us tags. Then pulled the same tags 2 days after they realized they would not get 1 million impressions for 25 cents CPM. They know better. These guys are slow and clueless. Chris and Yael didn't reply to most emails sent. They did't even know what domains they ran ads on for us. Avoid these guys! They don't pay much and clueless about publishers needs.

David Shay's headshot

May 27, 2009 at 04:52 PM EST

By David Shay

As EVP of Marketing with CPX Interactive, I decided to engage Jack Hurwitz's comments by picking up the phone and speaking to him directly. He and I spoke at length this morning. We began by speaking about his specific issues with his interaction with CPX and the convo segued into issues (and misunderstandings) that exist, in general, between ad networks and publishers. While I will leave Jack to decide if there is anything he would like to add about how he viewed our conversation, I will say that once we got passed his underlying anger with how he perceived the interaction...and my own disappointment about the original manner in which he chose to discuss it...we both agreed that the industry as a whole could benefit from more conversations like the one we had. Ironically, these are the very issues that Mike Seiman was addressing in his original post.

Jack Hurwitz's headshot

Jun 08, 2009 at 07:28 PM EST

By Jack Hurwitz

David what is REALLY unfortunate is I gave you guys another chance just to hear you wax on about how this would be great for us both. Then you proceeded to give us another contract that you canceled AGAIN! After 5+ months of nothing but talk and spin, I attest over and over CPX is NOT focused on the publishers at all. I mean seriously, you can't even get it right when I call you out on your own blog. No publisher should have to put up with this kind of non-sense. Don't get burned like we did. CPX Interactive sucks avoid them at all costs!

David Shay's headshot

Jun 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM EST

By David Shay

my comment at http://blogs.imediaconnection.com/BlogDetail.aspx?BlogID=597#CommentSection posted at Jun 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM EST, should be considered applicable as well.

Jack Hurwitz's headshot

Jun 14, 2009 at 06:38 PM EST

By Jack Hurwitz

Do all the damage you need to David. It just makes my case that CPX is arrogant and does not care about publishers. If you call me wanting to make a profit from those offers you made "blackmail" then it's clear you guys are only interested in exploiting the publisher. That is a sinister way to spin what should be the simple result of good business that no one should have to demand. If anyone needs proof you guys are evil, you just gave it to them. I need not say anymore.

ABOUT THIS BLOGGER

Michael Seiman

Mike Seiman began what can be traced back as the earliest incarnation of CPX Interactive while...

View full profile

Latest posts by Michael:

LATEST BLOG COMMENT

Return to the top.

Return to the top.

ads powered by Microsoft Advertising