[HN Gopher] An inorganic user engine driving ad campaigns on maj...
___________________________________________________________________
An inorganic user engine driving ad campaigns on major websites and
podcasts
Author : mooreds
Score : 60 points
Date : 2022-09-29 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (deepsee.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (deepsee.io)
| antoniojtorres wrote:
| oh wow, thanks for submitting our research! So, we've essentially
| found that free mobile games engage in a form of traffic
| arbitrage by making users load entire websites that are ad
| monetized in order to earn in-game currency. This is considered
| invalid traffic (IVT) in the digital advertising industry.
|
| The bit that HN may find interesting is that when entire web
| pages are embedded in a webview like that, the verification
| javascript embedded in the ads that are present on the page
| cannot (sometimes at all) realize that they are within a webview.
| Making this traffic seem totally organic.
|
| What's worse, recently we found that a major podcast network was
| autoplaying podcasts in order to juice their numbers for all
| their shows using this rewarded traffic scheme, and again, nearly
| impossible to verify on the other end.
|
| There's a lot of interesting technology challenges to solve in
| the ad-tech space because let's be honest, it's pretty rough and
| privacy hostile.
| nitrixion wrote:
| > recently we found that a major podcast network was
| autoplaying podcasts in order to juice their numbers
|
| This is a tactic that some video game streamers use as well.
| One big example of this is the fextralife wiki site[0]. I get
| very frustrated when it is the top result from a web search or
| if it is the only place to get relevant information.
|
| [0] -
| https://monsterhunterworld.wiki.fextralife.com/Monster+Hunte...
| nmacias wrote:
| I think that Apple should insist that webviews used this way
| identify themselves via JS as monetization containers, with
| clear definitions for when and why subject to App Store review.
| Done.
| nmacias wrote:
| I get that idealists will be up in arms about user-agent
| based self-censorship and still feel this way. It's
| reversible immediately if it was proven to be harmful.
| bee_rider wrote:
| IDK it seems like a problem between the ad networks and the
| developers. What motivation does Apple have to fix it? It
| seems like it benefits both of their customers -- the third
| party developers and the end consumers.
|
| Isn't Apple engaging in a war against the ad networks? They
| should do all they can to facilitate this -- add a special
| type of embedded browser window to their OS that has garbage
| cookies/fingerprinting info and is rendered off-screen.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >the verification javascript embedded in the ads that are
| present on the page cannot (sometimes at all) realize that they
| are within a webview
|
| Good! Webviews are browsers. Browsers are webviews. There's no
| way to tell the difference, because _there is no difference_!
| Noe2097 wrote:
| I must be missing something; hasn't this been happening for
| years? Viewing an ad in exchange for a continue?
|
| How is that different from ad videos that must be seen to access
| otherwise "free" resources, such as free WiFi in Airports? Or
| even from video ads that auto play on YouTube? None of them
| captured my genuine interest ; but I accepted the deal of my
| brain time (or my closed eyes) in exchange for some retribution.
| fourthark wrote:
| Right, how is this different from free game apps showing you
| ads for other games?
|
| Typically these days you have to watch about 15s of the ad.
| Seems involuntary but the ads take this into account, "can I
| get you to play this fake simulation of the game inside the ad,
| or are you just going to click close?"
| antoniojtorres wrote:
| The difference is that the content being shown is not an "Ad"
| in way whatsoever. If a website with 5-6 ads is loaded within
| a webview, those are 6 impressions that will be billed as if
| the user went that site directly. It's arbitrage. Similarly,
| for podcasts, having the actual player autoplay to count the
| plays as real, actual plays. Which is different from a
| podcast ad where you hear some sample content.
| MWParkerson wrote:
| Videos that must be watched for Wi-Fi in airports can be
| properly attributed to boingboing/ unitedwifi.com/ etc...
|
| Advertisers see these as organic mobile web page visits, when
| really they are incentivized /rewarded inapp impressions. There
| are different sets of expectations in such an environment. For
| one, impressions should probably be priced lower since the user
| has no engagement with the content. A lot of advertisers use
| contextual signals from the page text when deciding who to show
| ads to, and this disrupts the assumption that a user sought out
| the page they are on for some reason
| duskwuff wrote:
| > For one, impressions should probably be priced lower since
| the user has no engagement with the content.
|
| And because displaying a web page in a temporary in-app
| browser will likely prevent the user from viewing or
| interacting with the ads as intended. (For example, if a user
| taps on one of the ads, where does that open?)
| imiric wrote:
| Yo dawg, I heard you like ads, so we put ads in your ads...
|
| This is great. Adtech eating itself from the inside out. Just
| when you thought they couldn't get any sleazier, advertisers
| always find a way.
|
| I can't even decide who's right in this case. Suddenly they care
| about "inorganic" traffic? Please... There's a whole segment of
| the web dedicated to SEO hacking, click baiting, stolen or AI
| generated content whose only purpose is to scam the system and
| drive fake ad impressions.
|
| Have we forgotten about popups? This is a story as old as the
| web.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| This article is a fantastic window into the ad publishers world.
| One aspect that struck me in particular is how the writer insists
| watching an ad for an in-game reward is bad, actually, because
| "the viewer has no attachment to the product". I fail to see how
| that would differ from any other ad. People don't tend to want to
| see ads, and this is the one area where they actually chose to do
| so.
| permo-w wrote:
| it's definitely poor phrasing, but my gut says that the
| sentiment is correct. if you're playing a game and you want to
| get back to it as quickly as possible, you're gonna have even
| more resentment than usual for whatever pointless product is
| being shoved in your face
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum... A lot of times people play mobile games just because
| they are bored. Those are not eager to get back to the game,
| and may find an ad for something interesting even more
| fulfilling than the game.
|
| Ads are weird. And if you look at it, most of the problems on
| discussion here would go away if the ad networks simply
| collected feedback from the buyers.
| rapind wrote:
| The only time people want to engage with ads, is the
| classifieds (and even the classifieds have ads ffs).
|
| Where else do people want to see an advertisement and it's
| not just an interruption of sorts. TV ads, Popup ads, taking
| up the entire screen, etc. it's the same thing.
| permo-w wrote:
| film trailers (at the cinema), properties in the window of
| an estate agent, online marketplace listings, there are
| even times that people will go out of their way to watch TV
| adverts, like at halftime in the superbowl, or if there's a
| particularly funny or artfully made* edition. these are
| exceptions and not the rule, of course, but there are times
| when people want products marketed to them.
|
| the problem is that 99% of adverts are as you say
| interruptions, pestering you to buy something you don't
| need
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ogzVyTtcw
| antoniojtorres wrote:
| Totally! It's worthless from a brand association standpoint.
| Even a company like google states that the key factor in
| counting an ad impression (or anything else for that matter)
| is intent. It's all about intent. Not to say that you WANT to
| see ads when you visit a website, nobody does, but it's at
| least the expected exchange.
| fourthark wrote:
| Is there any such thing as a voluntary ad impression?
| antoniojtorres wrote:
| No, not really. As much as the industry tries to tell
| itself that a well targeted ad delights the user, that
| just isn't the case. I think a little honesty would go a
| long way in the digital advertising world. (I use little
| to mean a lot)
| permo-w wrote:
| there are times when people will voluntarily look at
| adverts, but they tend to be in situations where you're
| expecting them and they're appropriate to the context.
| usually this isn't online: film trailers at the cinema,
| properties in the window of an estate agent, classifieds
| at the back of a newspaper
| whoopdedo wrote:
| No, the views aren't people looking at the ad, they're gamers
| using it as an alternative to paying to play. As the blog says,
| there is no attachment between the views and the ad buy. But it
| is being sold as if they were legitimate impressions.
|
| May as well say "people don't tend to want to spend money, but
| this pyramid scheme is one way that they choose to do so."
| [deleted]
| MWParkerson wrote:
| Hey there, writer here:
|
| I can understand how it comes off that I consider rewarded ad
| formats bad, but that's actually not the case. I have the view
| that advertisers should know when their ad shows in that
| context. Those ad formats work for a lot of different kinds of
| advertisers, particularly mobile game developers.
|
| What's most troubling here is that NONE of the advertisers knew
| this is how their ads were loading.
|
| There are standards on how to disclose this kind of ad
| placement in an auction, but they weren't followed at all.
| Advertisers thought they were showing their ads to organic
| visitors of a website with high contextual relevance to their
| product / company values.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-29 23:01 UTC)