Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Online advertising
View on Wikipedia
| Part of a series on |
| Internet marketing |
|---|
| Search engine marketing |
| Display advertising |
| Affiliate marketing |
| Misc |
| E-commerce |
|---|
| Digital content |
| Retail goods and services |
| Online shopping |
| Mobile commerce |
| Customer service |
| E-procurement |
| Purchase-to-pay |
| Super-apps |
Online advertising, also known as online marketing, Internet advertising, digital advertising or web advertising, is a form of marketing and advertising that uses the Internet to promote products and services to audiences and platform users.[1] Online advertising includes email marketing, search engine marketing (SEM), social media marketing, many types of display advertising (including web banner advertising), and mobile advertising. Advertisements are increasingly being delivered via automated software systems operating across multiple websites, media services and platforms, known as programmatic advertising.[2]
Like other advertising media, online advertising frequently involves a publisher, who integrates advertisements into its online content, and an advertiser, who provides the advertisements to be displayed on the publisher's content. Other potential participants include advertising agencies that help generate and place the ad copy, an ad server which technologically delivers the ad and tracks statistics, and advertising affiliates who do independent promotional work for the advertiser.
In 2016, Internet advertising revenues in the United States surpassed those of cable television and broadcast television.[3]: 14 In 2017, Internet advertising revenues in the United States totaled $83.0 billion, a 14% increase over the $72.50 billion in revenues in 2016.[4] And research estimates for 2019's online advertising spend put it at $125.2 billion in the United States, some $54.8 billion higher than the spend on television ($70.4 billion).[5]
Many common online advertising practices are controversial and, as a result, have become increasingly subject to regulation. Many internet users also find online advertising disruptive[6] and have increasingly turned to ad blocking for a variety of reasons. Online ad revenues also may not adequately replace other publishers' revenue streams. Declining ad revenue has led some publishers to place their content behind paywalls.[7]
History
[edit]
In the early days of the Internet, online advertising was mostly prohibited. For example, two of the predecessor networks to the Internet, ARPANET and NSFNet, had "acceptable use policies" that banned network "use for commercial activities by for-profit institutions".[9][10] The NSFNet began phasing out its commercial use ban in 1991.[11][12][13][14]
The first widely publicized example of online advertising was conducted via electronic mail. On 3 May 1978, a marketer from DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), Gary Thuerk, sent an email to most of the ARPANET's American West Coast users, advertising an open house for a new model of a DEC computer.[10][15] Despite the prevailing acceptable use policies, electronic mail marketing rapidly expanded[16] and eventually became known as "spam."
The first known large-scale non-commercial spam message was sent on 18 January 1994 by an Andrews University system administrator, by cross-posting a religious message to all USENET newsgroups.[17] In January 1994 Mark Eberra started the first email marketing company for opt-in email lists under the domain Insideconnect.com. He also started the Direct Email Marketing Association to help stop unwanted email and prevent spam. [18] [19]
Four months later, Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, partners in a law firm, broadly promoted their legal services in a USENET posting titled "Green Card Lottery – Final One?"[20] Canter and Siegel's Green Card USENET spam raised the profile of online advertising, stimulating widespread interest in advertising via both Usenet and traditional email.[17] More recently, spam has evolved into a more industrial operation, where spammers use armies of virus-infected computers (botnets) to send spam remotely.[15]
Display ads
[edit]Online banner advertising began in the early 1990s as page owners sought additional revenue streams to support their content. Commercial online service Prodigy displayed banners at the bottom of the screen to promote Sears products. The first clickable web ad was sold by Global Network Navigator in 1993 to a Silicon Valley law firm.[21] In 1994, web banner advertising became mainstream when HotWired, the online component of Wired Magazine, and Time Warner's Pathfinder[22] sold banner ads to AT&T and other companies. The first AT&T ad on HotWired had a 44% click-through rate, and instead of directing clickers to AT&T's website, the ad linked to an online tour of seven of the world's most acclaimed art museums.[23][24]
Search ads
[edit]GoTo.com (renamed Overture in 2001, and acquired by Yahoo! in 2003) created the first search advertising keyword auction in 1998.[25]: 119 Google launched its "AdWords" (now renamed Google Ads) search advertising program in 2000[26] and introduced quality-based ranking allocation in 2002,[27] which sorts search advertisements by a combination of bid price and searchers' likeliness to click on the ads.[25]: 123
Since 2010
[edit]More recently, companies have sought to merge their advertising messages into editorial content or valuable services. Examples include Red Bull's Red Bull Media House streaming Felix Baumgartner's jump from space online, Coca-Cola's online magazines, and Nike's free applications for performance tracking.[24] Advertisers are also embracing social media[28][29] and mobile advertising; mobile ad spending has grown 90% each year from 2010 to 2013.[30]: 13
According to Ad Age Datacenter analysis, in 2017 over half of agency revenue came from digital work.[31]
The March 2021 eBay advertisement for the first Asian Giant Hornet (Vespa mandarinia) nest in the US was controversial.[32] The owner of the first nest discovered in the United States – in Blaine, Washington – demanded its return instead of allowing scientific investigation, and proceeded to sell it.[32] A nearby beekeeper bought it to gift it back to the state entomology team which had exterminated it, for study.[32]
Types of online advertising
[edit]Display advertising
[edit]
Display advertising conveys its advertising message visually using text, logos, animations, videos, photographs, or other graphics. Display advertising is ubiquitous across online systems including websites, search engines, social media platforms, mobile applications and email. Google and Facebook dominate online display advertising, which has become a highly concentrated market, with estimates that they were responsible for 70% of overall US digital advertising revenue in 2016.[2] The goal of display advertising is to obtain more traffic, clicks, or popularity for the advertising brand or organization. Display advertisers frequently target users with particular traits to increase the ads' effect.[33]
Web banner advertising
[edit]Web banners or banner ads typically are graphical ads displayed within a web page. Many banner ads are delivered by a central ad server.
Banner ads can use rich media to incorporate video, audio, animations, buttons, forms, or other interactive elements using Java applets, HTML5, Adobe Flash, and other programs. Frame ads were the first form of web banners.[23] The colloquial usage of "banner ads" often refers to traditional frame ads. Website publishers incorporate frame ads by setting aside a particular space on the web page. The Interactive Advertising Bureau's Ad Unit Guidelines propose standardized pixel dimensions for ad units.[34]
Pop-ups/pop-unders: A pop-up ad is displayed in a new web browser window that opens above a website visitor's initial browser window.[35] A pop-under ad opens a new browser window under a website visitor's initial browser window.[30]: 22 Pop-under ads and similar technologies are now advised against by online authorities such as Google, who state that they "do not condone this practice".[36]
Floating ad: A floating ad, or overlay ad, is a type of rich media advertisement that appears superimposed over the requested website's content. Floating ads may disappear or become less obtrusive after a pre-set time period.
Expanding ad: An expanding ad is a rich media frame ad that changes dimensions upon a predefined condition, such as a preset amount of time a visitor spends on a webpage, the user's click on the ad, or the user's mouse movement over the ad.[37] Expanding ads enable the inclusion of more content within a limited initial ad space.
Trick banners: A trick banner is a banner ad where the ad copy imitates some screen elements users commonly encounter, such as an operating system message or popular application message, to induce ad clicks.[38] Trick banners typically do not mention the advertiser in the initial ad, and thus they are a form of bait-and-switch.[39][40] Trick banners commonly attract a higher-than-average click-through rate, but tricked users may resent the advertiser for deceiving them.[41]
News Feed Ads
[edit]"News Feed Ads", also called "Sponsored Stories", "Boosted Posts", typically exist on social media platforms that offer a steady stream of information updates ("news feed"[42]) in regulated formats (i.e. in similar sized small boxes with a uniform style). Those advertisements are intertwined with non-promoted news that the users are reading through. Those advertisements can be of any content, such as promoting a website, a fan page, an app, or a product.
Some examples are: Facebook's "Sponsored Stories",[43] LinkedIn's "Sponsored Updates",[44] and Twitter's "Promoted Tweets".[45]
This display ads format falls into its own category because unlike banner ads which are quite distinguishable, News Feed Ads' format blends well into non-paid news updates. This format of online advertisement yields much higher click-through rates than traditional display ads.[46][47]
Advertising sales and delivery models
[edit]
The process by which online advertising is displayed can involve many parties. In the simplest case, the website publisher selects and serves the ads. Publishers which operate their own advertising departments may use this method. Alternatively ads may be outsourced to an advertising agency under contract with the publisher, and served from the advertising agency's servers or ad space may be offered for sale in a bidding market using an ad exchange and real-time bidding, known as programmatic advertising.
Programmatic advertising
[edit]Programmatic advertising involves automating the sale and delivery of digital advertising on websites and platforms via software rather than direct human decision-making.[2] Advertisements are selected and targeted to audiences via ad servers which often use cookies, which are unique identifiers of specific computers, to decide which ads to serve to a particular consumer. Cookies can track whether a user left a page without buying anything, so the advertiser can later retarget the user with ads from the site the user visited.[49]
As advertisers collect data across multiple external websites about a user's online activity, they can create a detailed profile of the user's interests to deliver even more targeted advertising. This aggregation of data is called behavioral targeting.[50] Advertisers can also target their audience by using contextual to deliver display ads related to the content of the web page where the ads appear.[25]: 118 Retargeting, behavioral targeting, and contextual advertising all are designed to increase an advertiser's return on investment, or ROI, over untargeted ads.[51]

Advertisers may also deliver ads based on a user's suspected geography through geotargeting. A user's IP address communicates some geographic information (at minimum, the user's country or general region). The geographic information from an IP can be supplemented and refined with other proxies or information to narrow the range of possible locations.[33] For example, with mobile devices, advertisers can sometimes use a phone's GPS receiver or the location of nearby mobile towers.[52] Cookies and other persistent data on a user's machine may help narrow down a user's location even further.
This involves many parties interacting automatically in real time. In response to a request from the user's browser, the publisher content server sends the web page content to the user's browser over the Internet. The page does not yet contain ads, but contains links which cause the user's browser to connect to the publisher ad server to request that the spaces left for ads be filled in with ads. Information identifying the user, such as cookies and the page being viewed, is transmitted to the publisher ad server.
The publisher ad server then communicates with a supply-side platform server. The publisher is offering ad space for sale, so they are considered the supplier. The supply side platform also receives the user's identifying information, which it sends to a data management platform. At the data management platform, the user's identifying information is used to look up demographic information, previous purchases, and other information of interest to advertisers. The process is sometimes described as a 'waterfall'.[53]
Broadly speaking, there are three types of data obtained through such a data management platform:
- First party data refers to the data retrieved from customer relationship management (CRM) platforms, in addition to website and paid media content or cross-platform data. This can include data from customer behaviors, actions or interests.[54]
- Second party data refers to an amalgamation of statistics related to cookie pools on external publications and platforms. The data is provided directly from the source (adservers, hosted solutions for social or an analytics platform). It is also possible to negotiate a deal with a particular publisher to secure specific data points or audiences.
- Third party data is sourced from external providers and often aggregated from numerous websites. Businesses sell third-party data and are able to share this via an array of distribution avenues.[55]
This customer information is combined and returned to the supply side platform, which can now package up the offer of ad space along with information about the user who will view it. The supply side platform sends that offer to an ad exchange.
The ad exchange puts the offer out for bid to demand-side platforms. Demand side platforms act on behalf of ad agencies, who sell ads which advertise brands. Demand side platforms thus have ads ready to display, and are searching for users to view them. Bidders get the information about the user ready to view the ad, and decide, based on that information, how much to offer to buy the ad space. According to the Internet Advertising Bureau, a demand side platform has 10 milliseconds to respond to an offer. The ad exchange picks the winning bid and informs both parties.
The ad exchange then passes the link to the ad back through the supply side platform and the publisher's ad server to the user's browser, which then requests the ad content from the agency's ad server. The ad agency can thus confirm that the ad was delivered to the browser.[56]
This is simplified, according to the IAB. Exchanges may try to unload unsold ("remnant") space at low prices through other exchanges. Some agencies maintain semi-permanent pre-cached bids with ad exchanges, and those may be examined before going out to additional demand side platforms for bids. The process for mobile advertising is different and may involve mobile carriers and handset software manufacturers.[56]
Interstitial ads: An interstitial ad displays before a user can access requested content, sometimes while the user is waiting for the content to load.[57] Interstitial ads are a form of interruption marketing.[58][59]
Text ads: A text ad displays text-based hyperlinks. Text-based ads may display separately from a web page's primary content, or they can be embedded by hyperlinking individual words or phrases to the advertiser's websites. Text ads may also be delivered through email marketing or text message marketing. Text-based ads often render faster than graphical ads and can be harder for ad-blocking software to block.[60]
Search engine marketing (SEM)
[edit]Search engine marketing, or SEM, is designed to increase a website's visibility in search engine results pages (SERPs). Search engines provide sponsored results and organic (non-sponsored) results based on a web searcher's query.[25]: 117 Search engines often employ visual cues to differentiate sponsored results from organic results. Search engine marketing includes all of an advertiser's actions to make a website's listing more prominent for topical keywords. The primary reason behind the rising popularity of Search Engine Marketing has been Google. There were a few companies that had its own PPC and Analytics tools. However, this concept was popularized by Google. Google Ad words was convenient for advertisers to use and create campaigns. And, they realized that the tool did a fair job, by charging only for someone's click on the ad, which reported as the cost-per-click for which a penny was charged. This resulted in the advertisers monitoring the campaign by the number of clicks and were satisfied that the ads could be tracked.[61]
Search engine optimization, or SEO, attempts to improve a website's organic search rankings in SERPs by increasing the website content's relevance to search terms. Search engines regularly update their algorithms to penalize poor quality sites that try to game their rankings, making optimization a moving target for advertisers.[62][63] Many vendors offer SEO services.[30]: 22
Sponsored search (also called sponsored links, search ads, or paid search) allows advertisers to be included in the sponsored results of a search for selected keywords. Search ads are often sold via real-time auctions, where advertisers bid on keywords.[25]: 118 [64] In addition to setting a maximum price per keyword, bids may include time, language, geographical, and other constraints.[25]: 118 Search engines originally sold listings in order of highest bids.[25]: 119 Modern search engines rank sponsored listings based on a combination of bid price, expected click-through rate, keyword relevancy and site quality.[27]
Social media marketing
[edit]Social media marketing is commercial promotion conducted through social media websites. Many companies promote their products by posting frequent updates and providing special offers through their social media profiles. Videos, interactive quizzes, and sponsored posts are all a part of this operation. Usually these ads are found on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat.[65]
Mobile advertising
[edit]Mobile advertising is ad copy delivered through wireless mobile devices such as smartphones, feature phones, or tablet computers. Mobile advertising may take the form of static or rich media display ads, SMS (Short Message Service) or MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) ads, mobile search ads, advertising within mobile websites, or ads within mobile applications or games (such as interstitial ads, "advergaming", or application sponsorship).[30]: 23 Industry groups such as the Mobile Marketing Association have attempted to standardize mobile ad unit specifications, similar to the IAB's efforts for general online advertising.[59]
Mobile advertising is growing rapidly for several reasons. There are more mobile devices in the field, connectivity speeds have improved (which, among other things, allows for richer media ads to be served quickly), screen resolutions have advanced, mobile publishers are becoming more sophisticated about incorporating ads, and consumers are using mobile devices more extensively.[30]: 14 The Interactive Advertising Bureau predicts continued growth in mobile advertising with the adoption of location-based targeting and other technological features not available or relevant on personal computers.[30]: 14 In July 2014 Facebook reported advertising revenue for the June 2014 quarter of $2.68 billion, an increase of 67 percent over the second quarter of 2013. Of that, mobile advertising revenue accounted for around 62 percent, an increase of 41 percent on the previous year.
Email advertising
[edit]Email advertising is ad copy comprising an entire email or a portion of an email message.[30]: 22 Email marketing may be unsolicited, in which case the sender may give the recipient an option to opt out of future emails, or it may be sent with the recipient's prior consent (opt-in). Businesses may ask for your email and send updates on new products or sales.
Chat advertising
[edit]As opposed to static messaging, chat advertising refers to real-time messages dropped to users on certain sites. This is done using live chat software or tracking applications installed within certain websites with the operating personnel behind the site often dropping adverts on the traffic surfing around the sites. In reality, this is a subset of the email advertising but different because of its time window.
Online classified advertising
[edit]Online classified advertising is advertising posted online in a categorical listing of specific products or services. Examples include online job boards, online real estate listings, automotive listings, online yellow pages, and online auction-based listings.[30]: 22 Craigslist and eBay are two prominent providers of online classified listings.
Adware
[edit]Adware is software that, once installed, automatically displays advertisements on a user's computer. The ads may appear in the software itself, integrated into web pages visited by the user, or in pop-ups/pop-unders.[66] Adware installed without the user's permission is a type of malware.[67]
Affiliate marketing
[edit]Affiliate marketing occurs when advertisers organize third parties to generate potential customers for them. Third-party affiliates receive payment based on sales generated through their promotion.[30]: 22 Affiliate marketers generate traffic to offers from affiliate networks, and when the desired action is taken by the visitor, the affiliate earns a commission. These desired actions can be an email submission, a phone call, filling out an online form, or an online order being completed.
Content marketing
[edit]Content marketing is any marketing that involves the creation and sharing of media and publishing content in order to acquire and retain customers. This information can be presented in a variety of formats, including blogs, news, video, white papers, e-books, infographics, case studies, how-to guides and more.
Considering that most marketing involves some form of published media, it is almost (though not entirely) redundant to call 'content marketing' anything other than simply 'marketing'. There are, of course, other forms of marketing (in-person marketing, telephone-based marketing, word of mouth marketing, etc.) where the label is more useful for identifying the type of marketing. However, even these are usually merely presenting content that they are marketing as information in a way that is different from traditional print, radio, TV, film, email, or web media.
Online marketing platform
[edit]An online marketing platform (OMP) is an integrated web-based platform that combines the benefits of a business directory, local search engine, search engine optimisation (SEO) tool, customer relationship management (CRM) package and content management system (CMS). eBay and Amazon are used as online marketing and logistics management platforms. On social media, retail online marketing is often used. Online business marketing platforms such as Marketo, MarketBright and Pardot have been bought by major IT companies (Eloqua-Oracle, Neolane-Adobe and Unica-IBM).
Unlike television marketing in which Nielsen TV Ratings can be relied upon for viewing metrics, online advertisers do not have an independent party to verify viewing claims made by the big online platforms.[68]
The European Union defines online platforms as "information society services that allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers; they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users offering goods or services to consumers."[69] Almost half of the small and medium-sized businesses who responded to an EU survey in 2018 said that they use online marketplaces to sell their goods and services.[70]
Compensation methods
[edit]Advertisers and publishers use a wide range of payment calculation methods. In 2012, advertisers calculated 32% of online advertising transactions on a cost-per-impression basis, 66% on customer performance (e.g. cost per click or cost per acquisition), and 2% on hybrids of impression and performance methods.[30]: 17
CPM (cost per mille)
[edit]Cost per mille, often abbreviated to CPM, means that advertisers pay for every thousand displays of their message to potential customers (mille is the Latin word for thousand). In the online context, ad displays are usually called "impressions." Definitions of an "impression" vary among publishers,[71] and some impressions may not be charged because they don't represent a new exposure to an actual customer. Advertisers can use technologies such as web bugs to verify if an impression is actually delivered.[72][73]: 59 Similarly, revenue generated can be measured in Revenue per mille (RPM).[74]
Publishers use a variety of techniques to increase page views, such as dividing content across multiple pages, repurposing someone else's content, using sensational titles, or publishing tabloid or sexual content.[75]
CPM advertising is susceptible to "impression fraud," and advertisers who want visitors to their sites may not find per-impression payments a good proxy for the results they desire.[76]: 1–4
CPC (cost per click)
[edit]CPC (Cost Per Click) or PPC (Pay per click) means advertisers pay each time a user clicks on the ad. CPC advertising works well when advertisers want visitors to their sites, but it's a less accurate measurement for advertisers looking to build brand awareness.[77] CPC's market share has grown each year since its introduction, eclipsing CPM to dominate two-thirds of all online advertising compensation methods.[30]: 18 [76]: 1
Like impressions, not all recorded clicks are valuable to advertisers. GoldSpot Media reported that up to 50% of clicks on static mobile banner ads are accidental and resulted in redirected visitors leaving the new site immediately.[78]
CPE (cost per engagement)
[edit]Cost per engagement aims to track not just that an ad unit loaded on the page (i.e., an impression was served), but also that the viewer actually saw and/or interacted with the ad.[79][80]
CPV (cost per view)
[edit]Cost per view video advertising. Both Google and TubeMogul endorsed this standardized CPV metric to the IAB's (Interactive Advertising Bureau) Digital Video Committee, and it's garnering a notable amount of industry support.[81] CPV is the primary benchmark used in YouTube Advertising Campaigns, as part of Google's AdWords platform.
CPI (cost per install)
[edit]The CPI compensation method is specific to mobile applications and mobile advertising. In CPI ad campaigns brands are charged a fixed of bid rate only when the application was installed.
CPL (cost per lead)
[edit]Cost per lead compensation method implies that the advertiser pays for an explicit sign-up from a consumer interested in the advertiser's offer.
Attribution of ad value
[edit]In marketing, "attribution" is the measurement of effectiveness of particular ads in a consumer's ultimate decision to purchase. Multiple ad impressions may lead to a consumer "click" or other action. A single action may lead to revenue being paid to multiple ad space sellers.[82]
Other performance-based compensation
[edit]CPA (Cost Per Action or Cost Per Acquisition) or PPP (Pay Per Performance) advertising means the advertiser pays for the number of users who perform a desired activity, such as completing a purchase or filling out a registration form. Performance-based compensation can also incorporate revenue sharing, where publishers earn a percentage of the advertiser's profits made as a result of the ad. Performance-based compensation shifts the risk of failed advertising onto publishers.[76]: 4, 16
Fixed cost
[edit]Fixed cost compensation means advertisers pay a fixed cost for delivery of ads online, usually over a specified time period, irrespective of the ad's visibility or users' response to it. One examples is CPD (cost per day) where advertisers pay a fixed cost for publishing an ad for a day irrespective of impressions served or clicks.
Benefits of online advertising
[edit]The low costs of electronic communication reduce the cost of displaying online advertisements compared to offline ads. Online advertising, and in particular social media, provides a low-cost means for advertisers to engage with large established communities.[65] Advertising online offers better returns than in other media.[76]: 1
Online advertisers can collect data on their ads' effectiveness, such as the size of the potential audience or actual audience response,[25]: 119 how a visitor reached their advertisement, whether the advertisement resulted in a sale, and whether an ad actually loaded within a visitor's view.[72][73]: 59 This helps online advertisers improve their ad campaigns over time.
Advertisers have a wide variety of ways of presenting their promotional messages, including the ability to convey images, video, audio, and links. Unlike many offline ads, online ads also can be interactive.[24] For example, some ads let users input queries[83] or let users follow the advertiser on social media.[84] Online ads can even incorporate games.[85]
Publishers can offer advertisers the ability to reach customizable and narrow market segments for targeted advertising. Online advertising may use geo-targeting to display relevant advertisements to the user's geography. Advertisers can customize each individual ad to a particular user based on the user's previous preferences.[51] Advertisers can also track whether a visitor has already seen a particular ad in order to reduce unwanted repetitious exposures and provide adequate time gaps between exposures.[86]
Online advertising can reach nearly every global market, and online advertising influences offline sales.[87][88][89]
Once ad design is complete, online ads can be deployed very quickly. The delivery of online ads does not need to be linked to the publisher's publication schedule. Furthermore, online advertisers can modify or replace ad copy more rapidly than their offline counterparts.[90]
Concerns with online advertising
[edit]Insufficient security
[edit]According to a US Senate investigation in 2014, there are security and privacy concerns for users due to the infrastructure of online advertising.[91] This is because of the potential for malware to be disseminated through online advertisements and for such malvertising to be inserted and triggered without sufficient protection or screening. Ransomware gangs were spotted using carefully targeted Google search advertising to redirect victims to pages dropping malware.[92]
Disinformation and dark money
[edit]Research published on New Media & Society shows that several actors abuse the obscurity and complexity of programmatic advertising to spread disinformation online,[93] for example by directing advertising money to fund fake news websites.[94][95] Additionally, the lack of regulation and accountability in the digital advertising ecosystem has led to the influx of dark money campaigns that fund political campaigns without disclosing the source of the funds.[96]
Viewability limitations
[edit]Eye-tracking studies have shown that Internet users often ignore web page zones likely to contain display ads (sometimes called "banner blindness"), and this problem is worse online than in offline media.[97] On the other hand, studies suggest that even those ads "ignored" by the users may influence the user subconsciously.[98]
Ad fraud
[edit]
There are numerous ways that advertisers can be overcharged for their advertising. For example, click fraud occurs when a publisher or third parties click (manually or through automated means) on a CPC ad with no legitimate buying intent.[100] For example, click fraud can occur when a competitor clicks on ads to deplete its rival's advertising budget, or when publishers attempt to manufacture revenue.[100]
Click fraud is especially associated with pornography sites. In 2011, certain scamming porn websites launched dozens of hidden pages on each visitor's computer, forcing the visitor's computer to click on hundreds of paid links without the visitor's knowledge.[101]
Online impression fraud can occur when publishers overstate the number of ad impressions they have delivered to their advertisers. To combat impression fraud, several publishing and advertising industry associations are developing ways to count online impressions credibly.[102][103]
Heterogeneous clients
[edit]Because users have different operating systems, web browsers[104] and computer hardware (including mobile devices and different screen sizes), online ads may appear to users differently from how the advertiser intended, or the ads may not display properly at all. A 2012 comScore study revealed that, on average, 31% of ads were not "in-view" when rendered, meaning they never had an opportunity to be seen.[105] Rich media ads create even greater compatibility problems, as some developers may use competing (and exclusive) software to render the ads (see e.g. Comparison of HTML 5 and Flash).
Furthermore, advertisers may encounter legal problems if legally required information does not actually display to users, even if that failure is due to technological heterogeneity.[106]: i In the United States, the FTC has released a set of guidelines indicating that it's the advertisers' responsibility to ensure the ads display any required disclosures or disclaimers, irrespective of the users' technology.[106]: 4–8
Ad blocking
[edit]Ad blocking, or ad filtering, means the ads do not appear to the user because the user uses technology to screen out ads. Many browsers block unsolicited pop-up ads by default.[107] Other software programs or browser add-ons may also block the loading of ads, or block elements on a page with behaviors characteristic of ads (e.g. HTML autoplay of both audio and video). Approximately 9% of all online page views come from browsers with ad-blocking software installed,[108] and some publishers have 40%+ of their visitors using ad-blockers.[7]
Use of mobile and desktop ad blocking software designed to remove traditional advertising grew by 41% worldwide and by 48% in the U.S. between Q2 2014 and Q2 2015.[109][110] As of Q2 2015, 45 million Americans were using ad blockers.[109][111] In a survey research study released Q2 2016, Met Facts reported 72 million Americans, 12.8 million adults in the UK, and 13.2 million adults in France were using ad blockers on their PCs, smartphones, or tablet computers. In March 2016, the Internet Advertising Bureau reported that UK ad blocking was already at 22% among people over 18 years old.[112][113] As of 2021, 27% of US Internet users used ad blocking software, a trend that has been increasing since 2014.[114] Among technical audiences the rate of blocking reaches 58% as of 2021.[115][116][117]
Anti-targeting technologies
[edit]Some web browsers offer privacy modes where users can hide information about themselves from publishers and advertisers. Among other consequences, advertisers can't use cookies to serve targeted ads to private browsers. Most major browsers have incorporated Do Not Track options into their browser headers, but the regulations currently are only enforced by the honor system.[118][119][120]
Privacy and user surveillance
[edit]The collection of user information by publishers and advertisers has raised consumer concerns about their privacy.[33][73] Sixty percent of internet users surveyed said they would use Do Not Track technology to block all collection of information if given an opportunity.[121][122] Over half of all Google and Facebook users are concerned about their privacy when using Google and Facebook, according to Gallup.[123]
Many consumers have reservations about online behavioral targeting. By tracking users' online activities, advertisers are able to understand consumers quite well. Advertisers often use technology, such as web bugs and respawning cookies, to maximize their abilities to track consumers.[73]: 60 [124] According to a 2011 survey conducted by Harris Interactive, over half of Internet users had a negative impression of online behavioral advertising, and forty percent feared that their personally-identifiable information had been shared with advertisers without their consent.[125][126] Consumers can be especially troubled by advertisers targeting them based on sensitive information, such as financial or health status.[124] Furthermore, some advertisers attach the MAC address of users' devices to their "demographic profiles" so they can be retargeted (regardless of the accuracy of the profile) even if the user clears their cookies and browsing history.[citation needed]
Trustworthiness of advertisers
[edit]Scammers can take advantage of consumers' difficulties verifying an online persona's identity,[127]: 1 leading to artifices like phishing (where scam emails look identical to those from a well-known brand owner)[128] and confidence schemes like the Nigerian "419" scam.[129][130][131] The Internet Crime Complaint Center received 289,874 complaints in 2012, totaling over half a billion dollars in losses, most of which originated with scam ads.[132][133]
Consumers also face malware risks, i.e. malvertising, when interacting with online advertising. Cisco's 2013 Annual Security Report revealed that clicking on ads was 182 times more likely to install a virus on a user's computer than surfing the Internet for porn.[134][135] For example, in August 2014 Yahoo's advertising network reportedly saw cases of infection of a variant of Cryptolocker ransomware.[136]
Spam
[edit]The Internet's low cost of disseminating advertising contributes to spam, especially by large-scale spammers. Numerous efforts have been undertaken to combat spam, ranging from blacklists to regulatorily-required labeling to content filters, but most of those efforts have adverse collateral effects, such as mistaken filtering.[10]
Regulation
[edit]In general, consumer protection laws apply equally to online and offline activities.[106]: i However, there are questions over which jurisdiction's laws apply and which regulatory agencies have enforcement authority over trans-border activity.[137] Many laws specifically regulate the ways online ads are delivered. For example, online advertising delivered via email is more regulated than the same ad content delivered via banner ads. Among other restrictions, the U.S. CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 requires that any commercial email provide an opt-out mechanism.[137] Similarly, mobile advertising is governed by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), which (among other restrictions) requires user opt-in before sending advertising via text messaging.
As with offline advertising, industry participants have undertaken numerous efforts to self-regulate and develop industry standards or codes of conduct. Several United States advertising industry organizations jointly published Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising based on standards proposed by the FTC in 2009.[138] European ad associations published a similar document in 2011.[139] Primary tenets of both documents include consumer control of data transfer to third parties, data security, and consent for collection of certain health and financial data.[138]: 2–4 Neither framework, however, penalizes violators of the codes of conduct.[140]
The Online Intermediation Services Regulation (2019/1150/EU) or P2B Regulation came into force in all EU Member States and the UK on 12 July 2020. The Regulation aims to promote fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services or online platforms. The main aim of the Regulation is to establish a legal framework which will guarantee transparent terms and conditions for business users of online platforms, as well as effective opportunities for redress when these terms and conditions are not respected. Such transparency and fairness underpin improvements in the function of the Digital Single Market especially for the benefit of SMEs.[141] The regulations also set up an EU Observatory to monitor the impact of the new rules,[70] called the Observatory on the Online Platform Economy.[142]
The UK's Online Intermediation Services for Business Users (Enforcement) Regulations 2020 replicate the effects of the EU Regulation.
Privacy and data collection
[edit]Privacy regulation can require users' consent before an advertiser can track the user or communicate with the user. However, affirmative consent ("opt in") can be difficult and expensive to obtain.[73]: 60 Industry participants often prefer other regulatory schemes.
Different jurisdictions have taken different approaches to privacy issues with advertising. The United States has specific restrictions on online tracking of children in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[138]: 16–17 and the FTC has recently expanded its interpretation of COPPA to include requiring ad networks to obtain parental consent before knowingly tracking kids.[143] Otherwise, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission frequently supports industry self-regulation, although increasingly it has been undertaking enforcement actions related to online privacy and security.[144] The FTC has also been pushing for industry consensus about possible Do Not Track legislation.
In contrast, the European Union's "Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive" restricts websites' ability to use consumer data much more comprehensively. The EU limitations restrict targeting by online advertisers; researchers have estimated online advertising effectiveness decreases on average by around 65% in Europe relative to the rest of the world.[73]: 58
See also
[edit]- Adblock
- Advertising
- Advertising campaign
- Advertising management
- Advertising media
- Branded entertainment
- Digital marketing
- Direct marketing
- Digital Strategist
- Integrated marketing communications
- Marketing communications
- Media planning
- Online advertising in China
- Promotion (marketing)
- Promotional mix
- Promotional campaign
- Product placement
- Promotional merchandise
- Sales promotion
- Mobile marketing
- Influencer marketing
- Content marketing
References
[edit]- ^ Alaimo, Cristina; Kallinikos, Jannis (2018). "Objects, Metrics and Practices: An Inquiry into the Programmatic Advertising Ecosystem". In Schultze, Ulrike; Aanestad, Margunn; Mähring, Magnus; Østerlund, Carsten; Riemer, Kai (eds.). Living with Monsters? Social Implications of Algorithmic Phenomena, Hybrid Agency, and the Performativity of Technology. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Vol. 543. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 110–123. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04091-8_9. ISBN 978-3-030-04091-8. Archived from the original on 20 November 2021. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
- ^ a b c Thomas, Julian (2018). "Programming, filtering, adblocking: advertising and media automation". Media International Australia. 166 (1): 34–43. doi:10.1177/1329878X17738787. ISSN 1329-878X. S2CID 149139944. Q110607881. Archived from the original on 19 January 2022. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
- ^ "IAB internet advertising revenue report: 2016 full year results" (PDF). PricewaterhouseCoopers, Internet Advertising Bureau. April 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 January 2018. Retrieved 6 February 2018.
- ^ "US Ad Spending: eMarketer's Updated Estimates and Forecast for 2017 – eMarketer". emarketer.com. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018. Retrieved 6 February 2018.
- ^ PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2020–2024". PwC. Archived from the original on 29 November 2020. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
- ^ "Attitudes to Advertising – Digital News Report 2015". 15 May 2015. Archived from the original on 19 June 2015. Retrieved 17 April 2019.
- ^ a b Gonzales, Niero (9 March 2013). "Half of Destructoid's readers block our ads. Now what?". Destructoid. Archived from the original on 12 March 2013. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ Nakamura, Leonard I. (FRB); Samuels, Jon (BEA); Soloveichik, Rachel H. (BEA) (24 October 2017). "Measuring the "Free" Digital Economy Within the GDP and Productivity Accounts" (PDF). SSRN.com. Social Science Research Network publishing working paper 17–37 of the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. p. 37 (Fig. 3). Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 March 2021.
- ^ "NSFNet Acceptable Use Policy". Information Policies: A Compilation of Position Statements, Principles, Statutes, and Other Pertinent Statements. Coalition for Networked Information. Archived from the original on 24 August 2013. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
- ^ a b c Templeton, Brad (2008). "Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Spam". Archived from the original on 3 September 2014. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ "NSFNet—National Science Foundation Network". Living Internet. 2011. Archived from the original on 2 April 2014. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
- ^ "The Internet". National Science Foundation. Archived from the original on 18 January 2014. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
- ^ Pakštas, Algirdas (21 February 2008). "Problems and Realities of Internet Governance and Regulations (and a Role of the IEEE ComSoc)" (PDF). The First Mamoun Conference for Computer Science, Communications Technology and their Applications, keynote talk. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 February 2008. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
- ^ "Evolution of the Internet". Cisco Press. Archived from the original on 5 November 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
- ^ a b Seabrook, Andrea (3 May 2008). "At 30, Spam Going Nowhere Soon". All Things Considered. NPR. Archived from the original on 21 April 2019. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ Denning, Peter J. (1 March 1982). "ACM President's Letter: Electronic Junk". Communications of the ACM. Vol. 25. Association for Computing Machinery.
- ^ a b Templeton, Brad. "Origin of the term "spam" to mean net abuse". Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ Emery, Vince (14 June 1996). How to Grow Your Business on the Internet: Your Complete Guide to Making Money at the Speed of Light (1 ed.). Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S.: Coriolis Group Books. pp. 55–140. ISBN 978-1883577759.
- ^ "Internet Users Are Notoriously Picky About E-Mail". Internet World. Meckler. 1996. Archived from the original on 3 January 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^ "Junk Mail". Electronic Billboards on the Digital Superhighway: A Report of the Working Group on Internet Advertising. The Coalition for Networked Information. 28 September 1994. Archived from the original on 15 June 2013. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
- ^ Briggs, Rex; Hollis, Nigel (April 1997). Advertising on the Web: Is there Response Before Clickthrough?. Journal of Advertising Research. pp. 33–45.
- ^ "Who Killed Time Inc.?, The Columbia Journalism Review, February 1, 2018 ("But then, a Time Inc. business manager named Bruce Judson came up with the idea of banner ads")". Archived from the original on 11 February 2018. Retrieved 20 October 2019. and "Digital Riptide, What really Happened to the News Business, Interview with Walter Isaacson, Shorenstien Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy".
Bruce Judson [then General Manager of Time Inc. New Media]...came up with the concept of the banner ad...It really transformed everything. Immediately, Madison Avenue decided, 'Oh my God, we've got to understand this. We have to hire a lot of young people.' They would send us money. It was almost like you could look out of the Time-Life Building to Madison Avenue, and watch people walking with bags of money, to dump it on our desk, or Bruce Judson's desk, to buy banner ads.
- ^ a b Morrissey, Brian (12 April 2013). "How the Banner Ad Was Born". Digiday. Archived from the original on 4 July 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ a b c McCambley, Joe (12 February 2013). "Stop Selling Ads and Do Something Useful". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 20 June 2013. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Jansen, B.J.; Mullen, T. (2008). "Sponsored search: an overview of the concept, history, and technology". International Journal of Electronic Business. 6 (2): 114–131. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.147.3734. doi:10.1504/ijeb.2008.018068.
- ^ "Google Launches Self-Service Advertising Program". Google. October 2000. Archived from the original on 1 April 2014. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ a b "Google Introduces New Pricing for Popular Self-Service Online Advertising Program". Google. February 2002. Archived from the original on 19 December 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ "Super Bowl Social Media Marketing: A Detailed History". Social Media Today. 1 February 2013. Archived from the original on 1 February 2014. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ Curtis, Dr. Anthony (2013). "The Brief History of Social Media". Mass Communication Department, University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Archived from the original on 16 March 2012. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "IAB internet advertising revenue report: 2012 full year results" (PDF). PricewaterhouseCoopers, Internet Advertising Bureau. April 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 May 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ Johnson, Bradley (30 April 2018). "Agency Report 2018: Digital rules, growth slows, consultancies surge". Advertising Age. 89 (10): 14.
- ^ a b c Main, Douglas (2022). "The untold, dramatic story behind the discovery of America's first murder hornet nest". National Geographic. National Geographic Society. Archived from the original on 15 April 2022.
- ^ a b c Steel, Emily; Angwin, Julia (3 August 2010). "On the Web's Cutting Edge, Anonymity in Name Only". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
- ^ "2015 advertising creative guidelines for display & mobile – updated for HTML5" (PDF). Interactive Advertising Bureau. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 April 2016. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
- ^ "IAB Display Advertising Guidelines". Interactive Advertising Bureau. Archived from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ "No Pop-up Ads on Google". Google. Archived from the original on 18 January 2016. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
- ^ "Mobile Rich media Ad Interface Definitions (MRAID) v. 2.0" (PDF). Interactive Advertising Bureau. 16 April 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ "Trick Banner". Archived from the original on 11 May 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ "Trick Banners". Archived from the original on 7 May 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ "Trick banner". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 10 May 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ "Term: Trick Banner". marketingterms.com. Archived from the original on 1 August 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ "Facebook News Feed". Archived from the original on 7 August 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2015 – via Facebook.
- ^ "Facebook News Feed Ads". Archived from the original on 22 August 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2015 – via Facebook.
- ^ "LinkedIn Sponsored Updates". LinkedIn. Archived from the original on 15 March 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
- ^ "Twitter Promoted Tweets". Twitter. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
- ^ "Facebook's Sponsored Stories are way more effective than Display Ads". Archived from the original on 9 April 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2015 – via Facebook.
- ^ "Facebooks' News Feed Ads generate 49x more clicks". 27 June 2013. Archived from the original on 16 April 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2015 – via Facebook.
- ^ Diaz Ruiz, Carlos (14 March 2025). "The AdTech Ecosystem and Programmatic Advertising". Market-Oriented Disinformation Research: Digital Advertising, Disinformation and Fake News on Social Media (1 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 134. doi:10.4324/9781003506676. ISBN 978-1-003-50667-6.
- ^ Helft, Miguel; Vega, Tanzina (29 August 2010). "Retargeting Ads Follow Surfers to Other Sites". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Drell, Lauren (26 April 2011). "4 Ways Behavioral Targeting is Changing the Web". Mashable.com. Archived from the original on 21 May 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ a b Moe, Wendy W. (2013). "Chapter 9: Targeting Display Advertising" (PDF). Advanced Database Marketing: Innovative Methodologies & Applications for Managing Customer Relationships. Gower Publishing, London. ISBN 978-1409444619. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 August 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Adams, Barry (2012). "Geotargeting Based on IP Address is Broken". Archived from the original on 20 June 2013. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ Thomas, Julian (1 February 2018). "Programming, filtering, adblocking: advertising and media automation". Media International Australia. 166 (1): 34–43. doi:10.1177/1329878X17738787. S2CID 149139944. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
- ^ O'Hara, Chris (9 November 2011). "When Big Data Doesn't Provide Big Insights". clickz.com. ClickZ. Archived from the original on 9 April 2015. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
- ^ "3rd Party Data Collection Principles from TRUSTe". TRUSTe.com. TRUSTe. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
- ^ a b "How an ad is served with real-time bidding". Internet Advertising Bureau. 19 June 2014. Archived from the original on 31 October 2021.
- ^ "Term: Interstitial ad". marketingterms.com. Archived from the original on 9 July 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Hanley, M.; Becker, M. (2007). "Cell Phone Usage and Advertising Acceptance Among College Students: A Four-Year Analysis". 2008 AEJMC Conference: Advertising Division–Research. Archived from the original on 27 March 2014. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ a b "Mobile Advertising Guidelines, Version 5.0". Mobile Marketing Association. February 2011. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ "Term: Text ad". marketingterms.com. Archived from the original on 8 July 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Ramos, Andreas; Cota, Stephanie (14 September 2008). Search Engine Marketing. Google's Role in the Digitization of Analog Media – First Para. p. 5. ISBN 9780071597340. Archived from the original on 27 April 2021. Retrieved 19 October 2020.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Mothner, Michael (12 September 2012). "SEO Marketing Myths". Inc. Archived from the original on 21 June 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Demers, Jason (2 January 2013). "5 Deadly Sins of SEO and Online Marketing". Entrepreneur.com. Archived from the original on 29 June 2013. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
- ^ Athey, S.; Nekipelov, D. (January 2012). "A Structural Model of Sponsored Search Advertising Auctions" (PDF). p. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 April 2013. Retrieved 8 June 2013.
- ^ a b Christensson, P. "SMM". Tech Terms Computer Dictionary. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Tulloch, Mitch (2003). Koch, Jeff; Haynes, Sandra (eds.). Microsoft Encyclopedia of Security. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-7356-1877-0.
- ^ "Malware & Botnets". National Cyber Security Alliance. Archived from the original on 13 December 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
- ^ Vranica, Suzanne; Shields, Mike (23 September 2016). "Doubts About Digital Ads Rise Over New Revelations". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Archived from the original on 25 September 2016. Retrieved 25 September 2016.
- ^ European Union, Online intermediation services – fairness and transparency for business users Archived 9 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine, accessed 14 November 2020
- ^ a b European Commission, Online platforms: Commission sets new standards on transparency and fairness Archived 9 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine, IP/18/3372, published 26 April 2018, accessed 14 November 2020
- ^ Story, Louise (22 October 2007). "How many site hits? Depends who's counting". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 12 February 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
- ^ a b Fisher, Ken (6 March 2010). "Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 19 July 2017. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f Goldfarb, Avi; Tucker, Catherine E. (2011). "Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising" (PDF). Management Science. 57 (1): 57–71. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1246. hdl:1721.1/64920. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
- ^ Jones, Mark (8 June 2018). "Native ad leader Outbrain acquires AdNgin for automated ad content optimisation". Marketing Tech. Archived from the original on 12 December 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
- ^ Kuckera, Ben (17 April 2013). "Ad-blockers, the games press, and why sexy cosplay galleries lead to better reporting". Penny Arcade Report. Archived from the original on 8 June 2013. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
- ^ a b c d Hu, Yu; Shin, Jiwoong; Tang, Zhulei (September 2012). "Performance-based Pricing Models in Online Advertising: Cost per Click versus Cost per Action" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ "comScore and Starcom USA Release Updated 'Natural Born Clickers' Study Showing 50 Percent Drop in Number of U.S. Internet Users Who Click on Display Ads". comScore, Inc. 1 October 2009. Archived from the original on 18 May 2013. Retrieved 1 June 2013.
- ^ Felix, Samantha (26 October 2012). "Mobile Advertising's Darkest Secret: Here's the REAL Error Rate for 'Fat Finger' Clicks". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 14 July 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ "Is CPE the Best Way to Quantify ROI?". Mashable. 9 December 2013. Archived from the original on 20 May 2014. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ "Understanding the Cost-Per-Engagement Ad Model". Mediapost.com. Archived from the original on 20 May 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
- ^ "Cost-Per-View Pricing for Digital Video: What Would It Really Measure?". Mediapost.com. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
- ^ "Marketers Focus on Making Attribution Data Actionable: Industry experts discuss real-time optimisation of cross-platform attribution findings". emarketer.com. Archived from the original on 7 September 2015. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
- ^ Moses, Lucia (2 April 2013). "The New York Times Tries Another Interactive Ad Unit: This time, for Prudential". Adweek. Archived from the original on 3 June 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Brian, Matt (22 May 2013). "Twitter steps into interactive ads, lets users sign up for offers directly from their timeline". The Verge. Archived from the original on 8 June 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Abramovich, Giselle (25 March 2013). "5 Really Creative Banner Ads". Digiday. Archived from the original on 29 June 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Braun, Michael (2011). "Measuring Online Advertising Effectiveness" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 February 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ "Measuring the effectiveness of online advertising" (PDF). pwc.com. PricewaterhouseCoopers France, IAB France, Syndicat des Regies Internet. 2010. p. 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2013. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
- ^ Sherman, Erik (13 August 2012). "Online Advertising: Surprising New Finding". inc.com. Archived from the original on 18 September 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ Goldfarb, Avi; Tucker, Catherine (4 May 2010). "Advertising Bans and the Substitutability of Online and Offline Advertising". Journal of Marketing Research. 48 (2): 207–227. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.2.207. hdl:1721.1/68636. S2CID 15165833. SSRN 1600221.
- ^ "Revenue Outcomes Matter to Online Advertisers: Advanced Automation Can Improve Efficiency And Results" (PDF). marinsoftware.com. Forrester Consulting. January 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 March 2020. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Constantin, Lucian (15 May 2014). "Online advertising poses significant security, privacy risks to users, US Senate report says". Network World. Archived from the original on 18 December 2023. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
- ^ "Ransomware gangs use SEO poisoning to infect visitors". BleepingComputer. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
- ^ Diaz Ruiz, Carlos (30 October 2023). "Disinformation on digital media platforms: A market-shaping approach". New Media & Society. 27 (4): 2188–2211. doi:10.1177/14614448231207644. ISSN 1461-4448.
- ^ Braun, Joshua A.; Eklund, Jessica L. (2 January 2019). "Fake News, Real Money: Ad Tech Platforms, Profit-Driven Hoaxes, and the Business of Journalism". Digital Journalism. 7 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1080/21670811.2018.1556314. ISSN 2167-0811.
- ^ Diaz Ruiz, Carlos (23 November 2023). "Disinformation is part and parcel of social media's business model, new research shows". The Conversation. Retrieved 15 March 2024.
- ^ Nadler, Anthony; Donovan, Joan (17 October 2018). "Weaponizing the Digital Influence Machine". Data & Society. Retrieved 15 March 2024.
- ^ Pieters, Rik (2008). "A Review of Eye-Tracking Research in Marketing". Review of Marketing Research. Vol. 4. pp. 123–147. doi:10.1108/s1548-6435(2008)0000004009. ISBN 978-0-7656-2092-7.
- ^ Lee, Joowon; Ahn, Jae-Hyeon (2012). "Attention to Banner Ads And Their Effectiveness: An Eye-Tracking Approach". International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 17 (1): 119–137. doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415170105. S2CID 207405327. Archived from the original on 18 August 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Diaz Ruiz, Carlos (14 March 2025). "6. The AdTech Ecosystem and Programmatic Advertising". Market-Oriented Disinformation Research: Digital Advertising, Disinformation and Fake News on Social Media (1 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 139. doi:10.4324/9781003506676. ISBN 978-1-003-50667-6.
- ^ a b "Truth in advertising: 'Click fraud' poses a threat to the boom in internet advertising". The Economist. 23 November 2006. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Steel, Emily (16 March 2011). "Off Screen, Porn Sites Trick Advertisers: Tactic Dupes Big Marketers, Internet Companies With Flood of Traffic From Hidden Pages". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 18 January 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2013.
- ^ "International Federation of Audit Bureaux Circulations". Archived from the original on 28 November 1999. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
- ^ Elliot, Stuart (14 November 2012). "Renaming the Circulation Overseer". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Protalinski, Emily (1 March 2013). "Internet Explorer continues growth past 55% market share thanks to IE9 and IE10, as Chrome hits 17-month low". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 15 January 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ "comScore Releases Full Results of vCE Charter Study Involving 12 Leading U.S. Advertisers". comScore. 26 March 2012. Archived from the original on 18 May 2013. Retrieved 1 June 2013.
- ^ a b c ".com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. March 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 October 2011. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ "Configuring Your Web Browser to Allow Pop-up Windows". University of Pennsylvania, Information Systems & Computing. 13 June 2016. Archived from the original on 12 June 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
- ^ "Clicked off: Doom beckons for online ads". The Economist. 10 November 2012. Archived from the original on 8 June 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013.
- ^ a b Elmer-DeWitt, Philip (21 September 2015). "Look Who's Driving Adblock Growth". Fortune. Archived from the original on 27 September 2015. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
- ^ "Expanding user protections on the web". Chromium Blog. Archived from the original on 1 February 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
- ^ "Abusive experiences". Google Inc. Archived from the original on 21 June 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
- ^ Sweney, Mark (1 March 2016). "More than 9 million Britons now use adblockers". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
- ^ Sweney, Mark (20 April 2016). "Fears of adblocking 'epidemic' as report forecasts almost 15m UK users next year". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 25 April 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
- ^ "Ad blocker usage in U.S." Statista. Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 23 November 2020.
- ^ Saric, Marko (31 August 2021). "58% of Hacker News, Reddit and tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics". Plausible Analytics. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
- ^ "Google ads agency account". Mega Digital – Digital Marketing Agency. Retrieved 18 September 2023.
- ^ PrivNet's Internet Fast Forward (IFF) on CNBC, circa 1996, 12 May 2011, retrieved 3 February 2023
- ^ Angwin, Julia (7 December 2010). "Microsoft to Add 'Tracking Protection' to Web Browser". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 13 February 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
- ^ "Longer battery life and easier website permissions". 6 November 2012. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 7 November 2012.
- ^ Angwin, Julia (21 January 2011). "Web Tool on Firefox to Deter Tracking". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 15 January 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
- ^ Hoofnagle, Chris J.; Urban, Jennifer M.; Li, Su (8 October 2012). "Privacy and Modern Advertising: Most US Internet Users Want 'Do Not Track' to Stop Collection of Data about their Online Activities". Amsterdam Privacy Conference, 2012. SSRN 2152135.
- ^ Clifford, Stephanie (29 September 2009). "Two-Thirds of Americans Object to Online Tracking". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 December 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Acohido, Byron (9 February 2011). "Most Google, Facebook users fret over privacy". USA Today. Archived from the original on 4 July 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ a b Cutter, Slade (22 February 2012). "The 7 'creep factors' of online behavioral advertising". venturebeat.com. Venture Beat. Archived from the original on 23 June 2013. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
- ^ "Press Release: TRUSTe Announces 2011 Behavioral Advertising Survey Results". TRUSTe. 25 July 2011. Archived from the original on 7 November 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Heusssner, Ki Mae (13 February 2013). "Divorcees, Southerners Most Concerned About Web Privacy: 90 percent of online adults worry about privacy online, study shows". AdWeek. Archived from the original on 30 July 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Sirivianos, Michael; Kim, Kyungbaek; Yang, Xiaowei (2009). "FaceTrust: Assessing the Credibility of Online Personas via Social Networks" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 November 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ "Craigslist Scams". Fraud Guides. Archived from the original on 5 July 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Kassner, Michael (30 July 2012). "The truth behind those Nigerian 419 scammers". Tech Republic. Archived from the original on 19 May 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ "Common Fraud Schemes". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Archived from the original on 16 July 2016. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ Rege, Aunshul (December 2009). "What's Love Got to Do with It? Exploring Online Dating Scams and Identity Fraud" (PDF). International Journal of Cyber Criminology: 494–512. ISSN 0974-2891. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 November 2013. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
- ^ "2012 Internet Crime Report" (PDF). Internet Crime Complaint Center. FBI and National White Collar Crime Center. 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 June 2013. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
- ^ Rosenberg, Eric (31 March 2007). "U.S. Internet fraud at all-time high: 'Nigerian' scam and other crimes cost $198.4 million". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 18 August 2017. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
- ^ Mlot, Stephanie (1 February 2013). "Online Advertising More Likely to Spread Malware Than Porn". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 11 July 2017. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ "Cisco 2013 Annual Security Report" (PDF). Cisco. 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 February 2013. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
- ^ "CryptoWall! crooks! 'turn! to! Yahoo! ads! to! spread! ransomware!'". The Register. 11 August 2014. Archived from the original on 21 January 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
- ^ a b Special Advertising Problems: Internet Advertising: Unique Issues Posed by the Internet. The Law of Advertising. Vol. 56. Matthew Bender & Co, Inc. 2013.
- ^ a b c "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising" (PDF). iab.net. Interactive Advertising Bureau. 1 July 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 January 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ "Europe's Online Advertising Industry Releases Self-Regulation Framework". iabeurope.eu. 11 April 2011. Archived from the original on 17 April 2011. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ Singel, Ryan (8 July 2009). "Internet Ad Industry Begs for Regulation". Wired. Archived from the original on 3 July 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ Livingstone, C., Online Intermediation Services for Business Users (Enforcement) Regulations 2020 laid before Parliament Archived 18 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine, published 29 June 2020, accessed 14 November 2020
- ^ Observatory on the Online Platform Economy, About – Observatory on the Online Platform Economy Archived 16 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "FTC Strengthens Kids' Privacy, Gives Parents Greater Control Over Their Information By Amending Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule". Federal Trade Commission. 19 December 2012. Archived from the original on 25 June 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
- ^ "Performance & Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2012" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. 2012. p. iv. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 May 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
Online advertising
View on GrokipediaOnline advertising consists of paid promotions delivered through internet-connected channels, including websites, search engines, mobile apps, and social media, utilizing formats such as display banners, search listings, video interstitials, and sponsored content to drive consumer actions like purchases or engagement.[1][2] These campaigns rely on data-driven targeting, aggregating user behavioral signals from browsing history, location, and demographics to optimize reach and relevance, enabling advertisers to measure performance via metrics like click-through rates and conversions.[3][4] The practice originated in 1994 with the debut of the first clickable banner ad by AT&T on the HotWired website, transitioning advertising from static print and broadcast media to interactive digital formats amid the web's commercialization.[5][6] Subsequent innovations, including search engine marketing in the early 2000s and programmatic automation via real-time bidding auctions, scaled the industry by automating ad placements and enhancing efficiency through algorithmic decision-making.[7] In 2024, global digital ad spending reached approximately $694 billion, representing over half of total advertising expenditures and funding vast portions of online content provision, with dominant platforms like Google and Meta capturing the majority of revenues through integrated ecosystems.[8][9] This growth reflects empirical demonstrations of effectiveness, where targeted online ads have been shown to positively impact consumer mindsets and purchase intentions, outperforming untargeted alternatives in controlled studies.[10][11] However, the sector grapples with systemic issues, including ad fraud—estimated to affect 18% of digital ad impressions worldwide in 2024, resulting in over $100 billion in annual losses through bots and fake traffic—and privacy erosions from pervasive tracking that compile detailed user profiles without uniform consent mechanisms.[12][13][14] These challenges, compounded by regulatory responses like data protection laws, underscore tensions between advertising's economic utility and its causal contributions to surveillance economies and deceptive practices.[15]
History
Early pioneers (1990s)
The origins of online advertising trace to proprietary dial-up services in the late 1980s and early 1990s, where platforms like Prodigy introduced fixed-position graphical ads to support content delivery amid subscriber fees. Prodigy, a joint venture of Sears, IBM, and CBS launched in 1988, pioneered consumer-facing online ads by displaying them consistently across screens, generating revenue through sponsorships from brands like Coca-Cola as early as 1990. These early efforts, however, were confined to closed networks without hyperlinked interactivity, limiting their scalability compared to the open web.[16] The pivotal shift occurred with the World Wide Web's commercialization, as banner advertising debuted on October 27, 1994, when HotWired—the digital arm of Wired magazine—launched with rotating banner ads from 14 sponsors, including AT&T, MCI, Volvo, Club Med, and Zima. AT&T's inaugural banner, a 468x60 pixel rectangle proclaiming "Have you ever clicked your mouse right here? You will," targeted tech-savvy users and achieved an initial click-through rate (CTR) of 44%, far exceeding later industry averages of under 1%. This success stemmed from novelty and minimal ad fatigue, with HotWired charging $14,000 for the first million impressions across four ad slots, establishing impression-based pricing as a standard.[17][18][19] Ad technology advanced rapidly to manage growing inventory. In 1995, FocaLink Media Services developed the first dedicated ad server, enabling automated delivery and basic tracking of impressions and clicks on sites like Pathfinder and ESPN SportsZone. DoubleClick, founded in 1996 by Kevin O'Connor and Dwight Merriman, introduced the DART (Dynamic Advertising Reporting and Targeting) system, which automated ad serving, rotation, and rudimentary behavioral targeting based on IP addresses and cookies, handling millions of daily impressions for clients like The New York Times. By 1998, DoubleClick's IPO valued it at $1.3 billion, reflecting explosive demand as U.S. online ad spend reached $1.9 billion, dominated by display formats amid the dot-com boom.[7][20] These pioneers faced challenges, including banner blindness emerging by 1997—where users ignored static creatives—and privacy concerns over early tracking, yet they laid the infrastructure for scalable, data-informed advertising. Pioneering agencies like 24/7 Media and Adsmart also emerged, aggregating inventory from thousands of sites, but DoubleClick's innovations in yield management proved most influential, processing over 2 billion impressions monthly by decade's end.[6][21]Search and display dominance (2000s)
The 2000s witnessed the entrenchment of search and display advertising as the preeminent formats in online advertising, buoyed by technological innovations and a rebound from the dot-com bust's fallout. The burst of the dot-com bubble in March 2000 precipitated a sharp downturn in digital ad expenditures, as speculative internet firms curtailed aggressive marketing outlays amid widespread bankruptcies and investor retrenchment, with U.S. online ad revenues contracting significantly after peaking at $8.2 billion in 2000.[22] [23] Recovery commenced around 2003, driven by more sustainable models emphasizing measurable returns, culminating in revenues climbing to $26 billion by 2010.[24] Search advertising ascended rapidly, propelled by Google's AdWords platform, launched on October 23, 2000, which offered advertisers a self-service auction system for keyword-targeted text ads aligned with user queries.[25] Initially featuring flat-rate pricing for a limited set of advertisers, AdWords transitioned to cost-per-click auctions in 2002, enhancing efficiency by tying payments to actual engagement rather than impressions.[26] This intent-driven approach fueled explosive growth; by 2004, paid search constituted 35% of total internet ad revenue, totaling $2.5 billion, outpacing other formats in efficacy and advertiser adoption.[27] Search's market share expanded from 1% in 2000 to 46% by 2010, reflecting its superiority in capturing high-intent traffic compared to less precise alternatives.[28] Display advertising, centered on banner and graphical formats inherited from the 1990s, retained substantial volume but grappled with diminishing returns due to user habituation and "banner blindness," where average click-through rates plummeted below 1% by the mid-decade as audiences grew ad-averse.[29] Despite these challenges, display held a 38% share by 2010, supported by Google's AdSense program, introduced in 2003, which automated contextual ad placement on third-party websites, thereby extending reach beyond search results and fostering a nascent content-driven ecosystem.[30] [28] The interplay between search's precision and display's scale underscored their joint hegemony, with Google leveraging both to amass over 60% of search ad market share by decade's end, laying groundwork for consolidated platform control.[25]Mobile, social, and programmatic expansion (2010s)
The proliferation of smartphones and app ecosystems in the early 2010s catalyzed a surge in mobile advertising, as advertisers shifted budgets from desktop to portable devices. In 2010, U.S. mobile ad spending totaled $550–$650 million, representing the inaugural year of formal revenue tracking by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), amid rising smartphone adoption that drove mobile data traffic to grow 2.6-fold globally.[24] [31] By 2012, worldwide mobile ad revenue reached $9.8 billion, fueled by platforms like iOS and Android enabling in-app and location-based targeting, with U.S. projections indicating an 80% year-over-year increase in mobile spend that year.[32] [33] This expansion reflected causal shifts in consumer behavior, where mobile devices captured 78% of data traffic despite comprising only 13% of handsets by 2010, prioritizing empirical usage patterns over legacy desktop dominance.[31] Social media platforms amplified this growth by integrating advertising into user feeds and networks, leveraging vast personal data for precision targeting. U.S. social network ad spending rose 7.1% in 2010 following a modest 3.9% recovery from 2009, as platforms like Facebook refined sponsored content post its 2007 ad launch but accelerated mobile formats around 2012.[34] Global social media ad revenue quadrupled from $7.3 billion in 2010 to nearly $31 billion by 2016, driven by milestones such as Instagram's ad introduction in 2013 and Twitter's promoted tweets in 2010, which capitalized on real-time engagement metrics rather than unverified virality claims.[35] These developments intertwined with mobile, as Facebook derived 93% of its ad revenue from mobile by mid-decade, underscoring data-backed attribution over anecdotal platform hype.[36] Programmatic advertising emerged as a core efficiency mechanism, automating ad purchases through real-time bidding (RTB) and demand-side platforms, reducing manual negotiations. Adoption accelerated in the mid-2010s, with nearly half of digital ads traded programmatically by 2015, up from nascent RTB trials around 2009–2010, as supply-path optimization addressed early fragmentation in inventory quality.[37] [38] This shift, extending to mobile and social channels, prioritized algorithmic efficiency—evident in U.S. internet ad revenues hitting $26 billion overall in 2010, a 15% rise—over traditional direct deals, though it introduced challenges like ad fraud that required subsequent verification standards.[24] By decade's end, these vectors collectively propelled online advertising's scale, with programmatic enabling cross-channel scalability grounded in auction-based economics rather than opaque networks.[39]AI-driven innovations and privacy shifts (2020s)
In the 2020s, artificial intelligence advanced online advertising through enhanced automation in programmatic platforms, where machine learning algorithms optimized real-time bidding and audience segmentation with greater precision.[40] Generative AI emerged as a key innovation, enabling automated creation of ad copy, images, and dynamic video content tailored to individual users, reducing production times from weeks to hours, with nearly 90% of advertisers planning to use it for video ads by 2025.[41][42] These tools leveraged large language models to generate personalized creatives, improving engagement rates while minimizing human intervention in campaign scaling.[43] Emerging agentic AI systems, capable of autonomous task execution, introduced challenges to traditional ad engagement by potentially bypassing clickable ads in favor of direct intent fulfillment in AI-powered environments.[44] Privacy regulations and technological changes concurrently disrupted traditional tracking methods, prompting a pivot toward privacy-preserving AI techniques. Apple's App Tracking Transparency framework, implemented in iOS 14.5 on April 26, 2021, required explicit user consent for cross-app tracking via the Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), resulting in widespread opt-outs that diminished third-party data availability.[45] This shift caused measurable declines in ad attribution accuracy, with mobile marketers reporting reduced performance metrics as signal loss affected up to 30% of iOS traffic.[46] Google's response included the Privacy Sandbox initiative, announced in 2019 and iteratively developed through the decade to replace third-party cookies with federated learning and cohort-based targeting.[47] However, on October 21, 2025, Google discontinued Privacy Sandbox, citing the ad industry's rapid adoption of AI-driven data strategies that infer user intent from aggregated, anonymized signals rather than personalized identifiers.[48] Platform adaptations included integrating ads into AI Overviews, where sponsored content appears within AI-generated search responses for queries with commercial intent, expanding to desktop and additional countries by late 2025.[49] This abandonment reflected a broader causal dynamic: privacy constraints accelerated AI reliance on first-party data and contextual inference, fostering innovations like on-device machine learning for ad relevance without persistent tracking.[50] The interplay of these trends yielded hybrid models, where AI compensated for data scarcity by predicting behaviors from behavioral patterns and environmental contexts, sustaining revenue growth amid regulatory pressures. Systematic reviews of peer-reviewed studies from 2018–2024 highlight AI's role in transitioning from intrusive personalization to ethical, outcome-focused advertising ecosystems.[50] By 2025, programmatic platforms integrated generative AI for real-time ad variations, enabling advertisers to navigate cookieless environments while adhering to frameworks like GDPR and emerging U.S. state laws.[40]Core Technologies and Mechanisms
Targeting algorithms and data collection
Targeting algorithms in online advertising employ machine learning models to analyze user data and predict ad relevance, segmenting audiences by demographics, behaviors, and inferred interests to optimize delivery. These systems process signals such as browsing history, search queries, and purchase patterns to construct probabilistic profiles, enabling platforms like Google and Meta to match ads with high-propensity users. For instance, contextual targeting infers intent from page content, while behavioral targeting tracks cross-site actions to refine predictions. A common misconception holds that advertisements appearing relevant after offline discussions result from device microphones eavesdropping on conversations; empirical evidence attributes this instead to extensive data sources including users' online activity, search histories, location data, friends' behaviors via social graphs, and on-platform interactions, which generate correlations without audio surveillance.[51][52][53][54] Data collection underpins these algorithms through persistent identifiers and passive tracking. Third-party cookies, set by ad networks across sites, store user IDs for cross-domain profiling, though their phase-out accelerates post-2024 via browser policies from Chrome and Safari. Tracking pixels—tiny, invisible images embedded in webpages, emails, and ads—trigger server calls upon loading, logging events like views or clicks without user interaction. Device fingerprinting aggregates browser attributes (e.g., screen resolution, installed fonts, timezone) and hardware signals to generate unique hashes, evading cookie restrictions and enabling 99% identification accuracy in some studies.[55][56][57] Integration of collected data into algorithms yields measurable efficacy gains. Empirical analyses indicate AI-driven targeting boosts return on investment by 20-50% over non-algorithmic methods, via precise audience matching that elevates click-through rates and conversions. A 2025 study of ad campaigns found algorithmic personalization increased engagement by correlating user signals with outcome probabilities, though effectiveness diminishes with sparse data post-deprecation of identifiers.[58][59][60] Privacy regulations constrain these practices, mandating consent and data minimization. The EU's GDPR, effective May 25, 2018, requires explicit opt-in for non-essential processing, reducing available signals and prompting reliance on consented first-party data. California's CCPA, enforced from January 1, 2020, grants opt-out rights for sales of personal information, with 88% of advertisers reporting impacts on personalized targeting per a 2024 survey. Compliance has spurred cookieless alternatives like fingerprinting, yet signal loss from aggregated anonymization erodes precision, with industry estimates projecting 15-30% revenue dips without adaptive modeling. Mainstream analyses often understate persistence of tracking via probabilistic methods, as enforcement varies and workarounds proliferate despite regulatory intent.[61][62][63]Programmatic buying and real-time bidding
Programmatic buying refers to the automated process of purchasing digital advertising inventory through software platforms, replacing manual negotiations with algorithmic decision-making based on data parameters such as audience targeting, ad placement, and pricing.[64] This method emerged in the early 2000s as ad exchanges facilitated automated trades, evolving from earlier ad networks that aggregated remnant inventory.[65] By 2024, programmatic advertising accounted for approximately 595 billion USD in global ad spend, representing nearly 90% of digital display advertising transactions worldwide.[66][67] Real-time bidding (RTB) constitutes a primary mechanism within programmatic buying, wherein individual ad impressions are auctioned in milliseconds via open or closed exchanges before a webpage loads.[68] In this process, a publisher's supply-side platform (SSP) sends a bid request containing user data and impression details to an ad exchange, which notifies demand-side platforms (DSPs) representing advertisers; DSPs then evaluate and submit bids algorithmically, with the highest bidder winning the impression for display.[69] RTB auctions typically occur on a cost-per-impression (CPM) basis, enabling precise targeting using first-party data, cookies, or device IDs, though privacy regulations like GDPR have prompted shifts toward contextual and consented data alternatives.[70] The adoption of RTB has driven efficiency gains, allowing advertisers to optimize campaigns in real time and access vast inventory pools without fixed commitments, while publishers maximize yield through competitive bidding.[71] For instance, RTB reduces manual labor and enables dynamic pricing, potentially lowering costs by 20-30% compared to traditional direct buys, according to industry analyses.[72] However, RTB's opacity in supply chains has facilitated ad fraud, including invalid traffic from bots estimated at 20-40% of impressions in some reports, eroding trust and inflating effective costs.[73] Brand safety risks persist, as automated placements may juxtapose ads with unsuitable content, prompting tools like pre-bid verification to mitigate mismatches.[74] Programmatic buying extends beyond RTB to include private marketplaces (PMPs) and programmatic direct deals, which offer guaranteed inventory at fixed prices without auctions, providing transparency advantages for premium placements.[75] Despite challenges, RTB's scalability has propelled programmatic dominance, with projections indicating growth to 800 billion USD by 2028, fueled by advancements in AI-driven bidding and header bidding techniques that enhance publisher revenue by competing multiple SSPs simultaneously.[66][76]Attribution models and analytics
Attribution models in online advertising assign credit for conversions, such as purchases or sign-ups, to specific touchpoints in a user's multi-channel journey, enabling advertisers to evaluate campaign effectiveness beyond simplistic metrics like last-click attribution.[77] These models address the complexity of paths involving search ads, display banners, social media interactions, and email, where users often engage multiple assets before converting.[78] Rule-based models distribute credit heuristically, while data-driven variants leverage machine learning on historical data to weigh contributions empirically.[79] Common rule-based models include first-touch, which credits the initial interaction fully, often overvaluing awareness-stage channels like display ads; last-touch (or last-click), which attributes 100% to the final click, favoring direct-response tactics but ignoring upstream influences; linear, apportioning equal shares across all touchpoints; time-decay, escalating credit toward recency; and position-based (U-shaped), allocating 40% to first, 40% to last, and 20% to intermediates.[80] [81] Data-driven attribution (DDA), implemented in platforms like Google Ads and Microsoft Advertising, analyzes conversion patterns to dynamically assign value, requiring sufficient data volume for accuracy and outperforming rules in complex funnels per platform analyses.[82] [83] Analytics for attribution involve aggregating user-level data via pixels, SDKs, and server-side tracking to reconstruct journeys, often using tools like Google Analytics 4 or Adobe Analytics for visualization and modeling.[78] These systems compute metrics such as assisted conversions—touchpoints aiding but not closing sales—and incremental lift, quantifying ad exposure's causal impact through experiments.[77] However, cross-device tracking and view-through conversions (crediting impressions without clicks) complicate accuracy, with studies showing last-click underestimates early-funnel contributions by up to 50% in multi-touch scenarios.[84] Privacy regulations and the deprecation of third-party cookies since 2023 have intensified attribution challenges, fragmenting cross-site tracking and inflating signal loss to 20-30% in cookieless environments, prompting shifts to first-party data and contextual signals.[85] Google's delayed but ongoing cookie phase-out by 2025 necessitates probabilistic modeling and consented data pools, while platforms like Microsoft emphasize privacy-safe DDA to mitigate biases from incomplete paths.[86] [87] Empirical evidence indicates that hybrid approaches, combining DDA with incrementality tests, yield more causal insights than legacy models amid these constraints.[88]Major Formats and Types
Display and banner advertising
Display advertising encompasses visual promotions delivered across websites, mobile apps, and other digital platforms, typically featuring banners, images, text, or multimedia elements to drive brand awareness or direct responses.[89][90] Banner advertising, a core subset, refers to rectangular graphical ads positioned at the top, bottom, sides, or within content of web pages, often standardized in sizes like 728x90 pixels (leaderboard) or 300x250 pixels (medium rectangle).[91] The first banner ad appeared on October 27, 1994, when AT&T sponsored a campaign on HotWired, the digital edition of Wired magazine, featuring the slogan "Have you ever clicked your mouse right here? YOU WILL."[92][6] This 468x60 pixel ad achieved a 44% click-through rate (CTR), far exceeding modern benchmarks, as early internet users encountered few distractions.[93] Display ads vary in format, including static images for simple messaging, animated variants using GIFs or HTML5 for motion without plugins, and rich media incorporating interactivity such as expandable panels, video playback, or user-triggered elements like carousels.[91][94] Rich media formats enhance engagement over static banners but require larger file sizes and compatible ad servers.[95] Ads are served via networks that match advertiser creatives to publisher inventory, often through programmatic systems involving real-time bidding for impressions.[91] Empirical data indicate limited direct-response effectiveness for display and banner ads, with average CTRs ranging from 0.05% to 0.1% across industries, prioritizing branding and reach over conversions.[96][97] In 2024, U.S. internet ad revenue reached $259 billion, with display formats comprising a significant share amid programmatic dominance, which handled nearly 90% of digital display transactions globally.[98][67] Key challenges include banner blindness, where users psychologically ignore ad-resembling content—eye-tracking studies show 86% of consumers skip banner areas—and ad blockers, which evaded billions in impressions by altering page loads or filtering requests.[99][100] Ad fatigue from repetitive exposure further diminishes returns, prompting shifts toward contextual or native integrations, though core display persists for cost-efficient awareness at scale.[101][102]Search engine marketing
Search engine marketing (SEM) encompasses paid advertising strategies designed to promote websites by increasing their visibility in search engine results pages (SERPs), primarily through auction-based systems where advertisers bid on keywords relevant to user queries.[103] Unlike organic search optimization, SEM relies on sponsored placements, often in the form of pay-per-click (PPC) models, where charges accrue only upon user interaction such as clicks.[104] This approach leverages user intent signals inherent in search behavior, enabling advertisers to target high-conversion opportunities when consumers actively seek products or services.[105] The foundational platform for modern SEM, Google AdWords (rebranded as Google Ads in 2018), launched on October 23, 2000, introducing a self-serve PPC system that revolutionized digital advertising by aligning ad relevance with search queries via automated auctions.[25] [106] Early iterations featured simple text ads displayed alongside organic results, with innovations like quality scoring—introduced in 2005—to factor ad relevance and landing page experience into bid rankings, thereby rewarding effective campaigns over mere spending.[107] Subsequent developments included expanded text ads in 2016 and responsive search ads in 2018, which use machine learning to dynamically assemble ad variations for optimal performance.[108] Google dominates the SEM landscape, holding 92.61% of the global search engine market share as of 2025, which translates to substantial control over paid search inventory.[109] Other platforms include Microsoft Advertising (formerly Bing Ads) and smaller engines like Yahoo, but they collectively represent a minority of traffic.[109] The SEM services market was valued at $120.3 billion in 2024, projected to reach $278.5 billion by 2034 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 8.8%, driven by rising digital commerce and mobile search adoption.[110] Google's advertising revenue alone exceeded $264 billion in 2024, underscoring SEM's scale within online advertising ecosystems.[111] Core mechanisms involve keyword research to identify high-intent terms, followed by real-time auctions where ad rank is determined by bid amount multiplied by quality score, ensuring cost efficiency for relevant ads.[104] Advertisers set budgets, targeting options (e.g., demographics, location, device), and negative keywords to refine traffic, with extensions like sitelinks enhancing ad utility.[26] Empirical studies indicate SEM's effectiveness, particularly in generating steady traffic and positive returns; for instance, retargeted PPC campaigns based on prior site visits have demonstrated positive ROI in controlled analyses.[112] [113] Comparative research shows SEM outperforming social media ads in ROI for intent-driven purchases, though success depends on precise targeting and landing page optimization to convert clicks into actions.[114] Challenges include rising cost-per-click rates due to competition and ad fatigue, mitigated by ongoing algorithmic refinements.[105]Social media and influencer advertising
Social media advertising encompasses paid promotional content delivered through platforms like Meta's Facebook and Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter), leveraging user-generated data for precise targeting based on demographics, interests, behaviors, and past interactions.[115] Common formats include in-feed posts, stories, reels, and carousel ads, which integrate seamlessly with organic content to drive engagement, traffic, or conversions.[116] In 2024, U.S. social media ad revenues reached $88.8 billion, reflecting a $23.8 billion increase from 2023, driven by video and short-form content formats.[98] Globally, the market is projected to hit $275.98 billion in 2025, accounting for a significant portion of digital ad spend due to platforms' vast user bases exceeding 5 billion monthly active users across major networks.[117] Targeting algorithms on these platforms analyze first-party data from user profiles, likes, shares, and device signals to segment audiences, enabling advertisers to reach niche groups with high relevance—such as age-specific cohorts on TikTok, where over 60% of users are under 30.[118] Empirical studies indicate that such precision boosts click-through rates by 2-3 times compared to non-targeted display ads, though attribution remains complicated by multi-touch user journeys across apps and web.[119] Effectiveness varies by platform: Instagram excels in visual e-commerce via shoppable posts, while TikTok's algorithm favors viral, algorithm-driven discovery, yielding higher organic reach amplification for ads.[120] However, ad fatigue and privacy regulations like Apple's App Tracking Transparency have reduced targeting efficacy since 2021, prompting shifts toward contextual and probabilistic methods.[115] Influencer advertising, a subset often integrated with social media, involves brands compensating individuals with sizable followings for authentic endorsements, typically through sponsored posts, stories, or live streams that disclose partnerships per FTC guidelines.[121] The global influencer marketing industry was valued at $24 billion in 2024 and is forecasted to reach $32.55 billion in 2025, fueled by micro- and nano-influencers (under 100,000 followers) who command lower fees but deliver superior engagement rates averaging 3-5%.[122][123] Peer-reviewed meta-analyses confirm influencers enhance brand attitudes and purchase intent more than traditional ads, particularly for experiential products, due to perceived authenticity and social proof—effects amplified when endorsements align with the influencer's niche expertise.[124] ROI measurement for influencer campaigns relies on metrics like earned media value (EMV), conversion tracking via unique promo codes, and lift studies, with direct-to-consumer brands reporting 5-11x returns from smaller influencers versus celebrities, whose broad appeal often dilutes impact amid high costs.[121][125] Challenges include fake followers and engagement pods inflating metrics—up to 20% of influencer audiences may be inauthentic per industry audits—necessitating tools for fraud detection and post-campaign verification.[126] Despite these, longitudinal data shows sustained consumer trust in disclosed sponsorships, with 49% of buyers influenced by influencer recommendations in 2024 surveys, underscoring the format's causal role in driving sales over mere awareness.[122]Video, native, and emerging formats
Video advertising in online contexts primarily includes in-stream formats such as pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll ads embedded within video content on platforms like YouTube and streaming services, as well as outstream formats that autoplay outside traditional video players on websites and apps.[127] By 2025, digital video advertising—encompassing connected TV (CTV), social video, and online video—drives nearly 60% of total U.S. TV and video ad spending, reflecting its shift from supplementary to core revenue driver amid declining linear TV viewership.[127] Short-form videos under one minute achieve the highest engagement rates, with brands prioritizing them over longer formats due to consumer preferences for quick consumption on mobile and social platforms.[128] Native advertising consists of paid promotions designed to blend seamlessly with surrounding editorial or user-generated content, adopting the platform's visual style, tone, and functionality to minimize disruption and ad avoidance.[129] This format, often labeled as "sponsored" or "promoted," appears in feeds on social media, news sites, or recommendation engines, where it matches the look of organic posts or articles. Empirical studies demonstrate native ads outperform traditional display banners in attention metrics and brand lift, with one analysis of large-scale placement data showing higher click-through rates and reduced bounce rates when content congruence aligns with user expectations, though effectiveness diminishes if perceived as overly promotional or annoying.[130][131] Native formats foster greater trust and credibility over time compared to intrusive banners, as their contextual relevance encourages voluntary engagement rather than forced exposure.[132] Emerging online ad formats in 2025 leverage technological advances and shifting behaviors, including interactive shoppable videos that enable direct purchases within playback, augmented reality (AR) overlays for immersive trials, and AI-generated personalized video sequences adapting in real-time to viewer data.[133] Short-form vertical video ads on hyperscale platforms like TikTok and Instagram Reels dominate trends, capitalizing on users' average 100 minutes daily video consumption and comprising the preferred content type for brands seeking viral reach.[134][135] Connected TV (CTV) extensions, such as addressable ads on streaming services, represent rapid growth, blending video with programmatic targeting for household-level precision, while soundless "silent" ads address muted autoplay habits.[136] These formats prioritize performance metrics like conversions over impressions, with carousel and story-based interactives boosting engagement on social channels by integrating e-commerce elements directly into ad experiences.[137] Despite promise, their efficacy hinges on platform algorithms favoring authentic-feeling content, as over-reliance on novelty risks user fatigue without sustained ROI validation from controlled trials.[138]Email, affiliate, and performance-based variants
Email advertising entails the delivery of promotional content directly to recipients' inboxes, typically to lists built through opt-in mechanisms such as website sign-ups or purchases, with messages including calls-to-action for conversions like sales or sign-ups.[139] In the United States, it is governed by the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which requires emails to be accurately labeled as advertisements, provide a functional opt-out mechanism honored within 10 business days, and include the sender's valid physical postal address to curb deceptive practices.[140] Violations can result in fines up to $43,792 per email as of 2024 adjustments.[140] Globally, nearly 4.5 billion people used email in 2025, underpinning its scale in online advertising.[141] Effectiveness metrics highlight email's direct-response strengths: average open rates reached 32.55% across industries in August 2024, with click-through rates varying by segmentation—personalized campaigns yielding 100.95% higher CTRs than non-segmented ones.[139][142] Return on investment averages $36 per $1 spent, outperforming many digital channels due to low marginal costs post-list acquisition.[143] However, deliverability challenges persist, with 47% of marketers citing it as their top concern amid spam filters and inbox prioritization algorithms from providers like Gmail.[144] Affiliate marketing operates as a commission-based variant where third-party publishers, or affiliates, promote advertisers' products via unique tracking links on websites, social media, or emails, earning payments only upon attributable actions such as referrals or sales.[145] Online origins trace to Amazon Associates, launched July 16, 1996, allowing website owners to embed product links and receive commissions up to 10% on qualifying purchases.[146] Early adopters included music retailer CDNow in 1994, which partnered with Geffen Records for referral fees, formalizing the model before Amazon's scale. The global market reached $17 billion in 2023, driven by e-commerce growth and networks like Commission Junction (founded 1998) and ShareASale.[147] Projections estimate $15.7 billion in spending for 2024, with affiliates generating 16% of U.S. online orders.[148] Performance-based advertising encompasses models tying compensation to measurable outcomes, minimizing advertiser risk compared to impression or view-based payments. Key variants include cost-per-click (CPC), charging per user click on an ad—common in search and display, with average costs varying by industry (e.g., $1-2 for finance in 2024)—and cost-per-action (CPA), reimbursing for conversions like form submissions or purchases, often $20-100 per acquisition depending on product value.[149][150] Affiliate programs exemplify CPA, as do lead-generation campaigns where publishers are paid for qualified prospects. These models leverage tracking pixels and cookies for attribution, though multi-device behavior complicates accuracy. Empirical data shows CPA campaigns achieving ROAS (return on ad spend) of 4:1 or higher when optimized, as advertisers only pay for verified results.[151] Email and affiliate often integrate performance elements, with hybrid tracking ensuring payments align with causal contributions to sales.[143]Business Models and Compensation
Cost-per-action metrics (CPC, CPM, CPA)
Cost per mille (CPM), or cost per thousand impressions, is a pricing model in online advertising where advertisers pay a fixed amount for every 1,000 times their ad is displayed, irrespective of user engagement such as clicks or conversions.[152] This metric, derived from the Latin "mille" meaning thousand, originated in traditional media like print and broadcast but adapted to digital formats to measure exposure efficiency.[153] The formula for CPM is calculated as (total ad spend divided by total impressions) multiplied by 1,000, enabling publishers to monetize inventory based on viewership volume rather than outcomes.[154] CPM suits campaigns prioritizing broad reach and brand awareness, as it incentivizes high-volume impressions over targeted interactions, though it risks inefficiency if impressions fail to drive measurable results.[155] In display and video advertising, CPM rates vary by platform and audience; for instance, premium sites command higher rates due to verified traffic quality, while programmatic exchanges often feature lower, auction-driven CPMs.[149] Critics note that CPM overlooks ad viewability—actual visibility to users—which can inflate perceived value, with industry standards requiring at least 50% of pixels in view for one continuous second to count as viewable.[156] Cost per click (CPC) charges advertisers only when a user interacts by clicking the ad, shifting focus from mere exposure to intent-driven traffic.[157] Introduced prominently with search engines like Google in the early 2000s via pay-per-click models, CPC bidding allows advertisers to set maximum bids per click, with auctions determining ad placement based on bid, quality score, and relevance.[158] CPC is computed as total spend divided by total clicks, making it prevalent in search engine marketing and performance-oriented display campaigns where traffic volume correlates with potential conversions.[159] CPC promotes accountability by tying costs to engagement, yet average rates fluctuate widely—e.g., $1–$2 per click in competitive sectors like finance as of 2025—prompting advertisers to optimize for relevance to lower effective costs through higher click-through rates.[160] Compared to CPM, CPC reduces waste from non-engaging impressions but may undervalue awareness-building efforts, as non-clicking exposures still contribute to recall and consideration in the marketing funnel.[161] Cost per action (CPA), also termed cost per acquisition, remunerates publishers or networks solely upon completion of a predefined user action, such as a purchase, lead form submission, or app install, rendering it a results-oriented model.[162] CPA evolved from affiliate marketing in the late 1990s, emphasizing downstream outcomes over intermediate metrics, with the formula being total campaign cost divided by number of actions achieved.[155] Platforms like Google Ads report average search CPAs around $49 across industries in 2025, though e-commerce can exceed $45 on social channels, reflecting variability by conversion complexity.[163]| Metric | Focus | Calculation | Best For | Drawbacks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPM | Impressions | (Cost / Impressions) × 1,000 | Brand awareness, reach | Ignores engagement quality; vulnerable to low viewability |
| CPC | Clicks | Cost / Clicks | Traffic generation, intent capture | May overlook passive exposure value; click fraud risks |
| CPA | Conversions | Cost / Actions | Direct response, ROI optimization | Higher upfront risk for publishers; attribution challenges in multi-touch paths[164][165][166] |
Hybrid and fixed-cost approaches
Fixed-cost approaches in online advertising involve advertisers paying a predetermined flat fee for ad placements, independent of metrics like clicks or impressions. This model, also known as flat-rate pricing, provides publishers with revenue predictability and simplifies forecasting, as earnings are guaranteed regardless of traffic fluctuations.[169] It contrasts with performance-based models by shifting risk to the advertiser, who commits to the fee for specified inventory such as banner slots or newsletter mentions.[170] Sponsorships exemplify fixed-cost deals, where brands pay a lump sum for branded content integration or association with digital properties, like email newsletters or podcasts, ensuring prominent visibility without auction competition. For instance, newsletter sponsorships guarantee inbox delivery for a fixed amount, offering advertisers direct audience access amid rising ad fatigue from algorithmic feeds.[171] Direct-sold inventory, often used by premium publishers, employs fixed fees for guaranteed placements in high-value positions, prioritizing brand safety and control over programmatic variability.[172] Hybrid models blend fixed-cost elements with performance incentives, such as a base retainer plus bonuses for exceeding click thresholds, balancing stability with accountability. This approach mitigates the limitations of pure fixed fees—where underperformance yields no recourse—by incorporating variable components like cost-per-click surcharges.[173] In practice, hybrids appear in agency contracts or campaigns mixing guaranteed sponsorships with CPM adjustments, allowing advertisers to cap upfront costs while tying portions to outcomes.[174] Empirical adoption of hybrids has grown for their flexibility in volatile digital markets, enabling publishers to secure baseline revenue amid declining CPMs from ad blockers and fraud.[175]Attribution challenges in multi-channel campaigns
In multi-channel online advertising campaigns, attribution refers to the process of assigning credit for conversions—such as sales or leads—to specific touchpoints across channels like search, display, social media, email, and programmatic ads. This task is complicated by the non-linear nature of consumer journeys, where users often interact with multiple channels before converting, leading to fragmented data that obscures causal contributions. Traditional single-touch models, such as last-click attribution, which credits 100% of the value to the final interaction, systematically undervalue upper-funnel channels like brand awareness display ads while inflating the role of bottom-funnel tactics like paid search.[176][177] Evidence from marketing analytics indicates that last-click models create bias by ignoring externalities from multi-homing consumers exposed to ads across publishers, resulting in suboptimal budget allocation.[178] Multi-touch attribution (MTA) models attempt to address this by distributing credit across interactions using rule-based approaches (e.g., linear or time-decay) or data-driven methods leveraging machine learning to weigh touchpoints based on historical conversion data. However, implementation faces significant hurdles, including data silos between platforms, which hinder holistic tracking; for instance, 41% of marketers report difficulty in unifying customer touchpoints across channels as a primary barrier.[179] Cross-device behavior further exacerbates issues, as users switch between mobile, desktop, and apps without persistent identifiers, leading to undercounting of assisted conversions. Privacy regulations, such as the deprecation of third-party cookies by browsers like Chrome (phased out starting 2024), compound these problems by limiting probabilistic matching and user-level tracking, forcing reliance on aggregated or contextual signals that reduce accuracy.[180][181] Empirical studies highlight the causal realism deficit in flawed models: data-driven MTA can improve ROI estimation by 20-30% over heuristics in controlled experiments, but requires vast datasets and computational resources, with 42% of professionals citing insufficient expertise as a blocker.[179][182] Moreover, externalities like view-through conversions—where exposure without clicks influences later actions—are often unmeasured, biasing against non-click channels. Industry reports note that without robust MTA, campaigns misallocate up to 30% of budgets to overcredited channels, underscoring the need for incrementality testing via randomized experiments to validate attributions empirically rather than assuming model outputs.[183] These challenges persist despite advances, as no model fully captures unobserved influences like offline interactions or competitive effects, necessitating hybrid approaches combining MTA with econometric methods for causal inference.[79]Economic Impact and Empirical Effectiveness
Global market scale and growth drivers
The global digital advertising market generated approximately $600 billion in revenue in 2024, representing over 70% of total worldwide advertising spend and surpassing traditional media channels.[184] Projections indicate growth to around $777 billion in 2025, accounting for 75.2% of the $1 trillion total ad market, driven by accelerated digital adoption amid economic recovery.[185] This expansion reflects a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly 9-10% through the decade, outpacing overall GDP growth in major economies due to measurable returns on digital targeting.[186] [187] Key drivers include surging internet penetration and smartphone proliferation, which expanded the addressable audience to over 5 billion users by 2024, enabling scalable reach unattainable in offline media.[188] E-commerce acceleration, fueled by post-pandemic shifts and platforms like Amazon and Alibaba, has correlated with higher ad allocations, as retailers leverage data-rich environments for direct-response campaigns yielding higher conversion rates than broadcast alternatives.[189] Advancements in programmatic buying and AI-driven personalization further amplify efficiency, reducing acquisition costs by up to 30% through real-time bidding and behavioral segmentation, while social media and video formats capture shifting consumer attention spans.[190] Emerging markets in Asia-Pacific and Latin America contribute disproportionately to growth, with CAGRs exceeding 12% due to urbanization and affordable data plans, contrasting slower maturation in North America and Europe where saturation prompts innovation in formats like connected TV.[191] Regulatory pressures on privacy, such as cookie deprecation, paradoxically spur investment in first-party data and contextual targeting as proxies for sustained performance.[192] Overall, these factors underscore a causal shift from impression-based to outcome-oriented spending, substantiated by advertiser ROI metrics favoring digital over legacy channels.[193]ROI evidence versus traditional media
Empirical assessments of return on investment (ROI) in online advertising compared to traditional media reveal mixed outcomes, influenced by differences in measurability, targeting precision, and attribution methodologies. Online platforms enable granular tracking of user interactions, such as clicks and conversions, facilitating calculation of return on ad spend (ROAS) for performance-oriented campaigns; for instance, paid search advertising has demonstrated a stronger positive effect on short-term sales than offline advertising, attributed to its proximity to purchase intent and algorithmic targeting.[194] In contrast, traditional media like television, radio, and print rely on broader impression-based metrics, where direct attribution is challenging, yet studies indicate superior efficiency in delivering reach, attention, and engagement relative to costs, particularly amid rising digital ad fraud and inventory saturation.[195] These disparities underscore that online advertising often yields higher tactical ROI for lower-funnel objectives, while traditional channels contribute more to upper-funnel brand equity, with long-term firm value enhancements from display ads sometimes exceeding offline impacts.[194] Quantitative comparisons highlight contextual dependencies. Ebiquity's analysis of media efficiency found traditional channels outperforming digital in cost-adjusted attention and reach, prompting marketer reallocations; for example, predictions from the CMO Survey indicated a 2.9% increase in traditional spending by early 2022, reversing prior declines, as digital costs escalated due to invalid traffic.[195] Academic examinations of firm-level data across 1,651 companies over seven years confirmed online display advertising's edge in elevating Tobin's q (a proxy for firm value) over offline equivalents, yet emphasized heterogeneous returns based on campaign goals—paid search for immediate revenue, display for sustained valuation.[194] However, systemic issues like ad viewability (often below 50% for digital) and multi-touch attribution errors can inflate perceived online ROI, whereas traditional media's halo effects on offline sales are underrepresented in siloed analyses.[195] Integrated media mixes mitigate these limitations, with evidence suggesting optimal ROI emerges from complementary use rather than zero-sum shifts. Nielsen's marketing reports note that over-reliance on digital channels risks suboptimal reach, as traditional formats maintain advantages in audience scale and trust, driving incremental lifts when combined with online tactics.[196] Kantar studies reinforce television's role in unmatched effectiveness for awareness, despite marketer preferences tilting digital, highlighting a disconnect where empirical receptivity favors hybrid strategies over pure online pivots.[197] Ultimately, while online advertising's data-driven precision supports claims of superior direct ROI in e-commerce contexts, traditional media's proven persistence in brand-building metrics challenges narratives of outright digital dominance, urging causal evaluation beyond self-reported platform data.[195][194]Subsidy role in digital content ecosystems
Online advertising acts as a critical subsidy for digital content ecosystems, funding the production and distribution of free or low-cost online media, including news articles, social media posts, videos, and search results, without requiring direct user payments. This model emerged prominently in the 1990s with the commercialization of the web, where platforms monetize user attention through targeted ads, generating revenue streams that cover operational costs and incentivize content creation. In the United States, internet advertising revenue reached $258.6 billion in 2024, representing a 14.9% year-over-year increase and underpinning ecosystems reliant on ad-supported access.[98] Globally, digital ad spending supports key industries like publishing and video, funding content, technology infrastructure, and labor for platforms serving billions of users daily.[198] The subsidy enables widespread dissemination of information, contrasting with subscription-only models that limit reach to paying audiences; for instance, ad revenue allows search engines and social networks to offer core services gratis, drawing users who might otherwise forgo them due to cost barriers. Empirical analyses indicate this approach expands consumer welfare by lowering entry costs for content consumption, with digital ads comprising about 65% of total U.S. advertising spend by recent estimates, fueling a digital economy valued at $4.9 trillion or 18% of GDP in 2025. However, industry reports like those from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, while highlighting economic contributions, may underemphasize incentive misalignments due to their promotional stake in ad growth.[199] Causally, the ad-subsidy structure ties publisher revenues to metrics like impressions, clicks, and engagement, prioritizing volume over depth and fostering low-quality content optimized for algorithmic amplification rather than informational value. This has proliferated "made-for-advertising" (MFA) sites, which generate thin, sensational material solely to harvest ad views, diverting funds from substantive journalism; estimates place annual U.S. ad spend on such clickbait domains at $17 billion, siphoning resources that could support verified reporting.[200] Programmatic systems exacerbate this by automating placements without rigorous quality checks, subsidizing disinformation and conspiracy-laden pages that exploit engagement loops. While peer-reviewed comparisons of ad-funded versus subscription models remain sparse, the mechanism incentivizes creators to maximize short-term attention—often via outrage or novelty—over sustained accuracy, as evidenced by the rise of content farms during ad revenue booms.[201] In response, some platforms experiment with hybrid models blending ads and subscriptions to balance subsidies with quality signals, though ad dominance persists due to its scale advantages in user acquisition. This dynamic underscores a trade-off: broad accessibility subsidized by advertising democratizes content but risks eroding ecosystem integrity through perverse incentives, where low-effort output crowds out high-value alternatives unless advertisers or regulators intervene on placement standards.[202]Criticisms and Operational Challenges
Ad fraud, bots, and invalid traffic
Ad fraud refers to deceptive practices in online advertising where fraudsters generate artificial impressions, clicks, or conversions to extract revenue from advertisers, often through automated bots that simulate human behavior.[203] Invalid traffic (IVT) encompasses this non-genuine activity, including bot-generated interactions, data center traffic, and incentivized or hijacked human actions, which distort campaign metrics and waste budgets.[204] In programmatic advertising, real-time bidding exacerbates vulnerabilities, as bots can rapidly bid on inventory using techniques like domain spoofing—falsely representing traffic origins from high-value sites—or ad stacking, where multiple invisible ads load simultaneously to inflate impressions.[205] [206] The economic scale of ad fraud is substantial, with 22% of global digital ad spend—$84 billion—lost to fraud in 2023, according to Juniper Research.[207] Projections for 2024 estimate losses between $100 billion and $140 billion, driven by advanced botnets mimicking user patterns in mobile and video formats.[13] [208] Globally, IVT rates averaged 18.31% across 152 countries in 2024, with click fraud in search campaigns reaching 14-22% depending on industry and location.[12] [209] Bots account for a significant portion, with one analysis finding 7.82% of conversions invalid due to confirmed bot activity, amplifying costs as undetected bots repeat engagements.[210] Common methods include click fraud, where bots automate repeated clicks on pay-per-click ads to exhaust budgets; impression fraud, generating fake views without engagement; and install or lead fraud, fabricating app downloads or form submissions via device farms or emulators.[203] [211] Emerging AI-powered bots enhance evasion by replicating human browsing variability, contributing to click fraud surges in 2025.[212] These tactics not only drain direct spend but skew attribution data, leading to misguided optimizations and inflated ROI claims, as IVT masquerades as legitimate engagement.[213] [214] Mitigation relies on pre-bid detection tools, which reduce sophisticated fraud exposure by up to 15 times compared to unprotected inventory, though gaps persist—evidenced by brands inadvertently serving ads to known bots despite safeguards.[215] [216] Industry standards from bodies like the Interactive Advertising Bureau classify IVT into general (e.g., non-browser traffic) and sophisticated variants, but enforcement varies, with platforms like Google deploying AI to block millions of fraudulent accounts annually.[217] Despite progress, the opacity of supply chains in programmatic ecosystems sustains the issue, as fraudsters exploit unverified publishers and scale attacks via botnets.[218]Viewability and measurement inaccuracies
Viewability in online advertising refers to the metric assessing whether an ad impression is actually visible to a human user, defined by the Media Rating Council (MRC) and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) standards as requiring at least 50% of the ad's pixels to be on-screen within the viewport of an active browser tab or app window for a minimum of one continuous second for display ads or two seconds for video ads.[219][220] These criteria aim to distinguish served impressions from those likely perceived, but implementation varies across devices, formats, and vendors, contributing to inconsistencies.[221] Empirical data reveals persistent gaps in viewability rates, with global averages reaching 76.1% in the second half of 2023, implying that approximately 24% of paid impressions failed to meet visibility thresholds and thus may not have been seen.[222] In the United States, mobile app display ads achieved the highest rates among formats during the same period, yet overall figures underscore that billions in ad spend annually target non-viewable placements, such as ads loaded below the fold or on inactive tabs.[223] Low viewability correlates with wasted budgets, as advertisers often compensate based on total served impressions rather than verified views, inflating perceived reach without corresponding exposure.[224] Measurement inaccuracies exacerbate these issues, stemming from technical limitations, vendor discrepancies, and integration with ad fraud. For instance, non-human traffic like bots generates invalid impressions that mimic human behavior but evade basic viewability checks, skewing metrics and leading to overreported performance.[225][226] Studies indicate that up to 49% of data used for ad targeting and measurement is inaccurate, undermining attribution models that rely on impression logs for causality in conversions.[227] Cross-device tracking further compounds errors, as impressions served on one platform may not align with user sessions on another, resulting in fragmented or duplicated counts without standardized deduplication.[228] Critics argue that even compliant viewable impressions overestimate true engagement, as the 50% visibility threshold for one second does not guarantee cognitive attention or recall, particularly amid page scrolling or multitasking.[229] Vendor-specific methodologies introduce variability; for example, differences in pixel tracking or JavaScript execution can yield divergent viewability scores for identical campaigns.[221] Emerging attention metrics, standardized by IAB and MRC in 2025, seek to incorporate dwell time and interaction signals to refine beyond binary viewability, but adoption remains uneven, and reliance on self-reported vendor data persists as a credibility risk.[228] These inaccuracies hinder causal assessment of ad efficacy, prompting calls for probabilistic modeling over deterministic tracking to better isolate genuine impact from noise.[226]User resistance via blockers and fatigue
Ad blockers, software tools that prevent the display of online advertisements, have proliferated as a primary form of user resistance to digital advertising. As of the second quarter of 2023, approximately 912 million people worldwide utilized ad blockers, encompassing desktop plugins, browsers, and mobile applications, with projections indicating growth toward 1.1 billion users by subsequent years.[230] Globally, 31.5% of internet users employed ad blockers at least occasionally in the first quarter of 2024, driven by factors such as intrusive formats like autoplay videos and pop-ups, which disrupt browsing without user consent.[231] In the United States, 32.2% of adults reported using ad blockers in 2024, with higher adoption on desktops (37%) compared to mobile devices (15%), reflecting preferences for uninterrupted content consumption.[232] This adoption imposes substantial economic costs on the advertising ecosystem, with publishers facing an estimated $54 billion in lost revenue during 2024, representing about 8% of total global digital ad expenditure.[233] Ad blockers not only suppress ad impressions but also correlate with reduced consumer spending online, totaling $14.2 billion annually in diminished purchases, as users encounter fewer promotional prompts and gravitate toward familiar brands without external influence.[234] Empirical analyses further reveal that ad-blocked environments decrease site visits and search queries, amplifying revenue shortfalls for content providers reliant on ad subsidies.[235] Complementing technological circumvention, ad fatigue emerges as a psychological and behavioral response to advertising overload, where repeated exposures erode user engagement and foster avoidance. Research defines creative fatigue as the decline in ad performance from users viewing identical creatives multiple times, leading to lower click-through rates and diminished recall; for instance, platforms observe optimal effectiveness within 3-5 exposures before saturation sets in. Branded content on social media exacerbates this, with intrusiveness and irrelevance driving fatigue that mediates reduced platform usage and ad interactions, as evidenced in studies linking ad density to heightened user irritation and disengagement.[236] Systematic reviews of digital ad avoidance highlight causal factors including perceived privacy invasions and content overload, prompting tactics like scrolling past ads or platform abandonment, independent of blocker usage.[237] User motivations for resistance underscore causal links to advertising practices: surveys attribute blocking primarily to annoyance from non-consensual interruptions (e.g., 42% of users cite pop-ups), followed by bandwidth consumption and tracking concerns, rather than blanket opposition to commerce.[232] Fatigue compounds these effects, with models showing that unchecked ad frequency prompts proportional expenditure reductions by advertisers to mitigate waning returns, as sustained exposure yields negative marginal impacts on attention and purchase intent.[238] Collectively, these dynamics reveal user prioritization of experiential utility over subsidized content, challenging the sustainability of volume-based ad models without adaptations for relevance and restraint.Privacy, Ethical, and Societal Concerns
Surveillance capitalism critiques and data misuse
The concept of surveillance capitalism, as articulated by Harvard Business School emerita professor Shoshana Zuboff in her 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, posits that dominant online advertising platforms such as Google and Meta extract vast quantities of personal behavioral data to create predictive models of user actions, commodifying this "behavioral surplus" for profit through targeted advertisements.[239][240] Zuboff argues that this process, originating from Google's early 2000s innovations in ad auctions and behavioral targeting, has evolved into a system where private human experiences are unilaterally claimed and rendered into data assets without user consent, enabling platforms to not only predict but also shape behavior via personalized nudges and incentives embedded in ads.[239] Critics contend that these practices erode individual autonomy by fostering a marketplace of manipulation, where advertisers bid on real-time user profiles derived from cross-device tracking, location data, and inferred preferences, often via third-party cookies and pixels deployed on websites.[240] Zuboff describes this as an "assault on human autonomy," linking it to broader societal risks like democratic interference, as seen in how micro-targeted political ads exploit psychological vulnerabilities to influence voter turnout and opinions.[239] Empirical assessments of harms remain limited; a 2023 study surveying 420 online behavioral advertising (OBA) users identified self-reported issues including psychological distress from incessant personalization, perceived loss of autonomy due to inescapable targeting, behavioral constriction (e.g., avoiding certain sites to evade ads), and algorithmic marginalization for non-conforming profiles.[241] Data misuse in online advertising has manifested in high-profile breaches and unauthorized applications, exemplified by the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, where data from up to 87 million Facebook users—harvested via a personality quiz app—was repurposed to fuel psychographically targeted political ads during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Brexit referendum, bypassing platform consent protocols.[242] More recent incidents include malvertising campaigns, where malicious ads on legitimate sites deliver spyware to extract financial data, with over 1.7 billion malvertising impressions detected globally in 2022 alone, often exploiting ad networks' opaque supply chains.[243] Regulatory filings reveal persistent issues, such as Meta's 2023 admission of over-sharing user data with ad partners in violation of consent rules, prompting multimillion-dollar fines under frameworks like the EU's GDPR.[242] These cases underscore causal links between lax data governance in ad tech and tangible harms, including identity theft and electoral distortion, though proponents argue that aggregated, anonymized data yields net economic benefits outweighing isolated abuses.[14]Disinformation amplification and dark patterns
 sites without advertisers' explicit intent, as these platforms exploit algorithmic preferences for engagement over content veracity.[244][245] A 2024 study analyzing over 3,000 misinformation outlets found that advertising financed 70% of their operations, with major brands appearing on these sites despite internal policies against it, due to opaque supply chains in ad tech.[244] In the United States alone, advertisers spent an estimated $1.62 billion on ads hosted by misinformation websites between 2019 and 2023, underscoring the scale of inadvertent funding.[244] This amplification occurs through causal mechanisms where ad revenue models reward virality: MFA sites produce clickbait headlines and recycled falsehoods to lure traffic, which in turn boosts visibility via recommendation algorithms on platforms like search engines and social media, embedding disinformation deeper into user feeds. Empirical data from network analysis of misinformation cascades reveals that ad-monetized content spreads 6-10 times faster than non-monetized equivalents, as creators iterate on proven engagement tactics without regard for factual accuracy.[246][245] Advertisers face backlash effects, with experiments showing that exposure to ads alongside fake news erodes brand trust by up to 15%, as consumers associate legitimate products with deceptive contexts.[247] While platforms have implemented brand safety tools, their efficacy remains limited, as evidenced by persistent ad placements on 67% of surveyed misinformation domains from 2019-2021.[244] Dark patterns in online advertising refer to interface designs that subvert user autonomy to extract consents, data, or engagements benefiting advertisers, such as masquerading promotional content as neutral recommendations or burying opt-out options in convoluted flows. A 2022 U.S. Federal Trade Commission analysis of 153 companies identified sophisticated dark patterns like "confirmshaming" (guilt-inducing unsubscribe prompts) and disguised ads mimicking editorial content, which tricked users into prolonged exposure to targeted promotions.[248] In e-commerce settings, patterns including artificial scarcity timers and low-stock alerts have been shown to increase purchase intentions by 20-30% through psychological pressure, independent of actual inventory status.[249] These tactics extend to ad personalization, where cookie consent banners employ misdirection—e.g., defaulting to data-sharing while obscuring rejection paths—to fuel surveillance-based targeting, raising consent validity concerns under frameworks like GDPR.[250] Studies across web and mobile modalities confirm dark patterns reduce cancellation rates by 40%, sustaining ad revenue streams at the expense of informed choice.[251] The interplay between disinformation amplification and dark patterns manifests in ad ecosystems where deceptive designs on MFA sites encourage shares or dwells, further propagating false content while harvesting user data for refined targeting of susceptible audiences. For instance, nagging prompts and bait-and-switch offers on misinformation-laden pages have been linked to higher retention of erroneous beliefs, as users are nudged toward deeper interaction without transparent disclosure.[252] Empirical interventions, such as simplified opt-outs, reduce dark pattern efficacy by 25%, suggesting that regulatory scrutiny could mitigate both issues without broadly curtailing ad efficiency.[253] However, economic incentives persist, as platforms derive 80-90% of revenue from advertising, often prioritizing scale over rigorous content or design vetting.[245]
