Comments on: Exchange v. Network Part II: Adoption http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/ Ramblings about online advertising, ad networks & other techie randomness Wed, 28 May 2014 09:36:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: response internet marketing http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-147706 response internet marketing Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:25:00 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-147706   Business Startup & Operation Manual  
Business Startup & Operation Manual

]]> By: go now http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-147275 go now Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:12:00 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-147275 Connecting like-minded people is a powerful to enhance your network. The idea of doing this seems foreign to many people, but it is actually quite easy.   Connecting like-minded people is a powerful to enhance your network.
The idea of doing this seems foreign to many people, but it is actually
quite easy.
 

]]> By: Learning the biz: Internet Advertising | Philadelphia Web Design http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-143898 Learning the biz: Internet Advertising | Philadelphia Web Design Thu, 26 May 2011 15:41:17 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-143898 [...] Mike on Ads: Exchange vs. Network Part I Exchange vs. Network Part II No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post) blog comments powered by Disqus [...] [...] Mike on Ads: Exchange vs. Network Part I Exchange vs. Network Part II No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post) blog comments powered by Disqus [...]

]]> By: Mike http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-5201 Mike Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:35:34 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-5201 I bet you're right on the patent -- what's the point of sueing when you control the market, something that is bound to change. In terms of using ad-networks -- I think small publishers will always have to use some type of consolidator. I imagine agencies will continue to use networks for a long time even it were solely for payment consolidation (e.g., no agency wants to write 1000 checks). Notice that for larger publishers or advertisers Right Media offers the PMX and AMX platforms to buy or sell directly on the exchange. I bet you’re right on the patent — what’s the point of sueing when you control the market, something that is bound to change.

In terms of using ad-networks — I think small publishers will always have to use some type of consolidator. I imagine agencies will continue to use networks for a long time even it were solely for payment consolidation (e.g., no agency wants to write 1000 checks).

Notice that for larger publishers or advertisers Right Media offers the PMX and AMX platforms to buy or sell directly on the exchange.

]]> By: James http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-5164 James Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:30:26 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-5164 Yes, that is the patent i was referring to. I'm starting to think that patent is one of the sole reasons why Google decided to acquire DoubleClick. They probably felt it was only a matter of time before DoubleClick starts feeling the effects of Google eating into their ad serving market share. It is somewhat ironic why the USPTO would grant a company such a broad patent because it basically alienates all companies from serving ads. More ironic is why DoubleClick never tried stopping companies like Google,Valueclick or Atlas from using this "Ad serving Intellectual Property". My guess is DoubleClick (prior to Google's acquisition) still believes their ad serving technology will continue to be a default alternative for major ad networks. An ideology i believe will fall apart in due time Finally, being you were a former employee of RightMedia, why do you suppose advertisers and publishers need to go through a network to trade ad spaces on the Direct Media Exchange? I also notice ADECN employed that same approach as well. Yes, that is the patent i was referring to. I’m starting to think that patent is one of the sole reasons why Google decided to acquire DoubleClick.
They probably felt it was only a matter of time before DoubleClick starts feeling the effects of Google eating into their ad serving market share.
It is somewhat ironic why the USPTO would grant a company such a broad patent because it basically alienates all companies from serving ads. More ironic is why DoubleClick never tried stopping companies like Google,Valueclick or Atlas from using this “Ad serving Intellectual Property”. My guess is DoubleClick (prior to Google’s acquisition) still believes their ad serving technology will continue to be a default alternative for major ad networks. An ideology i believe will fall apart in due time
Finally, being you were a former employee of RightMedia, why do you suppose advertisers and publishers need to go through a network to trade ad spaces on the Direct Media Exchange? I also notice ADECN employed that same approach as well.

]]> By: Mike http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-5157 Mike Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:09:39 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-5157 I take it you mean <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ai14AAAAEBAJ&dq=inassignee:doubleclick&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=1&as_miny_ap=2007&as_maxm_ap=1&as_maxy_ap=2007&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=2007" rel="nofollow">this patent</a> Hadn't seen this before, ad you're right, it's a _great_ patent. Claim #1 pretty much covers adserving: <blockquote> (a) receiving from an advertiser Web site feedback representing user transactions at the advertiser Web site, the user transactions resulting from user response to at least one of a plurality of direct advertisements; (b) receiving a request to display a direct advertisement to a user; and (c) selecting, in response to the request, one of the plurality of direct advertisements for display based at least in part upon the advertiser feedback. </blockquote> Then again, Overture used to have a rock solid patent for search advertising but that didn't stop Google. Perhaps when the deal closes we'll see another Yahoo v Google legal fight. I take it you mean this patent

Hadn’t seen this before, ad you’re right, it’s a _great_ patent. Claim #1 pretty much covers adserving:

(a) receiving from an advertiser Web site feedback representing user transactions at the advertiser Web site, the user transactions resulting from user response to at least one of a plurality of direct advertisements;
(b) receiving a request to display a direct advertisement to a user; and
(c) selecting, in response to the request, one of the plurality of direct advertisements for display based at least in part upon the advertiser feedback.

Then again, Overture used to have a rock solid patent for search advertising but that didn’t stop Google. Perhaps when the deal closes we’ll see another Yahoo v Google legal fight.

]]> By: James http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/comment-page-1/#comment-5152 James Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:14:04 +0000 http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/09/02/exchange-v-network-part-ii-adoption/#comment-5152 Hello Mike, I seem to recall reading somewhere on your blog about how you feel ad serving functions will very soon be a commodity. My question is why do you think so being DoubleClick seems to have a strong patent approved on that technology. Hello Mike,
I seem to recall reading somewhere on your blog about how you feel ad serving functions will very soon be a commodity.
My question is why do you think so being DoubleClick seems to have a strong patent approved on that technology.

]]>