> there are websites that hide ads under other ads, still reporting displays for all ads per page load.
While people have done that, most ads seem to load load with some JS to confirm if the ad is visible, and if it's above or below the fold.
While people have done that, most ads seem to load load with some JS to confirm if the ad is visible, and if it's above or below the fold.
The agencies that buy the ad verify it was placed in the right spot at the right size and that's about all they can do.
Why should the web be any different? As long as they insist on bundling javascript with their ad, I'm going to run an ad-blocker.
What? Because it can - it's the biggest reason so much money is transferring to digital and away from print, because of data and accountability. An ad that was at least scrolled into view is better than one that isnt and many campaigns are now bought on that basis.
It's not perfect but it's far better than before and we're not going back.
That's not really what P&G has found.
That being said, we work with P&G, they definitely know more now than decades before with older mediums.
I haven't had the time to look through the ad javascripts on your typical fat webpage, but when there's tens of megabytes of code and it pegs my CPU at 100%, I know it's doing more than just displaying a .png in an iframe.
That and the security risks of running other people's code on your system.
Not sure either of these work without access at the top page level, ie you can't get the data from scripts in an iframe? Been a while since i did any JS dev.