Commentary
Robots vs. Human Traffic: Good or Bad?
- by Jack Loechner , Staff Writer @mp_research, November 9, 2015
According to new research from Distil Networks, 48% of digital ad sellers were not sure how much of a negative effect bots (a "software robot" or virtual agent) had on digital ad campaigns
Whether bots are bad for business may depend on whom you ask, says the report. Though many players in the digital ad ecosystem still say they aren’t sure, advertisers consider bots more of a problem than publishers.
Bot Traffic Effecting Digital Campaigns (Buyers vs. Sellers) | ||
Bad for Business | Buyers | Sellers |
26% or more effect | 18% | 12% |
11-25% | 19 | 2 |
Less than 10% | 22 | 38 |
No effect | 1 | - |
Not sure | 40 | 48 |
Source: Distil, October 2015 | ||
Ad buyers were more likely to put a significant figure on how much damage bots were doing, says the report. 18% of advertisers said the negative effect amounted to 26% or more, while 19% said it came to 11% to 25%. Among ad sellers, the responses were 12% and 2%, respectively. Meanwhile, nearly twice as many ad sellers as buyers said the effect was smaller than 10%.
The Premium US Digital Ad Buyers vs. Sellers Would Pay For Certified Human Traffic | ||
Premium Value | Buyers | Sellers |
1%-10% | 22% | 17% |
11-25% | 26 | 22 |
26-50% | 1 | 11 |
51-100% | 10 | 12 |
No opinion | 41 | 38 |
Source: Distil, October 2015 | ||
What to do about the problem was unclear, says the report. About two in five buyers and sellers alike had no opinion on paying for a solution that would certify traffic as human, though a fair number were willing to pay a premium of less than 25% for such a service.
Earlier this year, notes the report, reports showed that 22.8% of web traffic worldwide in 2014 came from “bad bots,” while a little over one-third came from “good bots” (like search indexing). Human traffic had dropped from 54.8% of the worldwide total in 2013 to 40.9% in 2014, though bad bot traffic had dipped slightly.
For additional information from eMarketer, please visit here.
Jack Loechner is the Editor of The Center for Media Research's daily Research Brief. You can reach him at jack@mediapost.com.
As long as advertisers aren't charged for bot "impressions" it's "no problemo". But that's the problem. How much of digital ad revenues is derived in this manner? And why should advertisers pay higher CPMs so their ads don't go to bots?Shouldn't ad sellers sell "real", not bot, impressions in the first place?
You want to rid the world of bots ? Put all of your ads in DM, newspapers, magazines, leaflets at the door. Not everyone will see them, but bye bye buy bots.
The idea that you should pay a premium to certify that the audience that "sees" your advertising is human is just nuts! Publishers need to get a handle on what vs. who is visiting their site and charge the appropriate, honest rate to advertisers for actual views by people.
Machines don't develop brand awareness or loyalty and aren't on a purchase path. There is zero value there (I don't care about the distinction between good and bad bots). This and the misguided look at online ad metrics -- impressions, page views, "engagement" -- are a potential fraud being perpetrated. The entire online ad ecosystem will collapse if it isn't fixed. Ad blocking is just the tip of iceberg in terms of reaction to this mess.
Eric, I'm not sure I can give you an answer, however, in principle, advertisers should know exactly what they are buying, including "viewable" impressions, and not have to get so technically involved that there is a great deal of ambiguity about it. In other words, It's well past time that digital sellers get organized to deliver ads and charge only for delivered ads---to real people, not bots. It doesn't matter what the CPMs are, as advertisers can decide whether the price is too high or not and if it's too high, they can move on to another venue. But not knowing what you are getting---or whether you are getting it----is going to turn many, who, for the first time, are paying attention, off.
For the first time since the advent of the Internet, a lot of TV-oriented advertisers are trying to see if digital offers, if not an alternative then a very useful targeting enhancer for their ad campaigns. This is primarily because of TV's rating fragmentation and the availability of "video" ads on digital. In other words, this is a golden opportunity for digital but it will be lost if digital sellers continue dragging their feet on the "ad viewability" problem as well as their often inflated CPMs ---for video ads----and haphazard ad scheduling/ad clutter situation. Obviously, many were unprepared to handle the perfectably proper questions now being asked---questions long ago answered and dealt with by "legacy media". Assuming that this lesson is finally being learned, now is the time to fix things and become a true ad medium, with rules that are fair to the advertisers while not destroying the value of the editorial content for users. In other words, if you are selling something, accept the responsibility for delivering the goods----don't blame the customer or try to make him pay extra to get what he thought he bought in the first place.