If I’m a content creator, I’m thinking I’d be shouting, “What do you people want from me?!?!” at visitors. According to multiple reports, native ads work much, much better than other ad formats. They get better interactions, more attention and all around perform better. However, researchers discovered that 61% of people felt native content hurt the credibility of content providers, and two-thirds of people have felt they were tricked by a native ad.
When asked, over 57% said they’d rather have banner ads than native ads. If that’s the case, why do they perform so much better than banners? Part of it is likely that users are tricked by the ads, and part of it may simply be that people often say one thing and do another.
For the most part, this article really only covered the major differences in what Twitter will offer politicians today compared to what was available in 2012. There have been a number of improvements to advertising that will make the platform more attractive to political campaigns, such as auto-play videos and the ability to re-target users who have visited a candidate’s website or are in an email list provided by the candidate.
One thing that is going to be fairly politics specific is the ability for Twitter’s systems to determine which popular phrases are used in association with a campaign. Examples of how this could have been used in the 2012 election include “Binders Full of Women” and “Big Bird.” Knowing which people are using these terms can help politicians target people who are watching debates.
We recently reported a story in a news roundup that Google has already created a workaround for the ad blocker that Apple is effectively creating for apps via new security measures. However, it’s not likely to work around ad blockers that work with the mobile version of Safari, which Apple will soon be allowing users to install.
What’s kind of a jerk move on Apple’s part is that content providers are likely to be hurt by this move, but Apple News, which will contain stories from news providers that will be hit by ad blockers, will be supported by ads.
Although I tend to think that the EU’s constant attack dog approach to dealing with American tech companies is borderline ridiculous, Google’s stating that they aren’t anti-competitive based on their own analysis is also out there. “After a full investigation, I’ve cleared myself of any wrongdoing,” style of thing.
However, the EU is basically upset that Google shopping ads show up – as opposed to shopping ads from some other search provider – when people search for products. The fact that Google routinely sends bazillions of clicks to competitors like Amazon does not matter to the EU because Reasons. At any rate, the current state of the Google versus EU battle is: Nu, huh. Did so!