This is definitely an interesting tactic, but this is a pretty poor article.
#1. Chase is claiming performance hasn't been affected, but it has only been a couple days since they made changes. With display you can't measure performance in only a few days.
#2. The author confuses the number of sites with the number of impressions. Chase is buying the same number of impressions - if everyone else followed this strategy it wouldn't hurt exchanges. It would have weird outcomes, but if the same volume is served the exchange makes the same amount (excluding data costs and how cpm would be affected, etc).
2 - The exchange would likely make more because the increased auction pressure from the same amount of advertisers trying to buy the same amount of volume (same demand) on a smaller list of websites (lower supply) would lead to higher prices being paid to show ads.
1 - depends on volume. high enough and you can get goodp-value of the population even in a few days
2 - still a win-win-win-win, Chase get more views for the same budget, few website of good content that attract good traffic get more money out of ads, bad website spamming keywords get less money and the exchange gets the same money but displaying the ads few times as the unit price increase so it has more margin.
1 - It's not really about the volume of impressions, but about typical attribution windows. Banner ads typically aren't measured on 1 day click attribution. In more DR oriented workflows the impression logs will be ingested into MMM (media mix models) to project the impact the banners had on conversions across all of your acquisition channels.
In non-online conversion paths (e.g. offline retail, call centers, etc) or branding campaigns, many are measured using offline lift studies or brand lift studies which take at least a couple months to show results.
2 - Not exactly. The prices would be driven up, meaning eventually Chase would get less impressions for the same budget. If both you and I used to buy 1,000 impressions for $5 across 100,000 websites who had a total supply of 2,000 impressions, but then we limit our list of allowable websites to 5,000 websites that only have 1,200 impressions... prices will rise.
The impact is not apparent when only I change my bidding strategy, because I'll buy 1,000 of the 1,200 impressions from the top tier websites, and you'll get 200 from them and then 800 from the bottom tier. But once we both change our bidding strategies, we're now both competing on the same 1,200 impressions. Prices will go up as we compete over them.
This is a simplistic auction, of course. In practice, the ad exchange values different sites differently... but this is just to give a rough mental model about how the increased competition on fewer sites will lead to increased auction pressure thus driving prices up and volumes down for each advertiser. The exchange and publisher will be happy, though.
> #1. Chase is claiming performance hasn't been affected, but it has only been a couple days since they made changes. With display you can't measure performance in only a few days.
It could be that neither display strategy was providing any value.
#1. Chase is claiming performance hasn't been affected, but it has only been a couple days since they made changes. With display you can't measure performance in only a few days.
#2. The author confuses the number of sites with the number of impressions. Chase is buying the same number of impressions - if everyone else followed this strategy it wouldn't hurt exchanges. It would have weird outcomes, but if the same volume is served the exchange makes the same amount (excluding data costs and how cpm would be affected, etc).