May 17, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Ad Networks / Is Valueclick Isolating Itself?

Is Valueclick Isolating Itself?

December 17, 2005 by 3 Comments

There is some evidence on the ad network side of things that suggests Valueclick/Fastclick is trying to work solo, and now comes their booting of competitor/partner AzoogleAds from their Commission Junction platform.

They called it a violation, but AzoogleAds’ Joe Speiser sees it differently:

“I felt you, our industry peers, should know the truth—the decision to terminate AzoogleAds was solely a strategic move by CJ to thwart an ever-strengthening competitor that recently launched a competitive revenue share service called M-Port…”

In this world of web applications becoming more open and transparent, and the movement towards platforms and marketplaces, is that type of strategy going to work? I think not.

Filed Under: Ad Networks, Advertising
  • http://www.thoughtshapers.com Jeff Molander

    You make an insightful observation. Transparency and accountability are two central concepts that are critical as VCLK moves forward… in particular with its entire media division. Yet it doesn’t stop at VCLK. In a world where Yahoo/Overture includes distribution (for years) via adware/spyware and one where shopping comparison players (i.e. Nextag) partner with adware players (i.e. WhenU) you have to ask yourself, ” in general, when will advertisers demand increased transparency?” From click networks to affiliate programs, many networks have worked diligently to create less transparency, not more. Similarly, we now learn of (in the case of Commission Junction and AzoogleAds) networks inside of networks. From an accountability standpoint (to the advertiser) what does an affiliate of aZoogleads carry? Certainly less than aZoogle. This is setting aside the economic considerations of advertisers working with a network like Commission Junction – only to find that there are networks within networks. The inflated cost implications here become a worry as well.

  • http://www.conversionrater.com/ Pat McCarthy

    Thanks for the comment Jeff.

    I’m not sure when advertisers will demand increased transparency. They haven’t yet, and I feel as though we’re making ground against spyware distribution so if we’ve seen the worst of it, I’m not sure they’ll start demanding it now.

    I don’t think a network working with another network is inherently such a huge problem. I’ve seen many situations where it works out well for advertisers and publishers who would otherwise never work together if two networks weren’t involved. Sure, there is an additional middle man there, but if an advertiser is working with one network while a publisher is working with another, they aren’t likely to get together on their own. I’m not privy to the details of how Azoogle was working with CJ, but I won’t cast judgement on that being a huge problem.

  • http://www.thoughtshapers.com Jeff Molander

    Hi, Pat…
    With pleasure. There’s certainly fat in the mix. That’s my point and yours is well taken too – that spending extra doesn’t much matter to marketers. They get paid to spend and move the needle… not save or do more with less (although shouldn’t that be the CMO’s goal?).

    Transparency is the real issue here aside from cost. Without transparency there is risk and in the world of affiliate marketing networks there’s risk everywhere and the FTC means business. They’re just getting warmed up IMO.