On Sunday, Elle Magazine leaked a story about a journalist who had found love with former controversial drug officer Martin Shkreli. The story came very quickly.
But before long, one thing started to stand out among many of the story’s humorous details: an advertisement by a woman in a seat pajamas revealing half of her derriere. It has been plastered many times on the story for many readers.
Being a Sunday, I was reading the story on my phone, passing by the dozens (50, by my count) of mobile advertising spots. I began to notice that I was seeing the same one over and over again. An advertisement for “IVRose” featured a woman in a pajama onesie plaid set, with one front view and one from the back (partially open), and a 70% sale promise.
On Twitter, I saw that I was not alone: a Butt-flap pajama woman was finding her way on Elle’s story for all sorts of readers. And not just that: She was on a recipe for a skinned crock pot chicken. She was on the San Francisco Chronicle.
The ads, which ran through Google Ads for me, were placed because of how “like me the groups of people the advertiser is trying to reach, according to [my] activity on this device, “according to Google. Google has specified its policies on adult content, which restricts the explicit display of sexual body parts (including visible lumps), but would not say whether this was that policy.
But for me, it’s just the latest crappy e-commerce ad, which is all over the internet these days. I get ads for shirts with sassy phrases, stockings refers to farts, outdoor clothing with big cats with scarves or different optical illusions. But none of that has looked so much like the butt-flap pajamas. There are a number of ways in which this particular ad could simultaneously make its way into the screens of many.
It’s hard to say in detail without talking to the IVRose, which has not returned a request for comment, but after talking to a handful of ad tech experts, it seems possible that the company has been aiming for popular articles, which would explain why it was so popular. common on Sunday night’s Elle magazine story. Brand safety technology could have played a part in opening the door to less cautious advertisers. And at the end of the day, instead of just screaming over it, we may have all noticed it because there’s an open lump.
With such a wide range of people receiving the ad at the same time, it would seem that very few targets were made, or at least such scattered parameters that many would respond in these buckets. . But that would have been an extremely expensive venture.
Working under the assumption that the ad is being programmed, Ratko Vidakovic, founder of ad tech advisor AdProfs, said it would probably be too expensive to run the ad without any restrictions. He said programmed ads could cost thousands of dollars per second if there is no meaningful targeting. Not only is it an inefficient use of budget, the company does not seem to have that money to promote their pajamas.
“Just judging who the advertiser is, it doesn’t strike me as an advertiser with a bottomless budget, no pun intended,” Vidakovic said.
Vidakovic said he believes there are limitations to that initiative. That may mean targeting specific websites with some geographical restrictions added. It could also be much more detailed and focused on moving articles, which seems to be plausible to all who saw the ads on Elle ‘s article at the same time.
“It’s possible that they’re targeting URLs that are popular at a particular time,” Vidakovic said. “That’s one way to be very surgical about spending a budget that would give this kind of deception without going into a 7, 8, 9 figure ad budget.”
As for the actual design of the ad, Vidakovic says that it seems to be quite deliberate as well.
“If Taboola and Outbrain have taught us anything, it’s those horrific images and that kind of stuff that tends to grab people’s attention and people tend to click on it,” he said.
Dropshippers and the like seem to have become much more visible this year, and that could be because we are a lot more online in quarantine.
“These people have become very quiet by figuring out where they can buy ads on legitimate sites so that they are now visible, because we are online all the time and there are we are pulling away from more legitimate advertisers, ”said Ana Milicevic, principal and co – founder of Sparrow Advisors management consulting.
Advertisers can choose to display the frequency of the times of their ads for people, so the same specific person is not shown the same person hundreds of times. “Sooner or later you’ll hit the frequency cap… and then all that’s left for you is this lunch scum, as I would describe it,” she said.
Krzysztof Franaszek, founder of Adalytics personal advertising analytics service, said he noted that several brands were blocking their ads from Elle’s article. Companies often use technology to prevent their ads from appearing alongside certain topics.
When some brands prevent their own ads from popping up on a story, especially those with higher budgets to submit bids, this can open the door for advertisers. who have lower budgets.
Franaszek said the CPMs, or the amount the advertisers paid for comments, were quite high for the IVRose ads. In a small test he said they were around $ 10 to $ 12.
“It means that brand, no matter who pays for those ads, they seem to be paying a non-significant amount,” he said. “They don’t place CPMs at the bottom of the barrel.” He said the company is also doing retargeting, doing it so product ads can follow “people”.
The butt-flap ad is a reminder that there is no good way for people to choose who they do or do not want to hear from them through digital ads.
“There are a lot of brands I’d like to hear from, and there’s really no easy way, or really no way for me to say, ‘Never show me a dropshipper. But in the next six months I’m renovating my home and I just want to hear from people renovating a home, or mostly, ” Milicevic said. “That equipment doesn’t exist.”