Why is Google Paying $400MM for AdMeld? High Frequency Trading(betabeat.com)
betabeat.com
Why is Google Paying $400MM for AdMeld? High Frequency Trading
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/06/21/why-does-google-want-admeld-so-bad-high-frequency-trading/
7 comments
Earth to techwriter... Google already has a full realtime exchange stack. They're buying publisher relationships.
Yes and no.
It's true that algorithmic traders from Wall Street will be let down when they come to RTB trading and see how simple and undeveloped the ad ecosystem is compared to financial services. Arbitrage is still important but not the driving force for advertisers' success. Reach is more important: being able to show ads to more of the users in your targeting segments.
Google made the Admeld move for reach. It's partially a "publisher relationships" play, certainly not the technology, but mostly just the easiest way to get a giant new chunk of RTB volume.
I thought this blog post summed it up well: "It's the QPS, Stupid" http://jaysears.com/2011/06/10/google-admeld-the-need-for-di...
It's true that algorithmic traders from Wall Street will be let down when they come to RTB trading and see how simple and undeveloped the ad ecosystem is compared to financial services. Arbitrage is still important but not the driving force for advertisers' success. Reach is more important: being able to show ads to more of the users in your targeting segments.
Google made the Admeld move for reach. It's partially a "publisher relationships" play, certainly not the technology, but mostly just the easiest way to get a giant new chunk of RTB volume.
I thought this blog post summed it up well: "It's the QPS, Stupid" http://jaysears.com/2011/06/10/google-admeld-the-need-for-di...
Agree - Google is more interested in expanding its power in the RBT market than "purchasing publisher relationships".
The latter would be a dubious strategy given Google's place in the ad business.
The latter would be a dubious strategy given Google's place in the ad business.
I'm not sure this article is a particularly well-informed summary of the state of things.
For one thing, the acronym is RTB (Real-Time Bidding), not RBT, and the analogy to HFT is rather thin. For another, Google's existing Ad Exchange already has extremely substantial impression volume. Google isn't so much "jumping into a market" as the article claims but rather bolstering and broadening their existing position.
The market is decidedly emerging but it's further ahead of what this article portrays.
For one thing, the acronym is RTB (Real-Time Bidding), not RBT, and the analogy to HFT is rather thin. For another, Google's existing Ad Exchange already has extremely substantial impression volume. Google isn't so much "jumping into a market" as the article claims but rather bolstering and broadening their existing position.
The market is decidedly emerging but it's further ahead of what this article portrays.
Practically, what does HFT actually mean to ad business? Am I correct that it's about being able to bid for ad placements according to real-time CTR/CPA analytics?
That would be neat, I can imagine writing automated robots distributing your ads in sub-optimal ways, moving with your target audience from website to website during the day.
That would be neat, I can imagine writing automated robots distributing your ads in sub-optimal ways, moving with your target audience from website to website during the day.
Clear that people don't understand what high frequency trading is.
Ramirez! Flash crash that ad.