See the guts of their “tagging for targeting” practices via the links below:
Screenshots of http requests via Firefox’s Tamper Data Add-On:
- Capital One – https://invizua.box.net/shared/91gxfvjbom
- British Airways – https://invizua.box.net/shared/gkqqepopmc
.txt files containing the contents of the container tags each advertiser is using on their respective homepages:
- Capital One – https://invizua.box.net/shared/txmzgyy84h
- British Airways – https://invizua.box.net/shared/5m2jsutavp
I’m finding it quite interesting to see AppNexus, Invite Media, MediaMath and others are now actively being used in the UK market.
I’m also finding is quite interesting that the number of 3rd party/media and/or data supplier tags used by these, and other, advertisers is growing quite quickly.
I’ll publish some growth stats in the coming weeks (as I’ve been watching and recording developments quite regularly over the past 1.5 years).
Note: While I have reservations re: the online advertising’s development of “tagging for targeting” practices, which you can learn about via some of my previous posts to this forum, the purpose of this post is to stimulate idea generation & exchange.
To help get that going, here are a couple of questions:
- How does writing 10+ media partners’ data tags affect campaign performance? Are we talking about 2x, 10x,100x performance lifts?
- How, if at all, does this aggressive type of “tagging for targeting” affect “conversion attribution” analyses and reporting, a commonly discussed challenge in the industry today?
- How are advertisers coming to the decision that writing 10, 20 or more 1×1 pixels and/or other container tags to web site customer touchpoints makes business sense? How do they view the trade-off between the transfer of thousands, if not millions, of visitor/customer behaviour and other data points out of their enterprises and online advertising ROI?
Ok. That’s it for now.
Happy thinking. Happy Easter.
James
