The first question I had was “with what standard deviation?”. Does Google really pay out the same percentage to all of its publishers, large and small? The language of its post seems to indicate that, with the exception of large publishers with whom they have custom contracts, the 68% holds for everyone.

The second question I asked–and maybe this is just speculative–is “does that figure change?”. Google leaves that open, as its administration costs might change down the line, but the thing about putting a hard number out there is that it will be watched and commented on, and should it change against the publishers, expect an uproar. Since Google doesn’t exactly like to court resentment and bad PR, let’s assume the 68% is the lower bar for publisher payout going forward.

Third question: “what will AdSense publishers speculate on now that Google’s rev share is no longer a secret?”

Google will also be moving (mainly large) publishers using DoubleClick DART for Publishers to a more feature-rich DFP over the course of a year.

Presumably DFP publishers will continue to pay for the ad serving service they’ve been receiving through DART. But what about DFP Small Business? Will the little guys continue to enjoy free ad serving on Google’s dime?

Although the product is self-service and tends to serve publishers with substantially lower traffic, the aggregate traffic volume of long-tail publishers must cost Google a pretty penny. DFP Small Business’s FAQ states that the free service is limited to publishers serving under 90 million ad impressions per month…excluding Google AdSense. Will that 90 million get the squeeze?

There might be a type of display ads that buck the trend, though. Geotargeted ads, which combine the eye-catching appeal of a banner with messaging that resonates with a visitor’s locale, was an $897 million market in 2008 but expected to grow at a 16% CAGR through 2013, when it will capture 15% of the display market, comprising $1.9 billion, in the U.S. alone.

BIA/Kelsey’s report highlights increasing spend by SMEs, likely the greatest potential beneficiaries of ad geotargeting, of contributing the fastest growth to the geotargeted display market, with 66% growth through 2013. This is unsurprising. Having learned the ropes of geotargeting ads to reach customers from AdWords, local small businesses are likely to take advantage of services like AdReady, Personiva (now AdaptiveAds) and SnapAds to build display advertising to scale to service customers in desired locations. Text ads through AdWords lacks the visual impact of display and geotargeted display can round out the reach picture for advertisers seeking to saturate local markets.

Growth charts available at Marketing Charts.

1. The Pop-Up

More of an annoyance 5-6 years ago before pop-up blockers got really good, the occasional ones manages to slip through every now and then, leaving us to play whack-the-mole with the close window button. Leave-behinds (that entreat you to return to the site when you’ve made it clear you want to go) and pop-unders are equally annoying cousins. Netflix, while I love its service, is a notoriously pervasive pop-up advertiser.

2. Autoplay audio and video

There is nothing quite as infuriating as opening a page and wondering why it’s screaming “helloooo?” to you. Chances are it’s an ad peddling high-res emoticons. Autoplay music is something tweeners might have become accustomed to because of MySpace, but the rest of us typically hit the close-window or back button as quickly as possible.
Autoplay video is something even the IAB is trying to step in and squelch, before advertisers overeager to replicate television-style ads turn off Web visitors for years. Often incorporating sound as well, a simple page load forces you to download and sit through noise and visual distraction unless you can be bothered to click the tiny control button to pause it.

3. Deceptive system-message ads

A favorite among malware promoters, this variant of a popup looks deceptively like a Windows or antivirus window, down to the blue control bar on top and Windows system font. They typically use confusing language, like “Do you not want to leave your computer vulnerable to viruses?” and leave you afraid to even click the red-X close-window button.

4. Disgusting pictures

Yes, we understand the acai berry is chock full of antioxidants, but do you really need to show someone’s distended gut to make your point? And will saffron-yellow teeth scare you into buying teeth whiteners online? When I read an innocuous news article, I’m not sure I want to see the inside of a zombie’s mouth in the periphery. Who really clicks on these things?

5. Cheesy animations

Popular among mortgage lenders, who have cut all sorts of unsavory deals over the years, have found a bizarre form of ad that is totally unrelated to their product offering: videos of women or silhouettes dancing. They’ve faded in popularity recently, although that might not be too surprising; one look at these animations and your first thought is “subprime.”

6. Imperfect targeting

Behavioral, geo or demographic targeting that only goes part of the way ends up defeating the purpose of targeting altogether. If you live in San Francisco, for example, geotargeting that suggests you live in Hayward is not a compliment. Demographic targeting based on a geo/IP mapping may serve up the wrong types of ads when there are huge income disparities in a region. And lots of people don’t like to be reminded of discreet searches following them for weeks afterwards in the form of ads that creepily know just a little too much about you.

7. Prerolls on video clips

Video advertising makes sense for high-quality longer-form video. A total of 3 minutes of advertising on an hour-long TV show on Hulu seems more than reasonable to me (even if many of them seem to be PSAs). But a 30-second commercial before seeing an under-minute clip? You’ve got to be kidding me. As much as I love Comedy Central, I’d rather watch grainy bootleg than sit through so many prerolls ahead of their Reno 911 clips.

8. Page Takeovers

These Flash-based ads that run aground the page you’re trying to view can sometimes be intriguing, but usually they’re pretty annoying. And while most have a “close” button, good luck sometimes finding it. They’re hidden in a way that makes you sit through a 10-second video as your pointer dances around the ad looking for a way to close it.

9. Expandables

I don’t know if this the right term for it, but these ads are the ones that look like simple image ads that flood into the rest of the frame, often occluding content you’re trying to look at, if you accidentally run a mouse across them. They often load video, so while you’re waiting for that clip to download, you’re staring at a blank box that’s covering the article you want to read. Finding the close/minimize button can often be tougher than finding Waldo.

10. The Stalker

The Stalker is what I call that “helpful” animated person that appears at a bottom corner of your screen and begins talking to you unsolicited. I’m not sure why the news of the Microsoft Office Paperclip pest’s demise wasn’t relayed to the creators of this ad type. And, unlike their real-world counterpart, the car salesman, the Stalker will ignore you when you curtly say, “I’m just looking.”

Today—two short years later—it’s impossible to find it.

Google Blue Lithium or BlueLithium and the first page of results point to various news releases about the acquisition or stale company profile pages like on CrunchBase. There’s no link to a rebranding “BlueLithium is now Yahoo Web Advertising” or something similar that you’d expect. In fact, there’s no link to a yahoo.com URL whatsoever. (And just in case Google was gaming the SERP for its competitor, a quick look at Yahoo’s SERP shows similarly vacant results.)

Even worse: typing in bluelithium.com goes nowhere. As in a persistent time-out error. No 301 to Yahoo advertising.

This is beyond bizarre. Among publishers and advertisers, BlueLithium had developed a bit of a brand for itself; it was a name that was recognized. Branded searches (over 50,000 in August alone according to the Google keyword tool) and direct type-ins have undoubtedly continued. The ad network still exists (YieldBuild, in fact, supports it).

Doesn’t it strike anyone as strange that the network seems to have stonewalled any interest among publishers or advertisers that might be potential customers of Yahoo advertising? I mean, isn’t that Yahoo’s business?

United States in 2010:

• 7% growth to $24.4 billion
• 17% of overall ad spend (15.4% in 2009)
• search (including contextual) and video biggest drivers; display weak  (mirroring global trends: display will grow 5% next year compared to search’s 12%)
• strong weakness in traditional media (esp. newspapers) also a huge driver

The report gives a nod to behavioral targeting (“intentional marketing”) and the growing nexus between search advertising and socnets’ social graphs.

Mobile advertising gets notable attention: in 2010, it will account for 6% of total digital ad spend (or $3.3 billion), representing a 19% increase over 2009. In the U.S.:

• those accessing the news on their phones every day has doubled to 22 million in 2009
• those accessing socnets on their phones daily has quadrupled to 9 million this year

Or so goes the pitch. But this is Google, and if there’s one thing it knows and dominates, it’s online advertising.

Getting a sizeable exchange going can often present a chicken-and-egg problem, but Google’s reach among publishers and advertisers (DoubleClick for the head, AdSense/AdWords for the long tail) is already impressive, at 76% of the US and 73% of the global online audiences.

Exchanges, on the other hand, comprise about 10-15% of the display ad business (Yahoo’s Right Media Exchange is the largest). Google will shave off a relatively small fee through the exchange, but what it will gain is access to inventory sources if the exchange grows and dominates. If it can maintain higher efficiency than its competitors, Google will grow its share of a market that it will host and develop.

An PDF explaining the Ad Exchange is here. The DoubleClick blog also has more details.

The Services may include advertisements, which may be targeted to the Content or information on the Services, queries made through the Services, or other information. The types and extent of advertising by Twitter on the Services are subject to change. In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.

Before you scramble to your Twitter page to see what these ads look like, they add:

We’re leaving the door open for exploration in this area but we don’t have anything to announce.

Not only are ads going to be a distinctly probable possibility, but contextual and behavioral targeting are also being hinted at, too. It’s been a few years since Google raised hackles by announcing they’d serve up contextual advertising on Gmail (the furor has died down), but behavioral targeting moves beyond simple content matching on the page/tweet and might additionally look at patterns of searching and browsing behavior over time and potentially across sites and services. Since it’s been less than a year since Oprah gave Twitter a green light, it’s safe to say that Mr Stone and the rest of the management will move cautiously, especially since Congress is currently drafting a bill that would tackle behavioral targeting’s privacy issues.

We’re excited to announce that we have cut our ad optimization fee to zero. If you’re a current publisher, you will see the current 3% fee reduced to 0%, and new publishers will not be assessed a fee. We have been very pleased with the performance gains that our publishers have been enjoying, and want YieldBuild’s ad revenue maximization solution to reach as many new publishers as possible. Spread the word!

Not a YieldBuild publisher? Sign up today—YieldBuild is free to try and use!

Current YieldBuild publisher? The fee drop from 3% to 0% is effective September 3, 2009. Thank you for continuing to use YieldBuild!

What about the infamous advertiser skittishness with social networks?  Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Jeff Lindsay, when asked if advertisers are sensitive about what kind of content can be juxtaposed against their ads on social network sites, said:

“They are sensitive to some extent [to suggestive or offensive content], but nowhere near to the extent you might think.”

Seems to be the case for a certain type of advertiser. The top 10 advertisers fall into buckets that make sense if your target audience is younger people (i.e. those that won’t be put off by curse words, party shots and textese): cell phone companies (AT&T, Sprint and Verizon), online degree promoters (Apollo Group, Experian) and games and quizzes (Pangea, Zynga, GameVance). And Microsoft might be trying to raise its sexiness among younger people charmed by edgier Apple and Google.

As the general population becomes as comfortable with social network content as the Millennials, we might see a broader spectrum of advertisers penetrate the medium.