Yellow Cake (Or the final precipitate formed in the milling of uranium ores).

Remember when this hit the news in 2002? It was part of the story that ultimately took the US to war in Iraq. The only problem was, it was not accurate. True, reputable news sources reported it and discussion surrounded it, and in the end it may as well have been real. But it wasn’t. The whole story was a fabrication repeated over and over until it was taken as common knowledge.

With the greatest of respect to all those involved in the armed conflict and without trivializing a single death or injury – military, civilian, foreign or domestic - there is a similarity between the "Yellow Cake fiasco" and Ad Networks. And it is that at some point, someone (or some few people) made certain statements about Ad Networks. Then others quoted it. And the common reality came to be; not based on absolute truth or large amounts of research, but on one person quoting another until it became ‘truth.’

Now, I’m not going to say that there is no truth in the perception, but there is no absolute veracity either. Ad Networks (at least the major players in the market segment) are frequently pigeon-holed by hearsay and generalizations and it’s time to stop it.
Judging all Ad Networks by what you think you know about them is tantamount to thinking all cars are Model T’s because that’s what we knew of cars at one time. It is simply ridiculous. Things change. Successful companies react and grow to stay relevant. Which is what all the top players have done, CPX perhaps leading the way (though I might be biased) having spent two years and many resources developing their proprietary Ad Serving technology AdROIt.

Besides, not all Ad Networks are the same, and not just due to the competitive landscape and their performance in it. They don’t all have their own inventory. They don’t all buy the same inventory. They don’t use the same inventory in the same way. They have different data partners that they use on or through different Ad Servers. There is research, who has what and the varying qualities therein. And then there is the human element and how all the above is bought, sold and generally utilized.

In short, if you are going to eat Yellow Cake, make sure it is frosted. Don’t swallow everything you are offered. Do some research of your own. Go to the source. Consider real numbers and real results, not the ramblings of some random reporter. The truth is out there!

I have eighty million dollars and I want to brand someone else’s website!
I have a little issue. Truly, it’s an ax I’ve been grinding for several months now. I get social. I really do. I have been involved with social media for years. I understand the allure, and I appreciate brands scrambling to get into the game.

But seriously, if you are a recognized brand with budget and a desire to be relevant in social media, can I recommend that you spend massive outdoor budgets posting your URL as www.mybrand.com/facebook in lieu of www.facebook.com/mybrand?
Do you know why? Because for one, you are the massive brand, not facebook. You can bold ‘facebook’ if you feel you need to make it more evident, but trust me, the crowd you are going after will get it.

Next, you should own the data. You put a simple redirect on the page and gather the data. You may discover when, where and who responded to your outdoor or print efforts. You can pixel and serve elsewhere, specific to that data. You could serve an interstitial during the redirect. You could do many things that you can’t when you send them directly to facebook.

Lastly, though I don’t think fb is going away, who knows what changes could come? Why take any risk at all? If you send them to your site first, spending your money on yourself and gathering data while still providing the cool social media illusion, you can redirect anywhere you want in times of need.

Think people. Think. If you want to spend a ton of dough on someone other than yourself, PM me for my routing and account number.