Have a look at this article
If you have the ability to run an experiment, try this. A new campaign line targeting just Safari and Firefox to get your ads in front of humans, at a significant discount on CPMs. Compare the business outcomes you get from this experimental campaign to the outcomes you were getting using ad targeting. I’d be very very interested to hear what you find. If you’re able to get more outcomes and pay lower CPMs at the same time.
The insight came from my analysis of ${PRICE_PAID} values in an exchange, comparing the CPMs paid for browsers with tracking (Chome, Android) against browsers with tracking prevention (Firefox, Safari/iOS). You will notice that at each “bid range” row, the CPM prices between cookie vs no cookie browsers is minimal.
The “dramatic drops” in CPMs seen in 5 of the 6 studies in the table below come entirely from advertisers’ bidding strategy — i.e. they do not bid in the absence of cookies, and they bid for ads in the presence of cookies. This leads to the 50 - 70% lower CPMs observed for non-tracking, or tracking prevention browsers.
Any smart marketer would realize that humans use Safari and Firefox, in fact more savvy humans than the average joe who doesn’t care much about their own privacy. Bots also don’t pretend to be Firefox or Safari because they make less money than if they pretended to be Chrome or Android browser. So smart marketers are taking advantage of these huge discounts in CPM prices for showing ads to disproportionally more humans, while saving on the fees related to ad targeting.
Let me know if you think this is as good a deal as I do.
50 - 70% Discount on CPM prices to show ads to humans? Yes, please.
Great insight dear Augustine. When analyzing data from FouAnalytics, we can see the better quality coming from MacOS and iOS. We will eliminate for the next campaign android and focus on iOS in Switzerland with 55% market share. Still enough.