Why Rating Ad Networks By Reach Is Dumb

Gretchen Hyman, my editor at iMediaConnection, was trying to give me some ideas for articles last week and sent me some links.  One of them was to a ranker of the top ad networks by total reach.  For some reason, the mere fact that such a thing was still deemed relevant in this day and age threw me into a tizzy.  Every month, we see new reports about which ad network can reach the most people within the total web audience.  The list runs in both print and digital formats in many of the online marketing’s industry trade publications, and since the information is basically meaningless, the whole thing has become meaningless and stupid.  So that’s what my column is about this week.  Here’s a key quote:

Different ad networks have different relationships and differing levels of access to advertisers and agencies, so casting a wide net means there’s a better chance of selling inventory that would otherwise expire and generate no revenue. As a result of widespread risk-sharing, there are a ton of networks out there selling the same inventory. The fact that inventory liquidity is on the rise due to the (often undisclosed) purchase of ad inventory on exchanges means that ad inventory is homogenized even further.

Lots of networks are essentially selling the same thing.  So bragging about the size of your ad network is kind of like laying claim to the atmosphere because you happen to have a bigger nose than all your friends.