Hi Guys,

We run a very large website on a particular sport that gets a lot of traffic. We have numerous banner ad opportunities and are currently selling the ad spots.

I have received two emails from two companies asking to advertise on very popular section, however, these two companies are in direct competition with each other. I won't name their names, but it would be like Coke emailing me to buy an ad spot, and then 15 minutes later, Pepsi emailing me to buy another ad spot on the same section.

If I ran both company's ads, then they would probably not like me very much since they wouldn't want to have their banner ads right next to their biggest competitor's ad. You see what I'm saying?

So I wanted to ask you guys what you would do in this case? First come, first serve? Is there a "rule of thumb" or web ad publisher "etiquette" in regards to this scenario? How would I go about telling Pepsi that 15 minutes earlier I got an email from Coke asking to advertise on the very section they wish to?

Any suggestions or guidance concerning this quandary is greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Dani AI

Generated

— this is a common publisher problem and the cleanest outcome is a short, published “competitive adjacency” policy so decisions are consistent and defensible. A simple, repeatable rule set removes the appearance of favoritism and gives sales something to offer when two direct competitors request the same inventory.

Key elements to include:

  • Competitor registry: maintain a small, editable list of brand families (domains, brand keywords or advertiser-supplied identifiers) so “direct competitor” is defined objectively.
  • Productized solutions: offer a few clear choices (example: section-level exclusivity for a defined term; shared rotation with guaranteed non-adjacency; daypart separation; or alternative premium placements such as email or sponsored content). Each product should have a published rate or uplift so sales can move quickly.
  • Operational enforcement: implement tag/kv metadata for advertisers (brand_family), use negative targeting or adjacency checks in the ad server, and log which creatives ran where for auditability.
  • Written agreement: include a short exclusivity clause that defines the section, term, and what counts as a competitor; reserve editorial exceptions; require signatures before special treatment is promised.

Technical example (pseudocode) to enforce non-adjacency:

competitorFamilies = ['BrandX','BrandY']
function allowCreative(slot, candidate):
  adjacent = getAdsOnPage(slot)
  if candidate.family in competitorFamilies and any(a.family in competitorFamilies for a in adjacent):
    return False
  return True

Sample governance notes: document the policy publicly or in the rate card, route exclusivity requests through the same approvals, avoid verbal promises, and have legal review of exclusivity language for larger deals. This turns ad-hoc disputes into repeatable product choices and preserves long-term relationships (a practical middle ground to the fairness/revenue tensions raised earlier by and ).

Recommended Answers

All 3 Replies

$ should be selected and evaluated on their capacity ... that contribute to the broad health..

w/c is more acidic? coke or pepsi?.. :D

If I were Pepsi, I would not want to be excluded while Coke gets an ad. Picking favorites would bug me. Selecting none of them means less advertising revenue. I would list both of them. If one complains, explain that you never agreed to an exclusive deal.

I would have selected both the companies for the ad. The rivalry or competition between the companies is not associated with me so I don't have to worry about that. I would have gone one step further and had changed the offer for the ad if only one company was to be listed. The one who pays more gets the deal. ;)

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.