<rss version="2.0"
					xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
					xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
					xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/"
					xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
				  >
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Articles by Philipp Pieper]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/rss-author.php?id=4867</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<ttl>120</ttl>
<description><![CDATA[Articles by Philipp Pieper]]></description>
<item>
<title><![CDATA['Viewable' Ads Are Worthless If Your Website Is a Cluttered Mess]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/viewability-noticeability-counts/238334/</link>
<description><![CDATA[








Philipp Pieper










"Did you lose it under the lamppost?" "No, but the light&#039;s better here." So ends an old joke about looking for an answer in the wrong place. The line comes to mind when we talk about ad-impression viewability as a metric.

The online ad industry has latched on to "viewability" as a great new standard for online adv]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:53 EST</pubDate>
<author>Philipp Pieper</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Trouble With 'Viewability' as a Metric for Digital Ads]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/trouble-viewability-a-metric-digital-ads/237815/</link>
<description><![CDATA[








Philipp Pieper






One of  the great challenges of  digital advertising is  getting assurance that  users actually see the ads for which the advertisers are paying. Traditional print media has its problems, but buying page 6 of  the September issue of  Vogue pretty much guarantees eyeballs. It&#039;s not the same in digital.


New metrics and]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:20 EDT</pubDate>
<author>Philipp Pieper</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>