How do you explain site selection to a client, one site at a time?
Part of Programmatic media planning
The short answer
Explain site selection with a short written reason for each shortlisted website: one sentence on why it fits the brief, the evidence behind that sentence (matching pages, content category, seller path, audience in market, check date) and the site's weakest point. Sites left out get their own reason, so the client can check both lists line by line.
Key takeaways
- A site reason is a claim plus evidence the client can open, not an adjective such as premium or relevant.
- Each reason cites matching pages, the content category, the seller path, audience in the target country and the date the checks ran.
- Naming the weakest point up front turns the client's first objection into a recorded decision.
- Sites left out need reasons too, and absent from the list is not the same as blocked in the account.
What makes a site reason something a client can check?
Definition
- Site rationale
- A short written record of why one website is on, or off, a media plan: the claim, the evidence a reader can open to test it, the date the evidence was gathered and the site's main limitation.
A client can only dispute a list precisely when its reasons can be tested. A line that says "strong lifestyle audience, premium environment" gives the client nothing to verify. A line that says "three of the four recent articles we sampled are grooming and coat care guides, published in the last 60 days; links below" can be checked in two minutes.
What evidence should each site reason include?
Use public sources the client can open alone: article URLs and a category from a shared vocabulary. The IAB Tech Lab describes its Content Taxonomy (opens in a new tab) as "a common language that can be used when describing content," with contextual targeting and brand safety as its typical uses. Record the version too: the same repository states that Content Taxonomy 3.0 may not be used alongside earlier versions, so a category label without a version can mean two different things.
| Field | What to record | Where the client confirms it |
|---|---|---|
| Matching pages | Two to four recent article URLs that fit the brief, with their publish dates | Open the links |
| Content category | The closest IAB Content Taxonomy category, with the taxonomy version used | The IAB Tech Lab taxonomy files |
| Seller path | The ads.txt line for the exchange in the plan, DIRECT or RESELLER, and the matching sellers.json seller_type | The site's /ads.txt file and the exchange's sellers.json |
| Audience in market | The Chrome UX Report popularity rank band for the target country, with the month of the data | CrUX data published by Google |
| Suitability | The client's sensitive categories that were checked and the result for each | The sampled pages and the client's written tolerance |
| Check date | The day the checks above were run | The plan file or change log |
Use the specification's own terms for the seller path, because clients and their auditors will look them up. In the ads.txt specification (opens in a new tab), DIRECT "indicates that the Publisher (content owner) directly controls the account," while RESELLER means the publisher "has authorized another entity to control the account." In sellers.json (opens in a new tab), PUBLISHER means the inventory is owned by the named entity and the advertising system pays them directly.
For audience, say what the number is. The Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) popularity rank is "a relative measure of site popularity" measured by navigations on the origin. It is a band, not a count of readers.
Why should a site reason name its weakest point?
Each site on a shortlist has a limitation: a narrow topic, a reseller only path, thin popularity data, a heavy ad layout on phones. Left unsaid, it surfaces later and the whole list loses credibility. Named up front, it becomes a recorded tradeoff the client accepted with open eyes.
Measurement standards already work this way. The Mobile Web Advertising Measurement Guidelines (opens in a new tab) from the MRC, IAB Tech Lab and Mobile Marketing Association (October 2017) say that "reliability of results (if applicable) and limitations of the data should be included in the disclosure," and list "Errors or Unusual Conditions Noted in Reporting Period" among the items to disclose. The principle carries over to site reasons: evidence is only as useful as its stated limits.
| Weak point | Plain wording for the client | What the planner does |
|---|---|---|
| Narrow topic | Strong on grooming guides, little on pet health | Keep it for the grooming message only |
| Reseller only path | Sold on our exchange through a reseller, not the publisher's own account | Check the reseller's sellers.json entry before the deal |
| Thin popularity data | No CrUX rank for the target country this month | Show it as missing and judge the site on its pages |
| Ad heavy on phones | Several ad slots on the first phone screen | Flag it for a creative format check |
How long should a site rationale be?
Short enough to read in a list, complete enough to audit. A workable house rule: one headline sentence of about 25 words, the evidence fields in their own columns, and one line for the weakest point. Anything longer belongs in an appendix the client opens when a site is questioned.
Five steps to write one site reason
- Start from the brief's words. Quote the topic or audience line the site serves.
- State the claim in one sentence. Say what share of sampled articles fit and what they are about, without adjectives such as premium or high quality.
- Attach the evidence. Add the article links, the category with its taxonomy version, the seller path values and the popularity band.
- Name the weakest point. Pick the single limitation most likely to matter to this client and write the action it triggers.
- Date it. Record the day the checks ran, so a later reader knows the reason's age.
How do you explain sites that were left out?
A client who notices a favorite site missing will ask why. Give the left out group a short reason, the evidence and the date, sorted by kind: "not suitable for this brand" and "could not be checked" call for different conversations.
Display & Video 360 describes brand safety (opens in a new tab) as filtering content that no advertiser ever wants to run on, and brand suitability as letting advertisers opt in or out of content "that some advertisers find acceptable while others don't." A site can be safe and still unsuitable for one client. Google Ads also notes that "Excluding placements is different from removing them" (opens in a new tab): a site missing from a targeted list can still receive ads through other targeting unless it is excluded.
| Group | Sentence for the client | Is it blocked in the account? |
|---|---|---|
| Not a publisher | This is a store or brand site with no editorial content to place ads beside | No, only absent from the list |
| Outside this client's tolerance | Safe in general, but its sampled pages cross the tolerance you set for one category | Only if the client asks for an exclusion |
| Weak topic fit | Few of its recent articles match the brief's topics | No |
| Made for advertising risk | Layout and traffic signals point to a site built mainly to resell ad impressions | A candidate for the account exclusion list |
| Could not be checked | Evidence was unavailable on the check date; it sits in a separate unverified group | No; it is held for a retry, not judged |
Keep the unverified group visible: a site whose files could not be read on the check date has not failed anything, and the guide to unverifiable sites sets the hold and retry rule. For a site the client named, see the client site list audit.
How does PlacementGraph give a reason for each site it recommends?
What does a set of site reasons look like on one brief?
Fictional example. The brand and sites are invented; no results or performance figures are implied.
A pet grooming salon group in Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville
An agency plans fall display for an unnamed group of pet grooming salons in Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville, Florida, in English and Spanish. The brief asks for coat care, breed grooming and new puppy articles, and keeps away from tragedy and conflict.
The planner writes each reason in the same order. For a Florida pet care blog: "Three of four recent articles we sampled are grooming and coat care guides (links, dated within 60 days). Category: Pets, Content Taxonomy 3.1. Seller path: DIRECT in ads.txt, PUBLISHER in the exchange's sellers.json. CrUX: top 500k band for the United States, last month's data. Weakest point: little Spanish content, so the Spanish creative goes elsewhere. Checked October 20."
A national dog breed magazine gets a strong content line but names its weakness plainly: sold on the planned exchange only through a reseller. In the left out group, a pet supply store is listed as not a publisher, a local news site as outside the tolerance after two sampled crime stories, and a small grooming forum as could not be checked, held for a retry rather than dropped.
Which words should a client facing site reason avoid?
Vague praise and audience guesses weaken a rationale. Praise cannot be checked, and guesses about readers invite a privacy question the plan never needed to raise. Canada's privacy regulator describes online behavioural advertising (opens in a new tab) as tracking consumers' online activities "across sites and over time." A reason built from pages, seller files and a public popularity band describes a place, not a tracked person.
Wording check before a site list goes to the client
- No reason relies on an unsupported adjective such as premium, trusted or high quality.
- No reason states reader income, age or lifestyle unless a named, dated source shows it.
- No reason calls a site safe; it names the categories checked and the result for each.
- Each popularity figure is called a band or rank, with its country and month, never a reader count.
- Each weak point is specific to that site, not a sentence repeated down the column.
- Each left out site says whether it is excluded in the account or only absent from the list.
Frequently asked questions
Should the client see the raw evidence or only the summary line?
Give both, in layers. The summary line and the weak point go in the main list. The article links, seller file values, popularity band and check date sit in columns or an appendix, so anyone who doubts a line can open the evidence without asking the planner.
Can site reasons be reused on the next campaign for the same client?
Reuse the structure, not the content. Articles, sellers and popularity bands change, so a reason dated in spring says little about the site in fall. Rerun the checks, keep the old reason in the earlier list version, and write a fresh dated reason for the new plan.
Who should write the site reasons, the planner or the buyer?
The person who judged the site's fit writes the claim and the weak point, which is the planner when roles are split. The buyer adds or confirms the seller path for the exchange actually used, since that is the part of the evidence the buyer can verify in the buying platform before the deal is built.
How should a reason change if the evidence changes after approval?
Do not edit the approved reason in place. Add a dated note saying what changed, such as a new reseller line or a run of off topic articles, and whether the site stays, moves to review or leaves the list. The approved version keeps its original reason.
Sources
- IAB Tech Lab Taxonomies repository (Content Taxonomy) (opens in a new tab)IAB Tech Lab
- ads.txt specification version 1.1 (opens in a new tab)IAB Tech Lab
- sellers.json specification (opens in a new tab)IAB Tech Lab
- CrUX metrics: popularity rank (opens in a new tab)Google Chrome for Developers
- Mobile Web Advertising Measurement Guidelines, MMTF Final Version 1.1 (October 2017) (opens in a new tab)MRC, IAB Tech Lab and Mobile Marketing Association
- Brand suitability (opens in a new tab)Google, Display & Video 360 Help
- Exclude specific webpages and videos (opens in a new tab)Google Ads Help
- Guidelines on privacy and online behavioural advertising (opens in a new tab)Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Researched and written by PlacementGraph Research. Read how we research, source and update these pages. Corrections: diana@placementgraph.com.