comScore Reach Rankings: Whither RTB?

by Madhu Vudali
October 27th, 2011

comScore recently released its latest rankings of “ad-focused properties” (aka ad networks). “Who’s up and who’s down” always attracts much ink in the broader industry/business press. In seriousness, many of the agencies use this ranking as a filter to decide whom to work with: the higher the ranking, the better the chance of scoring that RFP.

That “footprint filter” may well have made sense at a point in time. But RTB is completely changing that. Here’s why: (a) the Exchanges/SSPs/DSPs provide a massive, if not near complete, coverage of US internet audience and (b) most ad networks (Brand.net included) are making full use of the inventory footprint enabled by these platforms. Essentially, all of us can potentially reach the entire US internet audience. In short, comScore understates the reach of ad networks that are successfully integrating RTB. As RTB grows, this understatement becomes more profound.

Given all of the above, Agency buyers no longer have an accurate way to determine the meaningful potential reach accessible through their largest media partners. Who in the ecosystem can and/or should step in to fill that gap? And what will new planning metrics look like?

One potential outcome would be for existing big players in measurement (e.g., Nielsen, comScore) to release new metrics that resolve the gap. Alternatively, Google or QuantCast, who have measurement capabilities but less tangible footprint with buyers, could use this as an opportunity to leapfrog the more established players.

Or the most intriguing option: perhaps there are startups on the horizon that will challenge existing measurement companies by innovating new methodologies and metrics to help buyers make informed decisions in our new RTB-enabled world?

In our next post on this topic, we’ll explore some related questions and alternatives that agency buyers should consider to address this issue. In the mean time, who do you think is most likely to take advantage of this opportunity?

 

Are We Talking Past Each Other?

by Elizabeth Blair
October 13th, 2011

Two interesting pieces this week – Brian Morrissey’s first in a series of 12 (!!) rapid-fire Digiday articles on “Solving the Web’s Brand Challenge.” The usual suspects ( I mean that in a good way) – reeled off the usual list of reasons brand advertising online hasn’t exploded. Creative. Wrong or no Measurement. Focused on Technology rather than Creative.

Buried midway down:

“We reach 90 million people [ ], but we really need to connect to 1,000 CMOs.”

Bingo.

As time goes on, these “why not us?” pieces seem more wistful, more plaintive, less relevant. And a cardinal rule of successful marketing: you gotta be relevant.

We in the vendor community wanted the internet to be a “branding medium”. And we have a definition of “branding medium” that works for us. Now the problems: We got off to a very slow start. We got disastrously entangled in the ubiquity of DR metrics. We talked more about technology than solutions. We splintered like crazy because a bubble-era venture-backed environment invariably creates 100s and 1,000s of players whether needed or not (not). We lacked an agency workforce with the expertise and experience to produce creative that might pop the paradigm.

So we swap stories about an offline becomes online nirvana state that never existed. My thought: even if there ever was a window for traditional offline brand advertising to be the model of online brand advertising, we missed it. We blew it. While we were —-ing around…the world of the CMO kept moving. And keeps moving. This week’s second interesting piece: IBM’s survey of 1,700 CMOs on the marketing issues most relevant to them. Their list:

-data explosion (71%)

-dealing with social media (68%)

-the growth of channel and device choices (64.5%)

-shifting consumer demographics (64.5%)

If we can’t make “online brand advertising” relevant to CMOs’ concerns, we should drop these emotionally charged words as the nomenclature and pick new ones. Otherwise, stop talking about what we like to talk about and get to work addressing the issues the data-deluged, ROI-burdened, standardized-metrics-challenged, social-media-vexed, where-are-these-customers-I-need-to-find-most that CMOs say are overwhelming them. Start with their #1, the data Big Bang (which, conveniently, is the root of all the solves). The brand community needs to embrace the challenge of maximizing the value of data in online advertising as wholeheartedly as our counterparts in DR have done.

As an industry, rally around aggressively promoting the solutions (whether or not they are ones we individually “own”) that for starters enable CMOs to aggregate multiple sources of data, to precisely target audiences with massive reach and minimal waste, and to measure their online campaigns additively to TV.

Online brand advertising is very different from traditional brand advertising and getting more so every day. The real “Web’s brand challenge” is why we are in denial about that and how soon we sober up.

 

How did they know to search for that brand?

by Andy Atherton
July 14th, 2011

Just a quick post to highlight a recent piece of research by attribution modeling company C3 Metrics (thanks AdExchanger!).

There’s more interesting detail at the link, but the headline is that in 37% of all online transactions analyzed, search on a branded term was the very last action before purchase.

That’s obviously bad news for the (too) commonly used “last click / last view” attribution approach.  As C3 CEO Mark Hughes put it, “If an advertiser is still using last click analytics, they would mistakenly think that brand search was responsible for a third of their results.”

This research underscores the fact that attribution is important, difficult stuff and requires a lot more horsepower than last click / last view.  I think folks like C3 have a great opportunity ahead of them.

C3’s findings echo a great piece of Microsoft research from a couple years back.   As I mentioned in my commentary when the Microsoft research came out, it’s clear that a lot of the money that brand marketers are spending on other media (online and offline) is having an impact – whether or not we can measure it precisely today.

Worth some thought.

 

Too many bad apples

by Andy Atherton
July 13th, 2011

The recent Stanford research on the blatant disrespect for user privacy preferences by many of the leading online advertising companies is a must read.

I offer sincere kudos to the companies who do show serious respect for user privacy, meeting and exceeding the NAI requirements.  Those include BlueKai, Fetchback, Google (including Invite Media), Media6Degrees, Quantcast, TidalTV, ValueClick’s Mediaplex, Yahoo!’s Dapper and Yume.

Unfortunately there are also a lot of bad apples and several of them are the companies most vocal about respecting user privacy.  The (dis)honor roll of 8 companies who, according to the Stanford research, expressly broke NAI self-regulatory rules by violating their own privacy policies included:

Adconion

Audience Science, whose CEO recently stated, “Through our partnership with DoubleVerify, our clients have yet another reason to trust that their brands are in the right hands with AudienceScience…Our advanced technology and superior data ensure campaigns are targeted to the right audience and adhere to the Self-Regulation Program guidelines.”    So was this breach of privacy rules Audience Science’s fault?  DoubleVerify’s fault?  It’s bad either way.

Netmining

TARGUSinfo

Undertone, who recently stated, “While authorities and industry representatives continue to debate the most effective solutions for privacy regulation, Undertone has long been committed to the practice of responsible targeting in the digital ad and video campaigns it delivers for clients…We’ve always operated with the belief that privacy is of the utmost importance.”

Vibrant Media

Wall Street on Demand

24/7 Real Media , whose chairman, David Moore is past chairman and current board member of the IAB, the online ad industry trade group most vocally advocating for industry “self-regulation” of privacy.  Given this research, it’s not difficult to imagine why many are skeptical of this approach.

These deceptive practices may (may) give these companies a temporary “leg up” on their competition, but they drag our whole industry down.  Privacy and property rights in data are serious business.  None of this suggests that our industry is adequately protecting consumers.  None of this suggests that our industry is mature enough to self-regulate.

Mark my words:  With Washington watching, it won’t take more than a few bad apples like this to spoil the barrel.

 

Addressing that “all-important brand/premium/guaranteed marketplace”

by Elizabeth Blair
July 7th, 2011

I was delighted to see that Tumri has been acquired. M&A is great for the online advertising industry. Consolidation creates fewer, stronger players with deeper, better solutions. And liquidity gives venture capitalists the dollars and incentive to fund the next generation of technology.

Terry Kawaja’s summary of what old school ad networks say they are doing, to either truly transform their businesses, or more crassly just to reposition themselves (either way primarily with an eye to an exit), is spot on:

(i) the amalgamation of a services solution set, (ii) the application of advanced technology to improve advertiser ROI, publisher yield and consumer relevancy, and (iii) more of a focus on “upper funnel” solutions that address the all-important brand/premium/guaranteed marketplace.

That said, a casual reader could infer that Tumri is part of the solution set for (iii) brand/premium/guaranteed. It’s not. Tumri’s description of itself on its Overview page makes that clear: “Tumri’s Dynamic Response solution optimizes landing page content (or any other type of post-click response) .” Online case studies also always tell you a lot about what a company “really does”. Proof is in the performance metric. What’s positioned as a “brand” or “branding” case study is unmasked by the KPIs – most of the time they are all about DR. Let’s glance at Tumri’s case study callouts:

• “37% Cost Per Lead reduction vs. static creatives (control)”
• “Cost per acquisition reduced by 67%”
• “312% improvement in Click Through Rate vs. default promotional creatives (control)”

So what really happened: a DR ad network acquired a DR optimization feature.

We fool ourselves thinking that any of this addresses the online spend pool that’s projected to triple in size in the next four years: true upper funnel brand advertising. Agencies spending the money get that. Publishers who want the money get that. PR spin isn’t doing a thing to make the $85 billion dollars in brand advertising that still hasn’t come online come online. To do that we need to prove to brand marketers that online advertising delivers results: a material increase in ROI on a material volume of sales. That’s what we do here at Brand.net every day.

 

Premium traction

by Andy Atherton
June 29th, 2011

There has obviously been a ton of commentary already on WPP’s recent Xaxis announcements, but I wanted to highlight one specific element of Brian Lesser’s AdExchanger Q&A on Monday that caught my eye.

Brian twice mentioned “Xaxis Premium”, saying it will “use reserve media from GroupM’s top media partners” to “allow advertisers to target audiences in premium contextual environments”.

I think it’s interesting that we see this from a major demand player (WPP) less than a week after a similarly focused set of comments from a major supply player (AOL).  And they’re not the only ones.  We’ve been seeing rapidly increasing recognition within agency holding companies, major publishers and the tech community that advertisers with brand objectives are underserved and need a premium soloution.

Terry Kawaja – let us know if you need any help with that new branding ecosystem slide, because I think we’re right in the middle of it.

 

Where’s the “LUMA slide” for branding?

by Andy Atherton
June 22nd, 2011

Very interesting article today from Brian Morrissey at Digiday, channeling Jeff Levick of AOL.

As Brian put it:

“The truth of the matter is much of the machinery of the programmatic buying landscape, captured in the Luma Partners slide, is dedicated to non-guaranteed inventory used for direct response advertising. Where’s the Luma slide for guaranteed ad space for brands?”

Now, that’s a great question and Jeff has obviously done some great thinking on the matter.

After you give the article a read, check out our results in connecting online ads to offline sales here.

 

Go Neal!

by Andy Atherton
June 10th, 2011

Some very interesting tidbits in Neal Mohan’s post on the Google blog yesterday.

First is that Google sees display inventory per user declining 25% by 2015.  This is a pretty interesting prediction given the conventional “wisdom” that online ad inventory is unlimited.  This hasn’t ever really been true (provided one cares about quality of placement) and if Neal’s correct, it will become even less true over time as the industry collectively realizes there’s there is too much low quality inventory out there and it’s not doing anyone in the ecosystem – advertisers, publishers or users – any good.

Combine this prediction with the forecast growth in display spend over the next decade and it’s pretty clear we’re heading for a much more constrained inventory landscape.  As these constraints start to bite, it will be interesting to see what happens to today’s auction-driven RTB infrastructure where delivery is not guaranteed.

Expect some serious turmoil as delivery rates drop and volatility increases.  Maybe that’s why Google has begun work on a reserved inventory product

I also want to amplify Neal’s point about 35% of campaigns measured on other metrics than clicks and conversions by 2015, particularly offline sales.  Those campaigns comprise the orange box on this graphic – some $6B in spend last year.  So Neal’s saying the orange share of online spend will grow from just over 20% in 2010 to 35% in 2015.

That prediction certainly syncs with the qualitative discussion in the eMarketer article I cited above, and if you combine the spend estimates there with Neal’s 35% share forecast, you end up with an online brand advertising market of  ~$15B in 2015.  Using Barclay’s market sizing estimates for the base you end up with ~$18B.   So the online brand advertising market will more or less triple by 2015.

That’s great news for the ecosystem as a whole and particularly for the relatively few of us delivering targeted solutions for Brand advertisers.

 

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should

by Andy Atherton
June 8th, 2011

Today, I wanted to highlight and echo some recent commentary from two very smart online ad veterans, Dave Morgan and Doug Weaver.

Their thesis in a nutshell is that the online advertising ecosystem has pursued an arms race of targeting upon targeting to the point that it has confused brand marketers and backed itself into a DR-only corner.  When it comes to hyper-targeting, as Dave Morgan put it, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

I completely agree and would encourage readers to visit the linked articles – there’s a lot more there to think about.

The market’s apparent addiction to overtargeting is especially puzzling given the performance data.  I have obviously written on this topic myself quite extensively over the years and just last week a new piece of research came out of MIT, with yet more evidence for the prosecution.

The MIT study, using data from agency giant Havas, found that highly personalized creative underperformed generic creative except for users who were already well down the funnel.  I understand that creative (this study) is different than media targeting (commentary above), but the two are opposite sides of the same coin and this result is another point on the same line; i.e., overtargeting is just that.

Or, as MIT researcher Catherine Tucker put it, “just because you have the data to personalize, it doesn’t mean you always should”.

 

More on GDN Reserve

by Andy Atherton
April 20th, 2011

Today’s Ad Exchanger published more commentary on Google’s GDN Reserve announcement last week.

Views from senior execs at VivaKi (Publicis) and Group M (WPP) rounded out the additional commentary from Google that was posted Monday.  John also published some additional perspective from Elizabeth and others.

A few things in the various posts caught my eye.  One was simply the difference in perspective between Publicis and WPP – clearly two different strategies at work there.  Another was the refinement in Google’s messaging between the earnings call last week and Monday’s spokesperson (PR) commentary.  Seemed like a careful balance between agency and advertiser in the messaging this time around (what frienemy?).  I also thought VivaKi’s mention of Yahoo! in this context was interesting.  Y! was once the dominant global player in online branding and reserved display marketplaces.  I would have expected more from them sooner, but it’s nice to see the old alma mater at least in the game.  If there’s any road back for Y!, this is it.

I’ll close with a quote from VivaKi’s Curt Hecht:

“While our spending continues to grow in the spot marketplace, clients and publishers still desire the controls and forecasting offered in a guaranteed market around context, price and performance.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

This being my 100th sermon from the Brand.net pulpit, it’s nice to see the gospel is spreading.

Hallelujah!

 

Older Posts »