Archive | Media RSS feed for this section

Has the Time Come and Gone for Digital Advertising Agencies?

28 Apr

digital trading deskWe all understand the concept of “specialization” and the potential benefit delivery for certain service providers in select industries. That said, the era of the digital media specialist agency may be drawing to a close.

Think about it, we have specialist agencies for programmatic advertising, paid search, organic search, social media, email, mobile marketing, website development, user experience, social, native and display advertising.

Why? What are the advantages that accrue to an advertiser from this level of specialization? More importantly, how many advertisers are equipped to engage with multiple media agency partners?

Integrating strategy and resource allocation decisions, coordinating roles and responsibilities and effectively managing relationships among several media agencies takes time, energy and money… assets that are tougher and tougher for marketers to come by. Not to mention, the additional costs incurred for overlapping agency services/personnel.

Specialist agencies aside, when it comes to digital media, advertisers are also contending with general market agencies, PR firms, multi-cultural, experiential and promotional agencies that are also involved with their digital marketing efforts. It is damn difficult for a marketing staff to coordinate and optimize digital communications along this many fronts, let alone integrate such efforts with an organization’s “traditional” media efforts. And, let’s face it, the task is not any easier (or cheaper) for an advertiser’s media agency-of-record to take the lead on this task and coordinate multiple disparate agencies working collaboratively and cohesively toward a common goal.

The ultimate question for advertisers may be, why take what is already a complex process and further complicate it by dividing efforts and resources across so many players?

In our contract compliance auditing and financial management practice we have seen advertisers pay a steep price for assembling agency networks that are too broad for their existing teams to effectively manage. This in turn leads to cost inefficiencies related to duplicative services and fees tied to the lack of clear role differentiation across agencies, and in turn, a reduction in working media. Say nothing of the impact on digital media effectiveness tied to communication and briefing gaps that inevitably arise in these scenarios. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the words of William Blake, 18th century English poet and painter:

“The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom”

We believe that the time has come for advertisers to give more serious consideration to streamlining their agency networks in general, and specifically to pare back the number of agency partners involved with their digital media efforts… beginning with “specialist” shops.

A great place to start is to evaluate the potential for centralizing media planning for traditional and digital media. This is a logical “first step” and will allow marketing organizations to better leverage their data, to improve their targeting and segmentation schema, enhance their resource allocation decisions and integrate all facets of their communication plans. Additional benefits from such a strategy include more collaborative and improved media briefings and streamlined communications across agency partners. Similarly, when it comes to media buying, focusing on fewer partners makes it easier to leverage an organization’s overall media spend, optimize sponsorship and value-add opportunities across media properties, and to minimize agency fees by eliminating redundant buying activities across partner shops.

Major holding company media agencies and larger independent media firms, with broad resource offerings and the scale to provide “one-stop” service certainly stand to benefit from consolidation. As do ad technology firms such as Adobe, Oracle and Google that provide advertisers with the tools to manage certain digital functions in-house. It should be noted that while the large media networks of a holding company will benefit, specialized, stand alone digital media shops within those holding companies may face challenges related to such a consolidation.

In closing, we wanted to address the topic of the “rise of the management consultancies” as legitimate competitors to traditional agencies. As it relates to media planning and placement, we believe that the large ad agencies and holding companies will retain an edge in this area for some time to come. However, vulnerability in the areas of strategic consulting and customer connectivity (i.e. data integration, user experience and system development) is where we believe consulting firms will continue to make significant inroads with CMOs as marketers seek to fulfill corporate mandates to assist in digitally transforming their businesses. As this is occurring, some agencies have announced plans to expand their resource offerings to compete with the likes of Accenture, IBM, PwC and Deloitte in this area. Realistically, at least in the near-term, agency constraints on talent and functional expertise represent significant hurdles before an attack in this area can be mounted… while concurrently defending their current base of business.

 

Does Anyone Really Want Advertisers to Solve the Attribution Dilemma?

14 Mar

conspiracyIt has been decades since the concept of Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM), the forerunner to Attribution Modeling, was introduced. The concept was relatively straightforward, marketers would apply statistical analysis to sales and marketing data to quantify the impact that each element of the marketing mix had in driving brand sales and profit. Once the causal relationship had been modeled, marketers would then be able to accurately forecast outcomes and inform resource allocation decisions.

While the concept may have been straightforward, the solution, for most marketers, has been elusive. Why? First and foremost, MMM has some inherent challenges, particularly when it comes to quantifying the impact of longer term brand equity development tactics versus those focused on short-term sales. Secondly, these models have not fared well in accurately assessing the impact of various media types on outcomes to assist in refining allocation decisions.

Fast forward to the late ‘90’s when we experienced an explosion in online media, the birth of e-commerce and the introduction of “Big Data.” The emergence of digital media and the attendant level of data that marketers where now able to gather led to the launch of “Attribution Modeling.” The goal, to assess and quantify what marketing and media touchpoints influenced an advertiser’s target audience, and to what extent, across the purchase funnel in an effort to optimize media spending across the ever expanding gamut of media alternatives.

While there are multiple variations of attribution models to consider, most marketers have relied on single-source attribution models, often using a “last click” approach which assigns responsibility for an outcome to one event. While simple, this flawed approach to attribution modeling gives too much credit to digital media, at the expense of traditional media and other marketing touchpoints.

Sadly, for advertisers that are doing both MMM and Attribution Modeling, it is rare that the feedback from these related, but different approaches synch. Further, there remain audience delivery measurement (i.e. cross-channel measurement), multi-touch attribution challenges that introduce a layer of complexity that drives up the cost of attribution modeling.

That said, since the onset of these two modeling tools being introduced, the industry has dramatically evolved its data gathering capabilities, enhanced CRM and DMP capabilities, conceived of and launched programmatic media buying, where algorithms have replaced media buyers and now we’re seeing the use of artificial intelligence bots, such as Adgorithms’ “Albert” that can plan and place media and create content. Heady stuff to be sure.

This got the cynic in me thinking; “Well if we can master all of this from a technology perspective, surely we should be able to cost efficiently and effectively master attribution modeling.” That led to idle speculation about whether or not the ad industry really wants advertisers to solve the attribution modeling dilemma?

After all, what if John Wanamaker was wrong? What if more than half of his ad spend was wasted? Remember, the marketing and media choices available to him in the 19th century were considerably more limited than those available to advertisers today. Would accurate attribution models eliminate some of the following marketing and media options from consideration?

  • Television
  • Radio
  • Magazine
  • Newspaper
  • OOH
  • Cinema advertising
  • Product placement
  • Direct mail
  • Email
  • Sponsorships
  • Online display
  • Online video
  • Podcasts
  • Paid search
  • Organic search
  • Mobile
  • Social media
  • Native advertising
  • In-store advertising
  • In-store displays
  • On-package advertising
  • Trade promotions
  • Price promotions
  • Couponing
  • Affinity marketing
  • Affiliate marketing
  • Applications
  • Earned media

Crazy. Right? Reminds me of a quote by the American journalist, Gary Weiss:

“One problem with the focus on speculation is that it tends to promote the growth of the great intellectual cancer of our times: conspiracy theories.”

What do you think…

 

Advertisers: Buying Guidelines Matter

25 Jan

compliance-rulesAdvertisers and their media agency partners spend countless hours, invest significant energy and apply a wealth of creativity in crafting their initial media plans and updating those plans to address internal issues, marketplace opportunities and or competitor moves over the course of a budget year.

The question is: “Do advertisers and their media agency partners spend enough time ensuring that those plans are actually executed to their fullest during the investment phase of the media buying cycle?”

In our experience, the direct answer is “No.” The hand-off from media planning to media buying and the accompanying media process controls, forms and reporting are often inadequate as is the level of oversight applied on a post plan approval basis.

Advertisers, if you’re wondering whether or not this is the case with your organization, it may be worth reviewing the following processes, forms and reports for their thoroughness and the extent to which they are reviewed and monitored over the course of a media campaign:

  • Buying Guidelines – When was the last time you reviewed your organization’s buying guidelines? Did you approve them? Are they current? Are they comprehensive enough to safeguard your interests and optimize your message reach? Have they been created for each media channel purchased or for TV only? How are these guidelines communicated to media sellers? Does your agency monitor and or report on buying guideline adherence? What are the consequences to the agency and or the media sellers if these guidelines are not complied with? Too often we find that this important communication bridge between media planning and media buying has not been satisfactorily completed or is so lacking in detail and or coverage across media that it is ineffectual. This is a critical mistake. Buying guidelines represent the explicit instructions from the agency planning team to their associates in buying and ultimately to the media sellers for how the client-approved plan is to be executed, stewarded and its performance assessed. Shortfalls in this area negatively impact media delivery and marketing ROI in a very direct manner.
  • Request for Proposals (RFPs) – Whether sent manually or digitally by the agency to media sellers, this process is often fraught with shortcomings. These include insufficient time afforded publishers to effectively respond to the RFP requests; and not enough information provided on the advertiser and or their specific goals to facilitate the publisher to tailor their proposal to the advertiser’s needs. From an advertiser’s perspective, often times these documents fail to ask for feedback on important issues such as whether or not digital publishers employ third-party vendors for website traffic sourcing. In other instances, RFPs fail to communicate critical performance standards such as viewability standards for digital media or in establishing the advertiser’s position on whether or not they will pay for non-human or fraudulent traffic. It would be a worthwhile practice for Advertisers to periodically review the level of detail contained in their media agency’s RFP templates and review completed RFPs to understand the basis for why certain RFPs were accepted or acted upon and others rejected.
  • Insertion Orders & Buy Confirmation Letters – The primary focus with these important control documents is to establish the specific tenets of the deal (i.e. audience delivery, performance guidelines, basis for evaluating performance, make good policies, etc.). Unfortunately, in our media agency compliance audit practice, we regularly discover incomplete documentation in this area that fails to establish enforceable delivery thresholds or basic qualitative standards to safeguard an advertiser’s media investment. In this era of “Big Data,” it is important for agencies to assert their clients’ data access and ownership rights. This relates generally to the audience modeling and transactional data generated as part of their media investment, and in the case of programmatic media buys, specifically to items such as winning bid log files and the associated meta data from all suppliers, including DSPs. Ensuring these types of data access and ownership rights are essential for advertisers if they want to have a clear line-of-sight into impression level pricing prior to the addition of the myriad number of fees and mark-ups charged by third-party suppliers. These documents also present an excellent opportunity for agencies to reinforce the agreed upon advertiser data protection guidelines such as how an advertiser’s data will be siloed, how long it will be stored and the extent to which the suppliers will limit other advertisers and third-parties access to such data.
  • Post-Buy Performance Reporting – There are three primary concerns in this area, aside from whether or not performance reporting is even being conducted. First, how are media buys monitored and stewarded while underway? What is the agency doing to monitor campaign delivery and to optimize performance in-flight? Second, is the agency monitoring performance across all media? More often than not we find agencies conducting television post-buys or digital media performance analysis, but totally ignoring other media elements altogether. Third, are the post-performance reports provided in a timely manner and include the level of detail necessary to hold media sellers accountable and provide meaningful insights that shape future media plans and buys?

Without a solid media stewardship process that incorporates sound control documents, continuous monitoring and comprehensive post-performance analysis, even the most thoughtful and compelling media plans will fall short of their potential. Advertisers could well benefit from conducting periodic reviews of their media agencies approach and performance during this phase of the media investment cycle. In the words of W.B. Sebald, twentieth-century German academic and author:

“Tiny details imperceptible to us decide everything!”

 Interested in learning more about the role of media buying guidelines and controls in safeguarding your media investment? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for your complimentary consultation on this topic. 

 

3 Thoughts on Facebook’s Video “Watch Time” Issue

3 Oct

facebookFrom an advertiser’s perspective, there were three things that stood out in the wake of Facebook’s recent disclosure that it had mistakenly overstated average video ad watch times.

First and foremost, the miscalculation was not uncovered by the advertising agency community. Given the dollar volume being committed to Facebook, whose digital ad revenues will eclipse $6.0 billion, it would be fair to assume that ad agencies had a fiduciary duty to verify/investigate Facebook’s performance monitoring methodologies prior to investing their clients’ media dollars. The fact that Facebook had not embraced industry standards and asked the Media Rating Council (MRC) to accredit its performance metrics should have been the hot topic of conversation prior to Facebook’s disclosure, rather than after the fact. Ironically, in the wake of this disclosure, WPP stated that the mistake “further emphasizes the importance and need for third-party verification of all media — not only to verify trading terms but also to verify performance.” So if agencies truly felt this way, why wasn’t this standard not being applied here-to-for?

Secondly, it would appear as though the agency community is somewhat fearful of Facebook. Too many agency executives spoke to the trade media on the basis of anonymity rather than overtly stating their personal and or their company’s perspective on both the inflation of the viewing time metric and the need for accreditation. This seems an odd dynamic given the percentage of digital media spend represented by the “Big 4” agency holding companies. Advertisers might rightly expect that the scale of these entities would offer them some level of leverage and protection when interacting with media sellers. This is apparently not the case.

Thirdly, advertisers need to put a stake in the ground when it comes to media transparency and performance authentication. Self-reported performance indicators, such as Facebook’s average video watch time, cannot be the basis upon which they invest their media dollars. If a media seller has not had its delivery and performance metrics audited and accredited by an industry accepted resource such as the MRC, IAS, Nielsen or comScore for example, then they should be excluded from the media investment consideration equation.

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) CEO, Bob Liodice appropriately addressed this issue when the ANA issued the following statement: “ANA does not believe there are any pragmatic reasons that a media company should not abide by the standards of accreditation and auditing” calling this important step “table stakes” for digital advertising.

The issue with the misstatement of the video ad watch times is not whether or to what extent the :03 second watch time threshold was utilized by ad agencies to assess Facebook’s performance. Quite simply, the issue is that self-reported performance metrics are unequivocally no substitute for independently audited outputs.

For anyone to suggest that the miscalculation is really no big deal, because it is a metric that is not utilized when considering the purchase of video advertising on Facebook, is misguided. The lack of transparency, further compounded by the media seller’s lack of adherence to industry standards when coupled with the self-reported inflated viewing times can and did wrongly influence agency and advertiser decisions. Thus, raising the all-important question: “Absent an independent audit, what portion of Facebook’s self-reported performance metrics can an advertiser trust?”

 

 

 

 

Key to Media ROI: Chief Media Officer or Compliance Auditing Support?

14 Aug

AccountabilityIn the wake of this spring’s Association of National Advertisers (ANA) “Media Transparency” study, conducted by K2, many in the industry have suggested that advertisers add a Chief Media Officer to staff to assist them in navigating what is clearly a complex, rapidly changing industry. For those advertisers that have the financial wherewithal to support such a position, the benefits could be significant when it comes to strategy development, planning and stewardship of their media agencies and extended supplier base.

That said, the dynamics which impact media return-on-investment require resources that go well beyond the reach, and sometimes knowledge, of a Chief Media Officer and create an entirely different set of challenges even for those organization’s that do have the luxury of adding a seasoned, media executive to their staff.

The findings of the ANA/K2 study dealt with non-transparent media agency practices effecting advertisers such as: rebates taken at the agency holding company level and not passed through to advertisers, media arbitrage, value banks, related party transactions and inappropriate mark-up on both media and non-media expenses. The economic and relationship impact of these practices, and the continued adverse effects of digital ad fraud and viewability challenges besetting the industry, all serve to greatly reduce the efficacy of an advertiser’s media investment.

Experience suggests that the key to resolving these issues is more likely rooted in the development of a sound, broad reaching media accountability program. One which focuses on improving client/agency contract language, client/ agency focused communications, financial and legal controls and enhancing advertiser transparency rights that allow clarity into the disposition of their funds at each stage of the media investment cycle.

This is not an easy task in an industry still largely reliant on an estimated billing model, with inordinately long campaign closing/reconciliation processes and multiple third-party vendors and middlemen, which all serve to negatively impact working media ratios.

Add to this the fact that the C-Suite within many advertiser organizations simply doesn’t pay much attention to media, in spite of the materiality of spend in this important area. Consider the results from a July ANA study, conducted by Advertiser Perceptions, following the release of the ANA/ K2 study:

Only one-quarter (25%) of advertisers surveyed were aware of the ANA’s media transparency study.

We believe that advertisers do care about how their media funds are being managed. However, we also know that very few organizations know what happens to their money, once an agency invoice has been paid.

It is for this reason that we believe strongly in the vast benefits that a structured, agency compliance and financial management auditing program. One that can also assist advertisers by providing a context for understanding the scope of the risks they face when it comes to building mitigating controls to optimize their media investment.

At present, few advertisers undertake such testing and even fewer have the requisite industry experience and specific media-based accounting, auditing and fraud examination experience represented in-house. Additionally, we have yet to evidence a client organization that has implemented the requisite software in their media function capable of processing and catching media billing discrepancies and performing other detailed financial analysis on their media investment.

We have learned over the years that the implementation of such controls yields tangible value far in excess of the cost to support such efforts.

The combination of financial loss related to approved but unspent media funds, earned but unprocessed credits and rebates, billing errors, unreconciled pass-through expenses and related party transparency issues can range between 2.0% and 5.0% of total agency billings. Once aware of the causes, savings are realized year-over-year by implementing improved process changes and treasury management.

With this as a backdrop, imagine an organization investing tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars on media. The resulting financial benefits, combined with improved controls, enhanced risk mitigation and transparency most assuredly will secure the attention of the C-Suite and their support for media agency compliance auditing.

Interested in learning how to start improving your media transparency today? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for your complimentary consultation.

Sourcing Your Programmatic Buying Partner

14 Dec

3 rsWritten by Peter Portanova, Project Analyst for Source One Management Services

The concepts of reach and frequency have long guided the way marketers approach advertising, and when multiplied, they provide the calculation for Gross Rating Points (GRPs) to measure and evaluate the success of your campaigns. However, the rise of programmatic ad buying (automated buying based on real time data analysis of competitive rates) forces marketers to reconsider their historical understanding of success in marketing, and encourages the consideration of new and potentially more effective metrics.

GRPs are hugely important across a variety of marketing channels, exclusive of programmatic buying. The ideology that more GRPs means greater success is severely flawed, and by using such a calculation in a highly targeted and customized solution like programmatic buying, one misrepresents the technology’s true value. However, instead of arguing the utility of GRPs, it is more critical to consider alternative means of success in marketing and how embracing programmatic can revolutionize your approach to online advertising, while driving a variety of critical KPIs.  

Programmatic buying is growing quickly, and is responsible for billions of dollars in digital media placements. Programmatic buying is the intersection where data and advertising truly meet, with engineers, traders, and data-management platforms replace traditional sales planners. Agencies would like you to believe that their programmatic efforts reduce overall costs, but the truth of the situation is that, when viewed holistically, programmatic buying is actually more expensive.

Implementing programmatic buying efforts does have its merits, and agencies are quick to note that initial costs can be negated quickly. However, for programmatic buying to reach its maximum potential, marketers and advertisers must learn to move past the traditional reach and frequency mindset, and consider the long-term advantages of highly targeted placements. In fact, industry experts note that using programmatic buying to place more advertisements decreases transparency, which can lead to fraudulent placements. In using programmatic buying to deliver a highly targeted message to the right individual at the right time, brands are able to increase their visibility to the appropriate segments, increasing potential brand engagement.

Marketers must begin to understand programmatic buying from a holistic perspective. Why is this more expensive? Does it involve fewer people? Most marketers are shocked that programmatic buying proposals suggest fewer advertisements at a greater cost. While inventory is cheaper in programmatic buying compared to manual buying, there are substantial costs of doing business to implement and manage these efforts. In an article on AdAge, a media agency executive said, “Five full time employees are needed to spend $100 million national broadcast budget, while the same number would be needed for a $5 million programmatic buy.”

Understanding the discrepancy in FTEs and costs becomes more complicated when you also factor agency commissions into the equation. The employees required to manage a programmatic buy are in far greater demand, having a unique skillset that commands salaries 50-100% greater than manual buyers. The technology and the platforms do not eliminate the need for human input, and therefore it is critical to entice highly skilled employees for retention. Traditional full-service agencies have seen these employees move quickly to digital agencies that have a greater focus on new technologies, including programmatic buying.

The true cost of programmatic buying becomes noticeable when considering agency commissions that are charged to simply breakeven. The same agency executive interviewed by AdAge stated that, with a budget of $100 million, break-even points begin at 1% with TV, and quickly jump to 10-12% with programmatic. It is also worth noting that the 12% commission is only the break-even, with many agencies charging a rate of around 20%, to turn a meager profit.

There is a substantial cost of placing media through a programmatic partner. AdAge refers to these costs as an “intermediary tax” which accounts for all the transactions that take place to make a programmatic buy occur. With 7% to 20% taken by ad exchanges, another 10% to 20% taken by automated software providers, and then another 15% for the data-management platforms, there is potential that only $.50 of every dollar will reach the publisher. While these rates may seem expensive, there is value in using programmatic buying; however, the marketer should be fully aware of the intended use of programmatic, with no expectation that they are receiving a more targeted solution for a lower price.

While so far we have discussed mostly the potential benefits (and drawbacks) of programmatic buying, there is always a need to manage costs. Consider the following best practices when working with your agency to ensure greater transparency in your agreement.

  • Contract Language
    • When contracting with your programmatic buying partner, ensure that language exists around specific rates. Furthermore, consider a period where you can renegotiate these rates to be more favorable.
  • Redundant Services
    • Prior to considering your programmatic needs, understand the services you require and what you may need outside of traditional manual buying. When working with multiple vendors (which is common with programmatic buying), there is potential to be charged for the same service multiple times.
  • Liberate your Data
    • Unless specifically outlined, your data may not belong to you after working with a particular partner. If you are unable to retrieve your data during any part of the process, the supplier immediately gains tremendous advantage.
  • Understand your Options
    • Do you need managed service, or do you need self-service? In a self-service agreement, the vendor charges for the use of their technology, but does not charge for any resources associated with operating the platform. A managed option typically has charges for not only the technology, but also the management fees associated with run and execute a campaign.
  • Consolidate
    • Find a partner capable of providing you with a variety of services, and consolidate your marketing to that one agency. Using separate agencies to plan and execute your manual and programmatic buys is inefficient, and unless information is shared freely across agencies (it probably will not be), the effectiveness of both operations will be hindered. Consolidation also allows for better reporting and recognition of opportunities across channels.

As for the future of programmatic buying? It’s only anticipated to grow. EMarketer predicts total programmatic buying spend to exceed $20B in 2016. When it comes to digital marketing, there is no “one size fits all.” While programmatic buying is typically more expensive than other traditional tactics, there’s no doubt the method offers significant ROI in the form of operational speed and efficiency and increased scale and targeting. Like any other agency sourcing engagement, do your due diligence when looking for the right partner for your programmatic buying requirements. Beyond assessing agency scale, technology and data analytics, and skillsets, take steps to establish a strategic client-agency relationship. This begins with strong contract language that drives further value from your programmatic efforts and continues with fostering ongoing communication and transparency with your agency.

Peter Portanova is a marketing category enthusiast and Project Analyst for Source One Management Services. He is an expert at developing RFPs and executing strategic sourcing strategies for clients in a wide array of industries, specializing in navigating the complexities of the Marketing spend category. Click to learn more about Source One’s Marketing Category expertise.

The Ad Viewability Debate Rages On

5 Jan

ad viewabilityThere has been much discussion in the wake of the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB) mid-December release of their proposed “standard” for the measurement of digital media delivery in 2015. 

Advertisers, agencies and publishers should celebrate the progress being made and the healthy nature of the dialog now occurring between each of the participating stakeholders in this important sector of the global advertising marketplace. Having said that, the pace of change and the level of investment being made by the three major industry associations whose members have the most at stake has been disappointingly slow. 

By way of background the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) and the IAB formed the Measurement Makes Sense (3MS) task force in 2011 with the goal of “fixing digital measurement.” According to the IAB, the three industry groups have spent $6 million collectively in pursuit of this goal.  

Not to diminish either the effort or the investment, during this same time frame digital spending has increased from $86.6 billion in 2011 to an estimated $142.0 billion in 2014, up 17.2% year-over-year, is forecast to represent 30% of global ad expenditures in 2015 and will likely eclipse TV spending by 2017. Which in this author’s humble opinion supports the observation that the industry has simply not done enough to remedy the limitations that exist when it comes to validating digital media delivery. 

On the surface, many were surprised at the progressive stance taken by the IAB in suggesting that the industry adapt a “70% viewability threshold” for measured impressions in 2015. The question others are asking is, “Progressive relative to what?” The IAB suggested that up until its proposed 2015 transitional guidelines that the “industry standard” was a definition of viewablility issued by the Media Ratings Council (MRC). The MRC’s definition considered a desktop display ad to be viewable if 50% of the ad’s pixels were in view for at least one second and two seconds for desktop video ads.  

It should be noted that the MRC’s definition, which was introduced in the spring of 2014, was never adopted by the advertising industry as a standard to guide publisher/ advertiser negotiations. Thus, it was no surprise when the 4A’s immediately issued an opinion to its membership to reject the IAB’s online viewability guidelines. According to one industry executive, Todd Gordon, EVP of Magna Global, a leading media planning and buying agency, “Running a campaign and paying for 30% of the ads not being viewable isn’t acceptable to us or our clients.” 

In the press release announcing their proposed 2015 guidelines, the IAB trumpeted the “shift from a served impression to a viewable impression” as “yet another step to greater accountability in digital media.” So it was something of a surprise and contradiction to learn that the first of their seven proposed “2015 Transaction Principles” suggested that “all billing continue to be based on the number of served impressions during a campaign.” Additionally, the proposed guidelines segregate served impressions into two categories, measured and non-measured, with the 70% viewability guideline applying only to measured impressions. Understandably, advertisers might view this as something of a disconnect as it relates to the transition to a viewable impression standard. 

We understand that digital campaign viewability measurement is a challenging proposition due to variances in the types of ad units being utilized and the different audience delivery measurement methodologies in use today. However, the IAB’s proposed guidelines continue to place the lion’s share of the financial burden for these shortcomings square on the backs of the advertiser community. Given that the composition of the IAB’s membership is largely made up of publishers, which have benefitted tremendously from the dramatic growth in digital media revenues, we believe that the 4As was right to reject the IAB’s proposed guidelines, with the goal of pushing for a more balanced standard, with more aggressive viewable impression delivery guarantees. 

And while continued dialog between the ANA, 4As and IAB on this topic is encouraging, we know from experience how long and arduous a journey toward an industry “standard” can be. It is for this reason, that we applaud the efforts of those advertisers and their agencies that have taken matters into their own hands and begun to eschew digital ad inventory of questionable value or with limited delivery guarantees. It has been reported that advertisers such as Kraft, for example, have “rejected up to 85%” of the digital ad inventory offered to them.  

Historically, we know that when advertisers self-police their ad investments, audit contract compliance and supplier performance and withhold ad dollars where appropriate, agencies and publishers will begin to take the notion of transformative change as it relates to digital media much more seriously. As Kevin Scholl, Digital Marketing Director at Red Roof Inn aptly stated in a recent Adweek interview on the viewability issue, “If we were buying in spaces with lame guarantees, we had to question continue buying there – or evolve how were buying.” 

Let us know your thoughts on this important issue by emailing Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com.

 

 

Still Want to Buy a Banner Ad?

26 Sep

banner ads are broken

 

Much has been written about the unprecedented rate of growth in digital media spending by advertisers.  But it pays to restate a few facts to help provide some context for this article: 

  • Digital ad spending will hit $140 billion in 2014
  • Compound annual growth for digital spending will average 16% through 2018
  • The compound annual growth rate for total media spend will be 5% through 2018
  • Digital media will account for 1 of every 3 dollars spent on advertising in 2018 

(Source: Ybrant Digital, soon to be re-branded as Lycos, September, 2014) 

What is amazing is that this growth is being achieved in spite of serious questions about the efficacy of certain digital media formats and continued concern regarding the level of fraudulent activity, which continues unabated.  In a recent article for Digiday entitled; “Why digital ads are broken beyond repair” Faris Yakob provides some disheartening evidence that is sure to provide pause to some advertisers.  

According to Mr. Yakob, banner ads, which rank among the oldest and most popular types of digital media in use with “more than 5 trillion banner ads served in the U.S. in 2012” may not warrant the share of advertiser spending which they presently command.  Why?  The author points out that according to a 2009 comScore study “85% of all clicks are derived from 8% of users.” Further, he cites Interactive Advertising Bureau estimates which suggest that “36% of all web traffic is considered fake” to support his supposition that from a media perspective banners are broken.” 

The question raised by the repeated challenges and allegations being leveled at digital media is a simple one; “When are advertisers, publishers, ad agencies, technology intermediaries and industry associations going to get serious about reforming this media channel?”  

Sadly, the answer may be “never” or at least, not as long as advertiser investment in digital media continues to outpace that of traditional media by a rate of three to one.  After all, why should the industry invest in expensive, time extensive and complex reforms when the absence of any such performance governors has not limited the flow of ad dollars into digital media? 

We’re all familiar with the popular quote by 19th century merchant John Wanamaker: 

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.” 

Given his perspective on marketing efficiency, there is little doubt that Mr. Wanamaker would be a supporter of the proposed move to a viewable impression standard.  If adopted, this new audience delivery currency would serve to counterbalance some of the issues related to click quality and fraudulent activity.  While more needs to be done to protect the interests of advertisers and publishers alike, this would be a positive first step toward reform. 

 

Are Advertisers Willing to Forgo Effectiveness for Efficiency?

25 Jun

digital marketing spendIt was with great interest that I read Advertising Age’s article on 2013’s record setting ad spending levels for the “Top 100” advertisers.

Ironically, it wasn’t the total spending level of $108.6 billion, the 4.6% ad spend growth projection for 2014 or the fact that Ad Age’s leading national advertisers “accounted for about two-fifths (42.2%) of all U.S. measured-media spending in 2013” that intrigued me.  What caught my attention was the commentary from senior ad agency executives to various Wall Street analysts about the reasons behind their company’s higher share of spending in the digital media space.

The article quoted a handful of CEOs and CFOs touting their firm’s move to lessen their reliance on traditional media by increasing ad spending on digital media with the goal of realizing greater efficiencies.  Interestingly, there was no reference to improving the effectiveness of their advertising investment.  To be fair, perhaps they believe that spending more of their ad budget dollars in this low-growth environment (ad spending growth is outpacing company revenue growth) on digital will be more effective.

It makes you wonder about the extent to which the leading national advertisers have refined their attribution modeling to reflect the impact of an exposure to their messaging on a cross-platform basis.  Have they solved for the question on everyone’s mind regarding how various delivery channels such as television, print, OOH, online display and particularly owned media, impact consumer awareness, intent and purchasing behavior?  You would think so.  How else, could advertisers justify upping the share of spend on digital to nearly 25% in aggregate on an industry-wide basis?

In the proverbial “good ol’ days” budget allocation decisions were based largely on results attained as opposed to such a heavy emphasis on “what” something cost.  One had to balance effectiveness and efficiency if an advertiser was going to maximize their return-on-marketing-investment (ROMI).

No one argues the inherent benefits associated with digital media today when it comes to dynamic messaging, behavioral targeting and selecting relevant media inventory that is aligned with audience media consumption actions on a real-time basis.  Additionally, most industry participants realize that digital will become a much more viable media forum from an advertising perspective as time goes by.

The challenge with digital media for advertisers is primarily one of confidence.  Confidence in knowing that a high percentage of a dollar directed to a publisher website actually makes it to that site, that its messages have an opportunity to be seen and that the responses being generated to its ads are from target audience members and not bots and that participants in the social sphere are receptive to advertiser interaction.  Absent solid cross-platform audience measurement tools, transparency into the various links in the digital media chain and the ability to accurately gauge response, it may be a risky proposition to spend two out of every five budgeted ad dollars on digital media.

That said, it is clear that the digital “train” has left the proverbial station.  The good news is that advertisers, agencies and publishers are working with their respective industry associations to address some of the issues which need to be dealt with in the context of digital media.  However, history would suggest that an industry wide mandate or set of solutions could be some time coming.

So, what can an individual advertiser do to enhance their control over the digital portion of their ad spend in the near-term?

Perhaps the best place to start is to engage their agency partners in candid conversations to map out the risks and uncertainties in and around digital delivery with the goal of identifying various means to mitigate those risks.  Tighter controls, improved performance monitoring, more timely and thorough campaign post-buy analysis and more rigorous financial stewardship processes between advertisers and their agencies and third-party vendors can certainly play a role in this area.

Industry practitioners certainly understand the role of experimentation and the need to stay abreast of change within the media landscape.  As such, the potential benefits of digital media in all of its forms, merits attention.  However, when a media channel accounts for 40%+ of industry ad spend it is clear that we’ve moved beyond the “experimentation” stage.

It is right to applaud the pioneering spirit which advertisers have exhibited in so rapidly evolving their media mix to integrate digital into the fold.  Given that total digital media spending was $19.9 billion in 2009 (source: Jupiter Research) and in five short years later eMarketer is forecasting that 2014 global digital media spending will eclipse $137.5 billion, it is clear that advertisers are blazing new trails.

Merriam-Webster defines the term pioneer as; “a person who helps create or develop new ideas, methods, etc.”  The marketing definition of pioneer, however, has often been described as: “a person with an arrow in their back.”  The moral of the story?  Proceed with caution and a complete understanding of the risks/rewards inherent with aggressively moving into what is still an emerging media… at least from a performance validation perspective.

Interested in learning more about safeguarding your digital media investment?  Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management, LLC at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a complimentary consultation on the topic.

 

The Missing Voice on C7

12 Jun

national TV upfront

By Matthew Reiss, Senior Vice President, Client Services – Advantage Media Inc.

The decibel level within the industry regarding a move from a C3 to C7 standard for buying and selling national TV is now at a fever pitch. The addition of time shifted viewership from 3 days after broadcast to now include an additional 4 days is at the heart of this debate. 

Recent articles proudly proclaim that agencies, such as Group M, and broadcast networks, such as CBS, FOX and NBC have already consummated some deals on the C7 metric, limited at the moment to Prime entertainment programming inventory. 

What’s missing is the voice of the advertiser 

So far, we’re only hearing about what’s best for others. No where do we hear about what’s best for the one paying the bills. So what’s at stake here? Though there are significant differences in the amount of time shifted viewership during these additional 4 days, on average it represents about 3% additional viewings.  

Up to this time, paying based on C3 means that the advertiser may be getting a 3% bump in viewership. Not huge, but good to have. By shifting to a C7 metric, these viewers will now be counted against your guaranteed delivery. In short, advertisers will begin to pay for viewers that up till now you’ve been getting as “added value”.  

What’s in it for the networks is pretty straight forward  

Even though such time shifted viewing has been delivering this added value since the invention of the VCR, they now want to be paid for it. But what it really delivers to them are additional rating points against their guaranteed deals without having to add any more commercial inventory.  

What’s in it for the agencies is also pretty straight forward  

By moving to the larger C7 audiences, they can show clients that they lowered CPMs by about 3%, at a time when network Prime CPMs continue to grow much faster than most advertiser’s budgets.  

There’s even something in this for Nielsen  

By selling multiple streams of data from its overall database, Nielsen should expect a bump in its revenue.

But what’s missing is what’s in it for advertisers 

In the view of Advantage Media, there’s not much in this for advertisers. Yes, in the first year CPMs will look lower, though this of course, is a shell game, since advertisers have had the benefit of these viewers all along. In year 2 and beyond, advertisers can expect to see the same steady year over year CPM increases, so no benefit there.  

For our retail clients, this move is even more unfriendly. Paying for viewers who see your commercials after a “limited time offer” has expired will be money wasted. As you may know, Advantage Media already directs agencies to obtain compensation for commercial units that air “out of flight.”  

Also, focusing on C7 (which someday could be pushed to C14 or beyond) takes the industry’s eye off those advances that could truly benefit the advertiser. Such areas include true commercial audience measurement, rather than the current C3 “average” of all commercials. Or how about pursuing expansion in the ratings sample to improve accuracy and discrimination within the data?  

It’s being said that the move to C7 is inevitable. But is it? We believe it’s not if advertisers take exception to it or at least minimally extract a significant “true” benefit from the change.  

Advantage Media strongly recommends that advertisers raise their voice on this issue before the networks and your agencies move to this new metric, especially if your involvement or agreement has not been sought.  

With deals being “discussed” based on C7 if not being seriously negotiated, all advertisers should contact their agencies on this issue now before the deal gets done. You’ll be glad you did!

Interested in learning more about the impact of a potential shift to C7?  Contact Matthew Reiss, SVP, Client Services for Advantage Media Inc. at (303) 763-8192 or via email at mfreiss@advantagemediainc.com.

 

%d bloggers like this: