Christopher Skinner sold a search marketing company called Performics to Google as part of its Doubleclick acquisition. He now runs a software company called MakeBuzz that is on track to spend almost $100 million in media this year. Clients include Google, Target, and Oreck.
Its premise is simple: People buy the stuff their neighbors buy. By starting wide with media that builds a brand halo and then, optimizing into specific geographic areas where buyers are found, MakeBuzz optimizes against profit only.
Most marketers are obsessed with reaching individuals, but Skinner’s concept is almost contrarian: Spend more media up front, target by neighborhood and city, and be completely media-agnostic. The MakeBuzz code guides the optimization process until profitability KPIs are met. I recently sat down with Skinner to learn more.
The CMO Site: What’s the big idea here?
Christopher Skinner: Most people online today can measure a brand, but they can’t grow it. The methods to measure are not the same as those used to grow. You need a different framework and nobody is talking about that online.
Digital media agencies today are being handed money — money from traditional budgets — and asked to perform and hit the business targets but they don’t know how because they’ve lived inside the efficiency world for so long. It relates to neo-classic economic thinking: What you can’t measure, just ignore it.
On average we increase media spend by six times or more because we install a framework and technology that justifies the complete customer journey. We tie marketing to the economics of the business.
The CMO Site: Is profit optimization real, or are you just adding some process to what should be the CMO’s primary KPI?
Skinner: Both. It’s real and it is a formalized process. The software shows you how to tip the scales in favor of revenue by spending the right amount on media directed to the right group of customers. It helps you achieve maximum profitability on a market-by-market basis.
The CMO Site: You take a rather contrarian view. Most folks are buying audience by the impression, but you carpet-bomb geo-targeted areas with impressions. Which method is right? Can they be used together?
Skinner: Hyper-audience targeting based on cookies will deliver incredibly efficient sales, but you’re not going to see massive volume from this. You’re not going to move the needle on the business. I wouldn’t call what we do “carpet-bombing.” We’re delivering a large volume of impressions to areas that have a reasonable volume and high density of the target customer. We are looking at real social circles and matching media to these audiences, down to small pockets when needed. This is going to get you a little less efficiency but a lot more sales — a lot more profit volume. And isn’t that what matters?
The CMO Site: So, if I find the right neighborhood for a certain type of vehicle, I should just buy lookalike neighborhoods. How does that scale?
Skinner: Instead of drawing circles around virtual groups online, we draw the circle around concentrated groups of people that we know are likely to be interested in what we help market. And the fact that they are influenced by each other — they see what their neighbors wear and drive and what kinds of phones they use — means they are more likely to be influenced by media that reinforces and re-suggests those choices.
Scalability is about testing your way in. Identifying high-value areas, testing media to discover your profitability, then scaling to similar areas.
The CMO Site: What kind of media works best? It would seem that the more granular the geo-target, the better the performance.
Skinner: You need media that addresses the entire customer journey, from early awareness branding media to direct response purchase phase media. Most businesses are fine with the direct response online media, but they are missing brand-creating media. Our methods do a really good job of justifying media that helps drive direct response. The earlier phase media tends be display, mobile, and video, but can also be search (SEM).
As far as geo-targeting granularity, as long as the density of our target segment is good in each area and we’re hitting them with the right media plan, it works great. Think of each step as a filter: 1) Choose the right segment, filtering out all the less valuable potential customers; 2) Choose an area they live in high in density and volume, filtering out the neighborhoods they don’t live in; and 3) Pick the media they’re likely to be engaged with, filtering out wasted impressions. You can’t pull this off without a platform and it will not work unless the manager has a fast and simple way to buy in.
[This post was originally publisher in The CMO Site, on 4/11/13]
When you think of advertising technology in the display space, the first names you’re likely to think of are Google, PubMatic, Adobe, and AppNexus. But Microsoft? Not really top of mind, unless you are thinking of its disastrous aQuantive acquisition in 2007. Sure, every now and then MSFT will pick up the odd Rapt or Yammer, but is it really having a huge impact in the ad tech space? Even if you’re a regular AdExchanger reader, you’d be justified in thinking it’s not.
But you’d be 100% wrong.
Microsoft has been quietly running the inner ad-technology workings of digital display since the first banner ad was purchased in 1995. According to some recent research, the company’s ad-planning software boasts an amazing 76% market share among agency media planners. MediaVisor ranks a distant second with a measly 9.7 Almost nine in 10 planners who use Excel spend more than an hour a day using its software, while almost 35% use it for more than four hours per day[CO1] . [l2]
That software is called Microsoft Excel.
Released in 1985 (originally for Macintosh), Excel is nearly three decades old and has been powering digital-media planning since its inception. Combined with Outlook, Word, and PowerPoint in the Office suite of products, Microsoft tools have been central to the digital-media planning process for a long time. Planners plan in Excel, publishers pitch in Excel and PowerPoint, contracts are made in Word, and everything is communicated via Outlook. And then there are the billing and reconciliation tasks that occur inside spreadsheets. Nobody ever seems to wonder why more than $6 billion in digital display media transactions (representing nearly 70% of all ads sold) use Microsoft tools and the occasional fax machine.
While innovative companies have challenged the dominance of these systems in the past, early efforts fizzled. The complexities of modern digital-media planning, combined with the reluctance of agency planners to change their behavior, have hindered innovation. Looking at past and current “systems of record” for media buying, it’s no wonder planners are scared of change. If you have ever seen legacy agency operating systems, you wonder if a single dollar was ever spent on user experience or user interface design.
Why Programmatic-Direct Planners Use Excel
As an ad technology “evangelist” of sorts, it is my job to show agencies the future of digital-media planning. This is starting to be called programmatic buying, a term which encompasses both “programmatic direct” buying, which targets the transactional RFP business that accounts for the bulk – 70% – of digital display ads, and “programmatic RTB,” which accounts for the impression-by-impression purchases that represent another $2.4 billion, or 25[CO3] % of the pie.
Companies like MediaMath and AppNexus have made the latter category wildly efficient. Buyers don’t use Excel to create an audience-buying campaign across exchange inventory. Instead, they log into a web-based RTB platform.
For automating guaranteed display buys, though, Excel has become the default for media planners, even though if it doesn’t have the features of many web-based systems available. For example, Excel doesn’t track your changes. When planners change something, multiple files are created, and it’s easy for two people to work on a plan at the same time, duplicating work and botching it up. Excel isn’t Sarbanes-Oxley compliant, either. Agencies end up with thousands of Excel sheets on hard drives and servers, and a complicated file versioning and access system that makes replicating and tracking plans really difficult. Excel doesn’t integrate easily with other systems. At the file level, Excel is great. You can import and export Excel files into almost anything. But Excel can’t send out an RFP, or accept an order. Excel can’t automatically set an ad placement inside an ad server like DFA or MediaMind, or get Comscore updates. Excel is amazingly flexible, but it wasn’t built for media planning.
Today, the average digital-media plan costs nearly $40,000 to produce and takes as many as 42 steps to complete. That’s why, according to a recent Digiday survey, more than two thirds of agency employees will leave their jobs within the next two years. Digital-media planning should be fun and innovative, and young, smart people should want to be spending their time influencing how major brands leverage new technologies and media outlets to sell their products.
The reality is that young media planners are finding their days are filled with reconciling monthly invoices and ad delivery numbers. Have you noticed media planners’ eyes glazing over during your latest “lunch and learn?” That’s today’s young agency employees’ way of calling bullshit on ad tech. Our technology has been making their lives harder and their hours longer, rather than ushering in a new era of efficiency and performance.
How We Can Finally Beat Excel
I believe that dynamic is rapidly changing now. Buy-side technologies from innovative software companies, combined with offerings from sell-side players that are plugging into publisher ad servers are creating a programmatic future by building web-based, easy to use, and extensible platforms.Here are a few reasons these types of systems will start to get adoption:
Pushback on agency pricing models: Big agencies have been getting paid by the hour for years, but their clients are starting to push back on cost-plus pricing schemes. After exposure to self-service platforms and programmatic buying, they are getting used to seeing a larger percentage of their money applied to the media, and that trend is only likely to continue. Brand advertisers are demanding more efficiency in direct-to-publisher buys, and that means agencies must start to embrace programmatic direct technologies.
User interfaces and user experiences are improving: Young people plan media. They are used to really cool web-based technologies, such as Snapchat and Twitter. Today’s platforms not only centralize workflow and data, but increasingly come with something even more critical to gaining user adoption: a nice interface. When we start building tools that people want to use and a user experience that maps to the tasks being performed online, adoption will quickly increase.
Prevalence of APIs: Today’s platforms are being built in an open, extensible way that enables linkage with other systems. Since there are so many phases in modern digital media planning (research, planning, buying, ad serving, reporting, billing) it makes sense for platforms to be able to talk to one another. While some legacy APIs are not the best, they are getting better. Servers-to-server integrations make a lot more sense than 23-year-old planners updating spreadsheets. As David Kenny, CEO of The Weather Company, once remarked, “If you are using people to do the work of machines, you are already irrelevant .”
Because of these factors, I expect 2013 will be the year that programmatic direct buying changes from a fun concept for a planners’ “lunch and learn” to a reality. It’s time for us to finally get cracking on stealing some of Microsoft’s ad technology market share.
[This post was originally pushed in AdExchanger on 4-23-13]
I was recently at a conference, and took a picture of a PowerPoint slide that I thought was pretty interesting. It showed the growth of tweets about television from Q2 2011 to last quarter. Basically, nobody was tweeting anything a few years ago, and then there were over 18 million unique people tweeting about TV in Q4 2012, representing a 182% year-over-year growth rate. If you are a modern marketer that spends money on television advertising, there are some implications in this data worth looking at.
Are you in the conversation?
Back in the 1980s, I would sometimes go to Times Square to see horror movies. The theatres were uniformly crumby, but the people were the best. Times Square movie theatres always featured an audience willing to give Jamie Curtis’ Halloween character plenty of advice in each scene. In fact, between the chatter and screaming, you could hardly hear the film. That was what passed for “social viewing” in the old days. Today, we are discovering that people still like to share viewing experiences together, and Twitter and other social tools lets you make every television show an Oscar party you can attend in your pajamas. Brand advertisers backing a particular show want the glow of good comedy or drama, and now extending that association may mean inserting yourself into the conversation via a Sponsored Tweet. What’s really interesting about that is your message can be received during the action, without interrupting.
Less TV, More Tweet
The rise of “Social TV” gives brand marketers yet another dimension to ponder as well. With a show’s active and engaged community just a Tweet away, how much media should you allocate to thirty second spots, and how much should go towards the social element? Moreover, social TV means that every consumer seeing your ad can get the chance to interact and talk back socially. We are seeing marketers hashtag their ads and drop into the social stream of conversation. Although this is still a form of “interruption marketing,” it’s the closest that brands have gotten to being a part of, rather than disturbing, the entertainment in a long time. These digital “native advertising” opportunities are proving effective, and starting to take market share away from commoditized 300×250 display advertising units.
Can your company dunk in the dark?
The latest test for marketers is The Oreo Challenge or, more simply put, do I have a social strategy for taking advantage of news and events? Although it seemed like a no-brainer during the Superbowl, “you can still dunk in the dark” was the result of a contemplated strategy. Oreo’s very responsive tweet is a phenomenon that digital marketers are still talking about—the kind of lightning on a bottle that produces tens of millions of dollars in “earned” media. But getting there requires your marketing team and agency to truly understand everything about the brand they are promoting. If your team can’t automatically speak in the brand’s “voice” and doesn’t truly understand the brand attributes and values, you can’t automatically respond to opportunity in the social space. Teams that live and breathe their brand—and, more importantly, their brand’s key constituency—must be trusted to speak socially…and sometimes loudly, if the occasion warrants it. Of course, there is a good chance your joke will go flat, but that’s okay when you are among your television “friends.”
[This post was originally published on 4/3/13 on The CMO Site]
Talk of ghost publishers and robot traffic has digital brand advertisers questioning some long-held beliefs. They’re wondering whether the promise of efficiency in media is outweighed by the prospect of buying ads that only machines will ever “see.”
As Mike Shields pointed out in an excellent AdWeek article the other day, brand advertisers have found themselves at the mercy of phantom publishers who live to exploit the programmatic technology systems that deliver banner ads. It’s a problem that until recently has largely been ignored, even as gullible advertisers shell out millions of dollars only to receive fake clicks and “views” in return. Writes Shields:
Increasingly, digital agencies and buy-side technology firms are seeing massive traffic and audience spikes from groups of Web publishers few people have ever heard of. These sites — billed as legitimate media properties — are built to look authentic on the surface, with generic, non-alarm sounding content. But after digging deeper, it becomes evident that very little of these sites’ audiences are real people.
Among the money-sucking ghosts that Shields names are an outfit called Precision Media, running some 25 content sites like Toothbrushing.net; Alphabird, running 80 sites; and DigiMogul, operating something called Directorslive.com that has reported a rather unlikely 326 million monthly page views. These and other such scammers, the AdWeek man reports, are less than forthcoming about their operations or owners.
All of which is driving more interest in native advertising, or what we are now calling sponsored content, or “advertorials,” as they were called once upon a time. The idea behind native advertising is a simple and well-proven one: Tailor ad messages to the format of the media. A tweet becomes an ad when it’s a “sponsored tweet” and a Facebook message can become a “sponsored post.”
Companies like BuzzFeed have worked with brands like Old Navy to populate the web with pictures of squirrels in Christmas sweaters to grab mindshare and thus bring their irreverent style to millions of consumers where they are used to consuming content.
Today’s web-based platforms are enabling marketers to be publishers, and engage with their audiences in real-time. Brands brave enough to produce content, or that have a unique point of view — take Red Bull, as an example — are finding that making investments in content and aiming marketing into other content platforms with native advertising efforts are paying dividends that go beyond traditional marketing efforts.
Suit to fit
Your company website may have a blog, but it is meant to broadcast, not listen to, consumers. Native advertising and sponsored content give consumers the ability to extend messages through social sharing, commenting, and mingling user-generated content with content that has been created by brands.
For Scott Roen, vice president of digital for American Express, whose Open Forum is the leading small business website, the idea of tailoring advertising to the format of the content is an obvious advantage. “Where can we be part of a conversation where people want us? It’s getting back to the roots… [native advertising] is not a fad.”
Is native advertising better than the banner ad? “It’s certainly better than what we had before. Anything that makes the user feel the advertising is more seamless is good,” said Mary Gail Pezzimenti, vice president of content strategy for Federated Media. “The brands that have taken the time to establish thought leadership and provide high quality content have permission to engage in those conversations.”
So, is the native advertising trend just a retread from the past, or is it a legitimate new advertising tactic, brought about by platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Tumblr? For Benjamin Palmer, CEO of the digital creative shop Barbarian Group, who works with huge global brands like GE, “Native ads will be around as long as the platforms that support it are.”
I recently returned from an exciting IAB Annual Leadership Meeting in Phoenix, where a packed Arizona Biltmore resort was host to over 800 digital media luminaries. On the tip of many tongues over a two day session was “programmatic premium,” the term our industry is using to describe the buying of digital media in a more automated way.
One particular “Town Hall” type meeting was particularly spirited, as leaders sparred over what “programmatic” meant, whether or not publishers should be using it, and how agencies were leveraging it. Here is what I heard:
We are calling it the wrong thing. Like it or not, the term “programmatic” istied to the concept of real time bidding. This is natural, given the fact that the last 5 years in ad tech have largely revolved around DSPs, SSPs, and cookie-level data. This creates a problem because, when you add the word “premium” into the mix, you have a really big disconnect. Most folks don’t really consider the large majority of exchange inventory “premium.” Doug Weaver said we should just call it “process reform,” since we are really talking about removing the friction from an old school sales process that still involves the fax machine. Maybe the term should be “systematic reserved” for deals that happen when guaranteed buying platforms (like NextMark, Centro, and MediaOcean) plug into sell-side systems (like iSocket, AdSlot, and ShinyAds) to enable a frictionless, tagless, IO-less buy. It is early days, but I suspect this may be what people are talking about when they utter the term “programmatic premium.”
Private Exchanges Seem like a Fad. For programmatic premium to take off inside of RTB systems, something like having “Deal ID” and “private exchanges” need to be implemented at scale. Yet, for all of the conversation around programmatic premium, I heard very little about private exchanges, Deal ID, and the like. I really think this is because of publishers enjoy having RTB as a channel for selling lower classes of inventory. They are getting better average CPMs from SSPs than they were getting in the network era, and they can experiment with who gets to look at their various inventory and play with floor pricing—a much higher level of power and control then they recently enjoyed. But do they want to sell the good stuff like this? The answer is no. They do, however, want to find ways to get out of the RFP mill that makes the transactional RFP business they manage so cumbersome and people-heavy. Again, that seems to be in the domain of workflow management tools, rather than existing supply-side platforms. If any of the many publishers at the conference were leveraging private exchanges to sell double-digit CPM inventory to a select group of customers via RTB, we didn’t hear a lot about it.
Agencies Love Programmatic. We heard programmatic perspectives from many major agencies throughout the conference, mostly in bite-sized chunks in networking sessions. When asked whether large agencies had less of an incentive to create efficiency in media planning and buying (since they get paid on a cost-plus basis), some agency practitioners admitted this was true but offered that “times were changing quickly.” Clients, having access to many highly efficient self-service buying platforms for search and display (and some, like Kellogg Company, having their own trading desks) there is a lot less tolerance for large billable hours related to media planning. It makes sense; the easier it is to plan a campaign, the cheaper it should be. Marketers would like a bigger chunk of their money going to the media itself. That said, we also heard that agencies are being pushed hard on meeting KPIs—and that even goes for brand marketers. Meeting those KPIs is easier to manage in a programmatic world, and that means pressure to buy through DSPs, rather than emphasizing guaranteed buys. That means lower prices for publishers, and probably necessitates plugging higher and higher tiers of inventory into RTB systems.
We Got Both Kinds
Like the honkytonk saloon in the Blues Brothers that offers “both kinds of music—country and western,” we have to accept two types of “programmatic premium” right now. The first is the notion of buying real premium inventory inside of today’s RTB systems through private exchanges. The second is the notion of buying reserved inventory in a more systematic way. Both approaches are valid ways in which to create more efficiency, transparency, and pricing control in a market that needs it. We just have to figure out what it’s eventually going to be called.
[This article originally appeared in ClickZ on 3/6/2013]
As the bloated Display LUMAscape shifts, more and more companies focused on real time bidding are turning their venture-funded ships in the direction of “programmatic premium” and trying to pivot towards an area where nearly 80% of display media budgets are spent. This has been called the “Sutton Pivot,” referring to the notion of robbing banks, because “that’s where the money is.”
The fact that that 80%—over $6 billion—is largely transacted using e-mail, Microsoft Excel, and fax machines is staggering in a world in which Facebook is becoming passé. The larger question is whether or not publishers are going to enable truly premium inventory to be purchased in a way that lessens their control. At a recent industry conference, publishers including Gannett and Turner completely rejected RTB and “programmatic” notions. In a world of ever growing inventory, the premium stuff is ever shrinking as a percentage—and that means scarcity, which is the publisher’s best friend. Selling less of a higher margin product is business 101.
As I wrote recently, at the same conference, Forbes’ Meredith Levien laid out the three principle chunks of inventory a super-premium publisher controls, and I want to examine the programmatic premium notion against each of these:
Super Premium: Big publishers love big “tent pole” branding campaigns, and are busy building mini-agencies within their sales groups, which bring together custom sponsorship packages that go beyond IAB standard banners. A big tent pole effort might involve a homepage takeover, custom rich media units, a dedicated video player, and branded social elements within a site. While some of the display elements within such a campaign can be purchased through a buying platform, this type of complex sale will never scale with technology, and is the very antithesis of “programmatic.” For many publishers, this type of sale may comprise up to 50% of their revenue. Today’s existing buying and selling platforms will be hard pressed to bring “programmatic” efficiencies here.
Transactional: Many super-premium (and most premium) publishers spend a lot of their time in the RFP mill, churning out 10 proposals and winning 2 or 3 of them. This “transactional RFP” business is begging for reform, and great companies like AdSlot, iSocket, Operative, and ShinyAds are starting to offer ways to make selling premium inventory such as this as programmatic as possible. Companies such as Centro, Facilitate, MediaOcean, and NextMark (disclosure: my company) are starting to offer ways to make discovering and buying premium inventory such as this as programmatic as possible. Much of the RFP process is driven by advertisers looking for information that doesn’t need to be offered by a human being: How much inventory do you have, when do you have it, and how much does it cost? This information is being increasingly found within platforms—which also enable, via tight pub-side ad server integrations, the ability to “buy it now.” 100% of this business will eventually happen programmatically. Whether or not today’s big RTB players can pivot their demand- and supply-side technologies to handle this distinct type of transaction (not very “real time” and not very “bidded”) remains to be seen.
Programmatic: There will always be a place for programmatic buying in display—and there has to be, with the sheer amount of inventory available. Let’s face it: the reason the LUMAscape is so crowded is that it takes a LOT of technology to find the “premium” needle in a haystack that consists of over 5 trillion impressions per month. If the super-premium inventory publishers have to sell is spoken for, and the “transactional” premium inventory publishers sell is increasingly going to other (non-RTB) platforms, then it follows that there is very little “premium” inventory available to be bought in the programmatic channel.
The middle layer—deals that are currently being done via the RFP process, is where “programmatic premium” is going to take place. In this type of buy, a demand-side platform will create efficiencies that eliminate the cutting and pasting of Excel and faxing and e-mailing of document-based orders, and a supply-side platform will help publishers expose their premium inventory to buyers with pricing and availability details. That sort of system sounds more like a “systematic guaranteed” platform for premium inventory.
So, is programmatic premium? Not the type of programmatic buying happening today.
[This post originally appeared in ClickZon 2/18/2013]
Last year, I wrote that the digital agency was dead. I was mostly talking about how platform technology was going to knock a lot of digital media agencies out of business. In a world where over five trillion banner impressions are available every month, I argued, it was simply too much for humans to navigate through the choices and wring branding effect and performance out of campaigns. Well, digital media agencies are still around—but they continue to lose share to platforms as the amount of programmatically bought media increases. With RTB-based spending estimated to rise at an annualized rate of nearly 60% a year, according to market intelligence firm IDC, we could see as much as $14 billion in spending by 2016, or 27% of total display spending. Looks like the machines are slowly taking over.
Fairfax Cone, the founder of Foote, Cone, and Belding once famously remarked that the problem with the agency business was that “the inventory goes down the elevator at night.” That’s a big problem for an industry that relies on 23 year-old media planners to work long hours grinding on Excel spreadsheets and managing vendors to produce fairly mediocre media plans. Cone was talking about IP—what, exactly is the digital agency’s core intellectual property when the majority of the work seems to be hard labor? Digital creative agencies have no such worry. In this world of ubiquity, where everyone has access to wonderful SaaS-model technology that enables real-time bidding and access to trillions of exchange-based advertising impressions, the one place an agency can make an impact is on the creative side. Agencies that can create the miracle of getting more than 1 in 10,000 people to click on an ad, or watch a :30 pre roll video to completion are considered geniuses. But, what about the media shops? Can they really buy more efficiently than machines? More importantly, can they leverage the right machines to once again own the middle position between the advertiser and his prospect?
As I write in my recent report, looking at the history of display advertising, the future doesn’t favor the agency. In the beginning, agencies’ favored relationships with publishers made them a great way to buy media. Publishers aligned their content with the audiences that advertisers wanted (ESPN for sports enthusiasts), and largely controlled their inventory and audience data. Soon enough, the Network Era told hold, and smart companies like Tacoda started segmenting audiences based on context and behavior. By using technology to understand audiences better than the publishers themselves, they put yet another layer of IP between agencies and audiences. Then the DSP Era started, which further decoupled audiences from media. Agencies scrambled to create new vendor relationships with the MediaMaths of the world—but grew nervous that they would be disintermediated, and formed their own trading desks. This era is now evolving in the DMP Era.
After all of promises of easy audience targeting and automation, advertisers are looking at the same disturbingly low click-through rates, near impossibility of true attribution measurement, and spending waste—and determining that their own data is more valuable than most data that they can buy. Their desire to activate their “first party” data has given rise to the “DMP era.” Andy Monfried, who has brought his company Lotame through this transition, sees it this way, “Agencies are attempting to become technology providers for their clients, and from our perception, clients are hesitant to adopt. The larger agency holding companies have made an attempt at understanding first-party data but have come to be just a solution for clients to leverage third-party data. This is due to the lack of agency technology and lack of trust that clients put in agencies accessing their first-party data in a raw state.”
So, what happens now? Are advertisers simply going to license DMP technology, and build small practice groups for audience segmentation, targeting, and analytics? Or, are agencies going to adopt and learn how to become the centralization point for evaluating and helping clients implement new advertising technology? Media Kitchen digital head Darren Herman thinks the way through the trees is through education: “We are super bullish about teaching our strategists to learn the skills of data scientists. While the average media strategists will probably not have the skills of a robust data scientist with a PhD, from Stanford, an entire organization that learns to embrace data and make it useful will be more powerful than a few data scientists sprinkled [through] many. Knowledge of how to action data must both come from the top down and bottom up and be embraced by all. Building a culture that does this is hard as many people resist, but retooling and finding people who want this type of career is what we’re doing.”
Is your agency ready to hire a data scientist? Looks like the days of agencies hiring armies of English majors is over, and the next MIT recruiting session you see may have a few agency folks in attendance. Are digital media agencies dead? The data says not yet.
Marketers are increasingly turning to social platform data to understand their customers, and tapping into their social graphs to reach more of them. Facebook “likes” and Twitter “follows” are religiously captured and analyzed, and audience models are created—all in the service of trying to scale the most powerful type of marketing of all: Word-of-mouth. With CRM players (like Salesforce, who recently acquired Buddy Media and Radian6) jumping into the game, digitally-derived social data is now an established part of traditional marketing.
But, are marketers actually finding real signals amid the noise of social data? In other words, if I “like” Lady Gaga, and you “like” Lady Gaga, and my ten year old daughter also “likes” Lady Gaga, then what is the value of knowing that? If I want to leverage social data to enrich my audience profiles, and try and get the fabled “360 degree” view of my customer, “likes” and “follows” may contribute more noise than insight. I recently sat down with Colligent’s Sree Nagarajan to discuss how brand marketers can go beyond the like, and get more value out of the sea of social data.
Colligent (“collectively intelligent,” if you like) goes beyond “likes” and actually measures what people do on social sites. In other words, if you merely “like” Lady Gaga, you are not measured, but if you post a Lady Gaga music video, you are. By scraping several hundred million Facebook profiles, and accessing the Twitter firehose of data, Nagarajan’s company looks at what people are socially passionate about—and matches it against other interests. For example, the data may reveal that 5% of Ford’s socially active fanbase is also wild about NASCAR. That’s great to know. The twist is that Colligent focuses on the folks who are nuts about NASCAR—and like Ford back. That’s called mutual engagement and, arguably, a more powerful signal.
Nagarajan’s focus on this type of data has many questioning the inherent value of targeting based on social media membership. “In any social network’s lifecycle, likes (or ‘follows’ or friends) start out as genuine signals of brand affinity. However as more and more like the page their audience gets increasingly diluted, making likes less of an indicator of brand’s true audience. True engagement as measured by comments, photo posts, re-tweets, hashes, etc. became much better indicators of brand affinity and engagement.”
Colligent data recently convinced Pepsi to choose Nicki Minaj as their spokesperson, since the data revealed a strong correlation between socially activated Pepsi and Minaj fans. Think about that for a second. For years, major brands have used softer, panel-based data (think “Q Score”) to decide what celebrities are most recognizable, and capture the right brand attributes. Now, getting hard metrics around the type of people who adore your brand are just a query away. Digital marketers have been talking about “engagement” for years, and have developed a lexicon around measurement including “time spent” and “bounce rate.” Social affinity data goes deeper, measuring true engagement. For Nagarajan, “In order for the engagement to be truly effective, it needs to be measured from both sides (mutual engagement). The parallel is a real-world relationship. It’s not enough for me to like you, but you have to like me for us to have a relationship. Mapped to the brand affinity world, it’s not enough for Pepsi fans to engage with Nicki Minaj; enough Nicki fans have to engage with Pepsi (more than the population average on both sides) to make this relationship truly meaningful and thus actionable. When true engagement is married with such mutual engagement, the result is intelligence that filters the noise in social networks to surface meaningful relationships.”
So, what else can you learn from social affinity data? With so many actively engaged fans and followers, throwing off petabytes of daily data, these networks offer a virtual looking glass for measuring real world affinities. If you think about the typical Facebook profile, you can see that many of the page memberships are driven by factors that exist outside the social network itself. That makes the data applicable beyond digital:
Television: Media planners can buy the shows, networks, and radio stations that a brand’s fans are highly engaged with.
Public Relations: Flacks can direct coverage towards the media outlets a brand’s fans are engaged with.
Sponsorships: Marketers can leverage affinity data to determine which celebrity should be a brand’s spokesperson.
Search: SEM directors can expand keyword lists for Google and Facebook buys using social affinity-suggested keywords.
Display: Discover what sites Ford’s socially activated consumers like, and buy those sites at the domain level to get performance lift on premium guaranteed inventory buys.
Are we entering into a world in which marketers are going to use this type of data to fundamentally change the way they approach media buying? What does it mean to “buy brand?” Sree Nagarajan sees this type of data potentially transforming the way offline and online media planners begin their process. “Much of the audience selection options available in the market today are media based. Nielsen defines TV audience, Arbitron radio, ComScore digital sites, MRI magazines, etc. Brand marketers are forced to define their audiences in the way media measures audience: by demographics (e.g., 18-49 male),” remarks Sree. “Now, for the first time, social data allows marketers to define audiences based on their ownbrand and category terms. Now, they can say ‘I want to buy TV shows watched by Pepsi and more generally, Carbonated Soft Drinks audience.’ This will truly make marketing brand-centric instead of media-centric. Imagine a world where brand and category GRPs can be purchased across media, rather than GRPs in a specific media.”
Look for this trend to continue, especially as company’s become more aggressive aligning their CRM databases with social data.
[This article originally appeared in ClickZ on 12/11/12]
Digital display is remarkably complex. Standard campaigns can involve multiple vendors of different technologies and types of media.
Today, eConsultancy launches Best Practices in Digital Display Advertising, a comprehensive look at how to efficiently manage online advertising. We asked the author, Chris O’Hara, about the report and work that went into it.
Why did you write Best Practices in Digital Display Media?
In my last job, a good part of my assignment was traveling around the country visiting with about 500 regional advertising agencies and marketers, large and small, over three years. I was selling ad technology. Most advertisers seemed extremely engaged and interested to find out about new tools and technology that could help them bring efficiency to their business and, more importantly, results to their clients. The problem was that they didn’t have time to evaluate the 250+ vendors in the space, and certainly didn’t have the resources (financial or time) to really evaluate their options and get a sense of what’s working and what isn’t.
First and foremost, I wanted the report to be a good, comprehensive primer to what’s out there for digital marketers including digital ad agencies. That way, someone looking at engaging with data vendors, say, could get an idea of whether they needed one big relationship (with an aggregator), no data relationships, or needed very specific deals with key data providers. The guide can help set the basis for those evaluations. Marketers have been basically forced to license their own “technology stack” to be proficient at buying banner ads. I hope the Guide will be a map through that process.
What was the methodology you used to put it together?
I essentially looked at the digital display ecosystem through the lens of a marketer trying to take a campaign from initial concept through to billing, and making sure I covered the keys parts of the workflow chain. What technologies do you employ to find the right media, to buy it, and ultimately to measure it? Are all of these technologies leading to the promised land of efficiency and performance? Will they eventually? I used those questions as the basis of my approach, and leveraged the many vendor relationships and available data to try and answer some of those questions.
What’s the biggest thing to take away from the report?
I think the one thing that really runs through the entire report is the importance of data. I think the World Economic Forum originally said the “data is the new oil” [actually, the earliest citation we can find is from Michael Palmer in 2006, quoting Clive Humby] and many others have since parroted that sentiment. If you think about the 250-odd technology companies that populate the “ecosystem,” most are part of the trend towards audience buying, which is another way of saying “data-driven marketing.” Data runs through everything the digital marketer does, from research through to performance reporting and attribution. In a sense, the Guide is about the various technologies and methodologies for getting a grip on marketing data—and leveraging it to maximum effect.
There’s an explosion of three letter acronyms these days (DSP, DMP, SSP, AMP, etc) that marketers are still trying to sort out. Do we need all of them? Is there another one around the corner?
I am not really sure what the next big acronym will be, but you can be certain there will be several more categories to come, as technology changes (along with many updates to Guides such as these). That being said, I think the meta-trends you will see involve a certain “compression” by both ends of the spectrum, where the demand side and supply side players look to build more of their own data-driven capabilities. Publishers obviously want to use more of their own data to layer targeting on top of site traffic and get incremental CPM lift on every marketable impression. By the same token, advertisers are finding the costs of storing data remarkably cheap, and want to leverage that data for targeting, so they are building their own capabilities to do that. That means the whole space thrives on disintermediation. Whereas before, the tech companies were able to eat away at the margins, you will see the real players in the space build, license, or buy technology that puts them back in the driver’s seat. TheBest Practices in Digital Display Advertising Guide is kind of the “program” for this interesting game.
Currently, Donovan Data Systems and MediaBank own the advertising platform space, with more than 80% market share among agencies, which use the platforms extensively for buying offline media, and use their systems to bill digital media campaigns. Neither have a very sophisticated digital offering, which may be why the two companies teamed up to create MediaOcean (a merger currently pending approval from the government). They will have the best shot at aggregating all the workflow for media planning, buying, and billing—across all media types. Ultimately, their ability to succeed will depend upon their willingness to build the type of “ecosystem-like” platform described below—and the appetite of ad agencies to work with one, dominant provider. Many agencies continue to leverage their legacy platform for offline media, and are looking at new solutions for managing digital media.
Quite a few start-ups have arisen to try and answer the digital media gap left by MediaOcean. Advertisers and agencies are currently using a mix of various resources to meet campaign needs. They can be broken down into the following categories:
— Workflow Platforms: Workflow platforms aim to consolidate the process of discovering, buying, serving, and reporting on digital display campaigns in one interface. By leveraging this technology, agencies can eliminate some of the rote planning processes (collating Excel spreadsheets, faxing insertion orders, and compiling ad serving reports) and take action against data they see in the dashboard, enabling faster optimization. Platforms like TRAFFIQ also include robust planning data, appended by third party demographic data from Nielsen, as well as the ability to access audience measurement data (from PulsePoint’s Aperture tool). Centro’s Transis offering is more of a lightweight management tool, while Facilitate Digital provides a big agency approach that marries ad serving with global currency and language support, and sophisticated tools for generating insertion orders and bills. As mentioned previously, MediaOcean will try and build a next generation digital platform that enables all of that functionality—and tie it to their widely adopted offline media management tools. This is really the future of digital media planning. You should be testing multiple workflow platforms and making sure that you are letting systems perform the menial tasks in digital media management, rather than expensive account and media personnel.
— Trading Desks: Large holding companies have all universally created teams that handle real time audience buying. In an effort to distintermediate ad networks, and thus recapture lost media margins, agency “trading desks” have popped up to handle reach and performance campaigns for their clients. Many leverage existing DSP technology, such as Turn or MediaMath (see below), and all of them are focused on leveraging their media buying volume to capture audience data at scale. WPP’s Xaxis, launched in June 2011, is an example of how holding companies are aggregating their technology assets to do this:
In forming Xaxis, WPP brings together a broad portfolio of audience buying capabilities that have been independently developed and optimized in various parts of GroupM and WPP Digital over the past three years in businesses including B3, targ.ad, GoldNetwork, GroupM DSP and the GroupM Marketplace. In 2010 alone, the businesses that have combined to form Xaxis executed approximately 4,000 campaigns for more than 400 GroupM clients. Xaxis will be led by CEO Brian Lesser, who previously served as global general manager of the Media Innovation Group (MIG), WPP’s digital marketing technology company.
Undoubtedly, they will seek to leverage other data insights from Kantar and SEM technologies to deliver performance marketing across multiple digital channels at scale. Other holding company Trading desks include Accuen (Omnicom), VivaKi (Publicis), and Cadreon (IPG). Smaller media groups also have their own desks, including Adnetik (Grupo ISP) and Varick Media Management (MDC Partners).
Obviously, if you are part of an agency holding company with access to the technology tools and services offered by a trading desk, you have the potential to leverage these assets, but must weight them against the (often high) costs. All of the trading desks execute buys on a managed service basis, rather than exposing a user interface, which does not enable individual agency planners/buyers to get real-time buying expertise. Additionally, many of the services the holding company trading desk offers are available directly through DSPs and their managed service teams.
The inherent conflict of interest in agency trading desks must also be taken into account when deciding the best approach to audience buying for your agency. As Mike Shields recently wrote in Digiday in his article entitled, “The Trouble with Trading Desks”:
According to multiple industry sources, some prominent brands are growing increasingly uncomfortable with their digital agencies funneling money to sister company trading desks (the holding company divisions that purchase ad inventory on exchanges). They are asking questions about how these trading desks earn revenue and whether clients are being charged more than once for executing the same media plan. The shift to programmatic audience-based ad buys through exchanges is undeniably an important advance to the online ad model, but agency holding companies have also taken it as an opportunity to update their own outdated business models in ways that are likely to leave some procurement chiefs scratching their heads.
The questions are murkier when it comes to the issue of “mandates.” There has long been talk that orders have come from the highest levels of agency holding companies for its agencies to redirect spot ad buys through the in-house trading desk rather than ad networks. Holding company and agency reps rebuff questions on this, but their words don’t always match up with reality. In some cases, holding companies are incentivizing their individual agencies’ media planning teams through revenue goals and even bonuses, according to several sources.
For example, Digiday was shown an email from a planner at a top Publicis agency stating that her team was not allowed to work with any networks and exchanges. “We are not authorized to buy networks and exchanges,” read the email from a buyer at a major media agency. “We are required to use [Publicis trading desk] Audience on Demand.” One prominent agency executive explained that over the past year her planning team was given quarterly goals to allocate more client budgets to exchanges, which she ignored. Other agencies compensate their teams for shifting more spending to trading desks; it’s actually in some planners’ contacts, she said. This is causing major friction in some cases between planning agencies and their trading desk partners, said a source.
— Demand Side Platforms: An increasingly common part of the modern digital marketer’s toolset is the DSP, or demand side platform. Obviously, if you are working within one of the holding companies, you would be encouraged to deploy your audience-targeted media through the preferred Trading Desk, all of which leverage one or more independent DSPs. The top DSPs in the space at this time are Invite Media (acquired by Google), Turn, MediaMath, DataXu, X+1, and Triggit. Invite recently raised their minimum pricing to reportedly $50,000 per brand, per month, putting their services out of reach for the typical mid-sized agency. Among the rest, MediaMath has a reputation for having the most proprietary trading strategy, and unique optimization algorithms, with Turn not far behind. Most DSPs provide a blended service approach to trading, offering a mix of self-service tools and managed service support. Almost all of them utilize similar algorithms—and all of them have access to a wide variety of data providers for audience targeting. In considering your business’ approach to leveraging currently available DSP technology, the best strategy is to test as many as possible alongside each other. Most offer trial periods with discounted monthly minimums.
Choosing the right DSP partner has a lot to do with the amount of display volume you anticipate running on an annual basis. Larger providers can charge anywhere between $2,500 and $10,000 per month in minimum fees. Triggit and XA.net offer more competitive pricing for small and mid-sized agencies. For those agencies and advertisers that plan on having trading expertise in-house, and just want to leverage DSP technology, AppNexus is a great choice. Appnexus has built a fully-featured self-service platform (called the “AppNexus” Console, formerly called “DisplayWords”) on top of a broad ecosystem of exchange inventory and data, to create a veritable Sam’s Club for real time buyers. With over 800+ inventory sources available (Google, MSN, OpenX, Admeld, PubMatic, Rubicon) and a good amount of embedded data providers (eXelate, TargusInfo, Datonics, Bizo, Proximic, Peer39, etc.), AppNexus aims to be a one-stop shop for demand side customers looking for their own DSP solution. In addition, they make APIs available to prospective partners interested in building their own media UI on top of their bidding and ad serving technologies. AppNexus has great product support, but is designed for the customer that wants to have total control. For those who want AppNexus capabilities with a managed service layer, Accordant Media would be a great place to start.
Many agencies and advertisers are still struggling with whether or not they should deploy DSP technology to drive display media buying—and with their choice of provider. I think that Nat Turner, Invite Media’s CEO probably summed it up best in his 2010 AdExchanger article, which offered a list of key characteristics that define a “true DSP:”
The DSP must provide a fully self-service interface. Clients should be able to have complete control via the interface and build an expertise around its use.
If the DSP provides managed services help to the agency, the DSP should be using the same interface that the agency would be using. The technology should not require any manual work behind the scenes to activate or “set live” a change or a campaign.
The DSP must remain neutral and have zero allegiances to any publishers, exchanges, data providers or other vendors. A true DSP should embody the word “platform” and not just be conduit or pretty interface to a pre-existing business.
The DSP must be fully transparent, starting with pricing and fees. All fees that the DSP earns should be exposed in the interface, and every penny that the DSP makes should be known and visible to the agency.
The DSP should not mark-up media cost without the agency knowing.
The DSP should not mark-up data cost without the agency knowing.
If the DSP works with a publisher directly, it should be in an effort to make that publisher’s inventory “biddable.” The DSP should not earn any additional margin from revenue sharing with the publisher or arbitraging the inventory.
The DSP must allow the agency to use its own exchange seats. This allows the agency to always have visibility into the exact cost of media to ensure the DSP is not taking any additional margin.
Just like media, the DSP must allow the agency to buy or negotiate data cost directly, but flow through a common integration. Data should be treated like media, it’s another part of the “supply side” that is purchased by the agency and thus should be transparent in cost.
The DSP should not, under any circumstances, own or operate an ad network. This is in direct conflict with the neutrality aspect.
The DSP’s goal should be to expose any feature or tool that a supply source provides (either ad exchange or data provider) and not to try and obfuscate/hide or re-brand certain components (ex. “DSP Auto Segment #1”, with no transparency into what that means). If a supply source provides it, the DSP should expose it for the agency self-service and let the agency decide whether to use it or not.
The DSP should not “bulk buy” media in order to re-sell to its clients. This could either be a function of another way to make margin, a lacking of technology, or a combination of the two.
Related to the above, the DSP should not take on media risk. Every impression should be purchased on behalf of a platform user at that time based on an active campaign that that platform user has created targeting that impression.
These DSP “principles” have not changed since 2010, and continue to be a great set of guidelines for choosing your real-time bidding technology provider. Ultimately, you want to be able to have total control over your bids, insights into the type of traffic available in the platform, and expect complete transparency with regard to your vendor’s pricing model. The right DSP relationship should reduce your dependence upon ad networks, lowering your overall media costs, and increasing campaign performance.
[This is an excerpt from the upcoming “Best Practices in Digital Display” whitepaper, available soon from eConsultancy]