“Data is going to begin changing the way some television advertising is purchased or managed — finally — and “tune-in” is quite likely to be first in line. It certainly won’t happen overnight, but the multiples involved are clearly too great to be ignored. 2% improvements won’t move markets, but 20% or 2X improvements will. This is going to have a lot of impact in TV measurements, metrics, processes and, very likely, business models. It will certainly be disruptive to many of the incumbents — and will also present many of them with extraordinary new opportunities — but it will certainly be crazy getting there.”
“Demand side-networks move beyond the realm of performance marketing and begin to focus on delivering reach and frequency against a designated target, measured in GRPs (gross rating points). Clicks diminish in importance. The media plan matters a lot, because the affinity of audiences for specific websites deepens the impact of brand advertising. Marketers meaningfully shift their TV dollars online with greater confidence because online delivers something they understand and need to achieve their brand objectives. At long last, audience truly becomes the basis for both planning and buying online. This is the best outcome for publishers.”
Very sensible post by NYT’s VP of R&D operations. The essence of agency demand platforms is extracting efficiency out of online by focusing on audiences, data and automation. It’s a good thing and this direction he imagines is where I would like to see it go. This is incredibly exciting as various ad serving systems finally get interconnected. What is doubly interesting is that I predict publishers bypassing ad exchanges and plugging into agency demand platforms directly. Shameless plug: our platform for publishers, AdGear, is slowly but surely becoming more and more relevant as the market matures.
Video of a panel from advertising week. Probably the most exciting thing happening in media today — the new discipline of data-driven display advertising. Real-time bidding, ad exchanges, arbitrage. Right up our alley.
“The (non-search) time Americans spend online is actually monetized per user hour at a rate roughly equivalent to what television is, when you exclude search — and considering the interactive nature of the Web, this very parity means the online medium is far behind where it should be from an advertising and monetization perspective”
“The gist of the study: Two-thirds of Americans “do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests” — and the proportion goes up when people find out exactly what sort of behavioral-tracking stuff marketers and media companies have been up to lately (see abstract below).”
No matter how you slice and dice it, asking people about their opinion of any targeting will inevitably show a very negative reaction.
I think that the reason is simpler than it seems. Targeting, especially behavioral targeting, is essentially perceived as manipulation. Admitting that you don’t mind being manipulated by Big Business is a sign of weakness. How could you admit that?
If you ask the question a bit differently, let’s say “Would you be interested in getting access to exclusive rebates for products that match your interests?” might give a different result.
“The act of clicking on a display ad is experiencing rapid attrition in the current digital marketplace,” said Linda Anderson, comScore VP of marketing solutions and author of the study. “Today, marketers who attempt to optimize their advertising campaigns solely around the click are assigning no value to the 84 percent of Internet users who don’t click on an ad. That’s precisely the wrong thing to do, because other comScore research has shown that non-clicked ads can also have a significant impact. As a result, savvy marketers are moving to an evaluation of the impact that all ad impressions – whether clicked or not – have on consumer behavior, mirroring the manner in which traditional advertising has been measured for decades using reach and frequency metrics.”
Nothing really new there. It would be interesting to consider the most active advertisers in 2007 vs. 2009. From a quick look at the TNS data in March 2007 and March 2009 it seems that the financial industry is spending more in 2009, but could also be that the proverbial long tail of advertisers is also getting longer. So, more small advertisers generate impressions no one cares about. Interesting stuff but the idea of “clickers” and “non-clickers” is kinda useless. Can we generally separate people interested in products/services/things and others who aren’t? Would that work in any other medium?
I am VP Strategy @ Bloom Digital Platforms. We're working on our shiny new ad platform, AdGear. Before this I spent 6 years in a large ad agency after my (small) ad serving company got acquired.
On twitter I am @vstesin. And here is me on LinkedIn. If you prefer to follow on Tumblr, there's that too.
