Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Articles by: "Bruce Brandfon, Chief Media Officer – Duration Media"

Advertising | Perspectives | Supporter Spotlight

Optimizing your supply path requires a scalpel not a chainsaw

Dean Kamen, the brilliant engineer who invented both the Segway and iBOT once said that every innovation eventually becomes a double-edged sword. Initial positive outcomes will inevitably need to be weighed against future negative unintended consequences… the internal combustion engine, social media, Open RTB – for starters.

Our industry continues to pivot away from vendors who have contributed to unintended consequences (fraud, loss of publisher control, etc.). However there is an enormous risk to unilaterally severing ties with all your 3rd parties in a mad rush toward SPO nirvana. The culling of the herd needs to be done. However, it must be carried out with precision lest we cut off our noses to spite our faces.   

Len Ostroff, SVP at Critero, had this to say about the programmatic supply chain in a recent article in AdMonsters:

Publishers are working with far more SSPs than they were in the past and we have seen a rise in duplicate bid requests, leading to an increase in infrastructure costs and multiple bids for a single impression. While there is typically value in seeing a few bid requests per impression, there is a point of diminishing returns which can cause a degradation in value and a drop in yield while also increasing fees and costs.

So, what are you going to do about it?

This legitimate observation about our ad industry’s Achilles heel has led to calls for Supply Path Optimization (SPO). Let’s face it: There are obviously too many cooks in the kitchen. Reduce or eliminate 3rd party vendors, say some industry leaders. Moreover, publishers don’t want to see nearly 50% of each programmatic advertising dollar slip through the cracks into the hands of redundant intermediaries. Nor should they allow themselves to be victimized by fraudulent activity.

Don’t throw every baby out with the bathwater

The fact is that SPO is not a zero-sum game. Certainly, there are bad actors whose main goal is to siphon off another point or two from your bottom line without adding value. However, there are also great 3rd parties whose entire focus is to increase income, and improve reader engagement, ad viewability, and UX for their partners.­­

Most of us remember when Marc Pritchard of P&G famously called for “the death of the crappy media supply chain,” at the 2017 IAB ALM. However, I don’t believe that his intention was for anyone to amputate value-added partners to eradicate the cancer that had developed in the ecosystem of our industry.

Rushing to judgement leads to errors that can be avoided with deeper due diligence. Ask your 3rd parties to articulate specifically what they contribute to your business goals, and most importantly to your income. Require that they provide you with data that supports their contribution. Consult with industry experts and ask your peers about their experiences working with partners and vendors. Look to industry award nominees from the various highly valued trade publishers whose evaluations are objective and authoritative.

https://lumapartners.com/content/lumascapes/display-ad-tech-lumascape/

Trade your gas guzzler in for a Tesla

It is incumbent upon all of us in the industry to seek higher ground and work with the best. With apologies to our friend Terry Kawaja, the LUMAScape does give some insight into the problem we have created for ourselves. Too much is just too much…and not of a good thing:

I’ve written about the “tyranny of choice” here before. There are simply too many players in the ad tech ecosystem. That’s part of the problem publishers face. My suggestion is to K.I.S.S. Identify those vendors who are not adding tangible value, then say bye, bye. Your ad ops and dev teams will thank you. So will your CFO, shareholders, and maybe even Dean Kamen himself.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue | Supporter Spotlight

Viewability + engagement = highly valuable impressions

Imagine that you’re driving down the highway and many of the billboards you pass are facing in the wrong direction. Advertisers paid for their messages to be displayed. However, some percentage of these ads have no chance of being seen.

If you were an advertiser, would you be willing to pay a higher price for only those that were guaranteed to be viewable? Or would you rather pay a lower price to buy all the billboards and roll the dice? Perhaps this is a simplistic way to look at the programmatic landscape, but I hope it makes the point. Ads that have a low probability of becoming viewable have little or no value.  

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King

If the above makes any sense, then why does the Media Rating Council

continue to enforce such a low requirement for viewable impressions?  The MRC deems that an impression counts as viewable when only 50% of the pixels are in view for one second. If your answer is that “it is what it is,” then perhaps we in the industry should raise our expectations. Let’s consider setting a higher standard for ourselves and our advertisers, AKA, the lifeblood of our businesses.

Viewable impressions are more valuable to advertisers, command higher CPMs, provide a better ROI, and increase publisher income. So, let’s find a sustainable way to increase supply without jeopardizing the quality of our content, degrading user experience, or resorting to disruptive devices.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

You spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars annually creating exciting, informative, entertaining, beautiful, provocative, and inspiring content for your audiences. Your goal is to engage readers in this content so they spend more of their most precious resource, time, on your site. They read your stories and move from the home page to below the fold with deeper dives into your content. And ad units scroll into view and are revealed during these engaged user sessions.

Intuitively we already know that an ad you can see is worth more than a non-viewable one. However, logically, one that is viewable while you are engaged in consuming content that is of interest is even more valuable than the billboard you cruise past at 70 mph.

When I was a magazine publisher, ad buyers regularly asked for their ads to be placed “far forward on a right-hand page.” They believed that these were more likely to be seen than those within stories in the magazine. The reality was then as it is today: that an ad adjacent to content where a reader is engaged is far more likely to be seen and effective.

And the cookies came crumbling down

While Google’s recent announcement has given all of us a reprieve, we know that the times are a ‘changing. So how do we respond now that publishers have bought some time and tech companies have a longer runway to build alternatives?

There is no question that there will be dozens if not hundreds of “better” data mousetraps in the marketplace during the coming months. Yet the fact is that we already have many of the tools necessary to enhance the value of our websites for advertisers. Your sites already have the right target audiences. You capture their attention and interest with your content. And they’ve come to right place to enjoy that content. Maybe the missing link is that some of your billboards have been installed facing the wrong direction.

So, here’s the big idea. Serve ads only to readers when they are engaged in content and continue to serve them viewable ads for as long as they remain engaged.  It can be done. It is being done on hundreds of sites. (Check out Inc.com or Rightmove to see.) You can do it too. And when you do, your programmatic ad revenue will increase by 20-40%.

About the author

Bruce Brandfon is Chief Media Officer of Duration Media. Prior to that he was EVP of Webspectator, and before that VP and Managing Director at Publicitas. Before joining Publicitas, Bruce was VP and Publisher of Scientific American. He has also held leadership positions at The Philadelphia Media Network, Newsweek, and Time Inc. Bruce is Director of the Board of Advisors at Planet Forward, and an Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at Westchester Community College.

Advertising | Perspectives

Instead of scrabbling over the triopoly’s crumbs, publishers must unite

Recently, when I was reading an article in the The Wall Street Journal about our industry, it became apparent to me that web publishers, who spend millions of dollars every year creating highly engaging content, are clearly not being rewarded for developing that content. The very survival of our greatest media brands is in question. Yet the Triopoly of Facebook, Google and Amazon has captured 90% of all digital ad spend in the USA in 2020. Think about that. The remainder of the players in the digital media ecosystem compete for just 10% of the advertising revenue. Imagine what those percentages might be in 2021, 2022, 2023 and beyond?

To put this in perspective: What percentage of US digital ad spending did the Triopoly capture in 2018? 

A. 53%
B. 48.6%
C. 66.8%
D. 78%

How about 2019? What percentage of the US digital ad spending did the Triopoly capture in 2019? 

A. 63%
B. 58.6%
C. 80%
D. 68%

If you answered C for both questions, you are right. The Triopoly took 66.8% in 2018, 80% in 2019, and 90% in 2020. This is a pretty disconcerting trend if you are a publisher. However, it is equally consequential for readers as well as society as a whole.

So, what are the majority of web publishers doing about this?  How exactly are they trying to stop this train from crushing them, or at least slowing it so that next year it’s not capturing 92% or 95% or 98%?

Stop complaining and act

The answer is they are doing not much more than complaining about it. Many (if not most) senior publishing executives will tell you the answers are direct revenue from consumers (subscriptions, memberships, etc.). Seems reasonable until you consider that most of it is already available for free from the competition.

Unfortunately, most publishers are not The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or The Economist. Therefore, subscription revenues are unlikely to replace the loss of the billions of dollars of advertising revenue that enables most publications to survive and grow.

And what exactly does the Triopoly have that web publishers don’t have?  Well, that’s a long and somewhat complicated answer but let’s take a look.

A better mousetrap

Essentially, they have built an easy to access and toll-free on-ramp to every publisher’s unique content. Thus, they’ve eliminated the need to invest in the time-consuming and expensive process of creating that content themselves. What’s more, they have the ability to capitalize on their audience engagement in this content (that they neither created nor own). They offer high value and effective ad impressions to target specific audiences.

Now let’s pretend for a second that you sell fly fishing gear…

  • Google serves the ad to fly fisherman searching for gear
  • Facebook serves the ad to fly fisherman or those who appear to be
  • Amazon connects with fly fishermen via targeted ads and keyword search

In each case they have the ability to deliver a high value advertising environment that delivers proven ROI. In short, they get rewarded for their access to the content the user wants at scale.

Make your audience king

What, dear reader does the publisher have?  They will say “we have unique content.” I respectfully and reluctantly say, BS. Many sites have content that is largely undifferentiated from that of other publishers. Even if some publishers actually do have unique content, they are not rewarded for the millions of dollars they invest to create that content as a result of the painful efficiency of programmatic advertising and RTB.

Truth is that the programmatic buying machine doesn’t reward publishers for better content. It simply seeks the most cost-efficient way to deliver advertising to the targeted audience.  The algorithms don’t really care if they find their prospects at Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, or Fandom. In the programmatic world the target audience is king.

So, it’s very easy to see why the Triopoly has racked up 90% of the ad spend.  Remember the Facebook boycott last summer?  How long did that last?  Advertisers ran back to Facebook because they have built a proverbial better mousetrap that consistently delivers a measurable ROI. The result? Facebook’s numbers are off the charts (as usual) and so are Google’s and Amazon’s.

My question is:  What have we allowed to happen to our beloved and irreplaceable publishing community? Every year market share erodes, now 10%, in 5 years what?  It’s time to stop that steady drip, drip, drip. These are desperate times for our industry and the survival of our cherished media will require bold action. If the audience truly is king then let us all capitalize on the engagement and commitment of our collective audiences and stop fighting with our sisters and brothers for the ever-dwindling market share. To paraphrase Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he ain’t us!”

An immodest proposal

I am hereby issuing a clarion call for web publishers to stop competing among themselves. Your peers are not your opponents. They are your colleagues. Now is the time to band together and develop a consortium that can rival the Triopoly with the scale and the ability to provide unique ad solutions. It’s time for publishers to receive their just rewards for creating premium content. Yes, this has been tried (mostly without success) before, as discussed in this recent Digiday piece. 

Yet, the concept is sound. And the time is upon us to act boldly and massively. Three or four or a dozen like-minded publishers will not make the difference necessary to turn the tide. A broad industry initiative led by an organization as credible as Digital Content Next and with support from its members and affiliated technology partners is what is called for. We are committed to make this happen. Who else is in? Let’s not wait a moment longer.

About the author

Bruce Brandfon is Chief Media Officer of Duration Media. Prior to that he was EVP of Webspectator, and before that VP and Managing Director at Publicitas. Before joining Publicitas, Bruce was VP and Publisher of Scientific American. He has also held leadership positions at The Philadelphia Media Network, Newsweek, and Time Inc. Bruce is Director of the Board of Advisors at Planet Forward, and an Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at Westchester Community College.

Advertising | Perspectives

Supply path optimization: only the best for publishers and advertisers

Just this past week I was buying lemon sole for dinner at our local seafood market.  My friend Joe D, the proprietor, has been running this business for more than 30 years. Yes, you will pay a premium for his tuna, crab legs, oysters and salmon. But as the saying goes: “You get what you pay for.”

Sure, Stop and Shop, Acme and even Whole Foods are cheaper. But when the family sits down to dinner it is worth that extra 10% or so to benefit from the highest quality supply path to your table. That’s the kind of optimization you can taste!

Complexity deconstructed

It occurred to me while thinking about this article that our sole meunière might be a nice way to demystify the sometimes overly complex language and the digital advertising industry’s fascination with jargon and acronyms. After all isn’t what we want just a better experience for our audiences, publishers and advertisers?

There are so many things right about the incredible content that can be discovered and enjoyed on the internet. And our industry has rightfully become the largest advertising marketplace on the planet as a result. Nevertheless, some aspects of the business are due for renovation. Apologies for extending the cuisine theme again, but let’s face it, there are too many cooks in our kitchen. We have every reason to ask ourselves why we tolerate an overabundance of SSPs who are largely undifferentiated sources of the same impressions.

Quality vs. commodity

A successful SPO strategy will benefit publishers who consistently deliver the highest quality content, engagement, audience, and impression value. Time on site, viewability, editorial excellence, desirable demographics and psychographics will be worth more to buyers. These publishers will capture share and increase revenues.

Simultaneously, we must build more effective and more efficient methods for buyers to identify, select and purchase only good, better, and best content within the internet’s marketplace of ideas. In effect, we must de-commoditize supply. This will go a long way toward eliminating fraud, increasing transparency, and reducing the non-media leakage of third-party fees.

Only buy the best

Industry leading programmatic consultancy Jounce Media states:

Supply path optimization is an emerging technique by which programmatic buyers bias their bidding toward a short list of preferred pathways that enable high scale, high efficiency inventory access.

Therefore, when shopping for the highest performing supply available buyers should pay special attention to the pathways they choose. Supply Path Optimization done right will focus on tangible qualities such as viewability, IVT and scale enabling KPIs to be met with fewer wasted impressions and greater efficiency.

About the author

Bruce Brandfon is Chief Media Officer of Duration Media. Prior to that he was EVP of Webspectator, and before that VP and Managing Director at Publicitas. Before joining Publicitas, Bruce was VP and Publisher of Scientific American. He has also held leadership positions at The Philadelphia Media Network, Newsweek, and Time Inc. Bruce is Director of the Board of Advisors at Planet Forward, and an Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at Westchester Community College.

Ping Bruce if you’d like to know more about why and how Duration Media consistently outperforms almost all other Supply Paths in the programmatic ecosystem. (And, yes, he’ll also tell you where Joe D’s fish market is.)

Perspectives | Revenue | Supporter Spotlight

Putting the value back in our industry’s opaque VAT

As 2020, without a doubt the most challenging 12 months in our lifetimes, stumbles to the finish line, one undeniable lesson learned for all publishers is the need to focus on the sustainability of revenue streams. The turbulence of the market, the unexpected upheaval from factors that are unanticipated and entirely out of our control may well have become the new normal. So now, more than ever, publishers need to choose AdTech partners wisely and select those who can demonstrate the ability to deliver a tangible contribution to the bottom line.

Value chain drain

Earlier this year the UK’s ISBA (the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers) released their Programmatic Supply Chain Transparency Study in association with the Association of Online Publishers and conducted by PwC. This groundbreaking examination of the digital industry’s programmatic advertising supply chain shines a bright light on the lack of transparency shrouding AdTech costs levied against publishers and advertisers. Estimates of these fees range anywhere from 15% to 51% of revenue lost by publishers and of non-media expenses paid by advertisers. Graeme Adams, head of media at BT Group, took part in the investigation and branded the lost cash “a big hole in the value chain.”

These unattributable “taxes” are slow leaks in the plumbing of our ecosystem. They expose both the opaqueness inherent in the marketplace and the lack of trust in advertising technology third-parties. Certainly, we all agree there needs to be a greater level of transparency and accountability throughout what has now become the world’s largest advertising segment. And studies such as these are necessary to facilitate adoption of broadly applied standards and practices. However, painting all AdTech providers with the same negative broad brush runs the real risk of our “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

ROI vs. ROWe

Clearly there are technology vendors out there whose contributions to the efficacy of your programmatic advertising investment or a publisher’s bottom line are rightly suspect. Indeed, there are companies whose primary goal is self-serving. While they may promise to do no harm, they often fall short of guaranteeing measurable results and fully transparent visibility into their operations.

Their compensation is not directly tied to your ability to generate incremental income. Their tools are available for you to activate without the guarantee of a return on your investment. On the other hand, there are a select group of AdTech software providers who receive compensation only when their solution delivers measurable incremental revenue and income. That’s the ultimate measure of accountability.

Vendor or partner

Therefore, working with the right AdTech third-parties can make the difference, not only on your ability to “make your numbers,” but actually become the deciding factor between the survival of your business or its demise. We would modestly suggest that one way to decide who your best options are is to understand the nuanced differences between a vendor and partner:

Vendor: A party in the supply chain that sells goods and services to companies or consumers.

      A vendor is a general term used to describe any seller of goods or services.

Partner: A person or organization you are closely aligned with in some way.

                To partner is to join with another organization in a shared activity.

In summary we recommend a very careful evaluation among the myriad of third-party solution providers. Seek partnerships based upon full transparency, a shared commitment to mutually beneficial results, incremental revenue and income contribution to your bottom-line, and a guaranteed return on your investment.

About the author

Bruce Brandfon is Chief Media Officer of Duration Media. Prior to that he was Executive Vice President of Webspectator . He was Vice President and Managing Director at Publicitas. Prior to joining Publicitas, Bruce was Vice President of Sales for the Philadelphia Media Network. He has also held leadership positions at Scientific American, Newsweek, and Time Inc. Brandfon is Director of the Board of Advisors at Planet Forward. And he’s an Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at Westchester Community College. He contributes frequently to industry publications.

Perspectives

Build your future competitive advantage: strategic resilience

Let’s all pause for a moment and contemplate the future of our businesses and the competitive landscape that lies ahead. There is no doubt that these past several months and the uncertainty we are facing have rocked everyone’s world. It’s radically reorganized our expectations and plans, as well as many of our hopes and dreams. And the interconnectedness of our personal and professional lives has never before been so challenging or consequential. How we respond and adapt to this once in a lifetime set of circumstances, as individuals, businesses, cultures, and nations, will irrevocably determine our collective successes or failures.

Rishad Tobaccowala considers this and more in his provocative new series: The Future Does Not Fit in the Containers of the Past. The most recent post, Episode 4, is entitled Strategy. Frame. Light. and Time. In it, Rishad contemplates how we might be able not only to survive but thrive within the new normal that we now inhabit.

What is strategy?

One of the observations that most stands out to me in this series is his definition of Strategy. For Rishad, this is a “future competitive advantage”:

“Amidst these new expectations and changing competitive dynamics what advantage will your company offer? A differentiated or better product? A competitive moat of network effects, scale or some other dynamic? A better experience? Speed and value?”

It is a worthwhile exercise for us to all to contemplate how we view our own company’s strategy. We need to examine our preparedness and define our individual future competitive advantage. If we cannot do this for our businesses and ourselves, then we must be prepared for the disruption that will be inevitable from others who have identified and made a commitment to their future competitive advantage(s). 

Future proof

Companies and individuals who do this and make it a part of their DNA will have become future-proofed. This is not simply because they’ve anticipated what comes next. (Really: Did any of us have a plan for continuing our businesses during a global pandemic. For our children at home, learning remotely. Or for experiencing a national reckoning with social justice?) Rather, it is because they have prepared for uncertainly by creating strategic resiliency enabling them automatically to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

What is extraordinarily astute about Rishad’s commentary is his choice of words to describe what is often an over-complicated and impenetrable concept. By untangling strategic complexity (the state or quality of being intricate or complicated) he has brought this within our reach and made it accessible to each of us.

Rendering complex subjects into their comprehensible elements is after all the essence of effective communication. And who among us has not experienced the misunderstandings (and the glazed looks that follow) from the increasingly mystifying language used to describe our businesses and what makes our bright, shiny object more brilliant than the previous ones?

The audience knows

If we have learned anything at all from these past months about the digital media ecosystem it may be this: Our audience knows what it wants and needs and will devote more time and attention to the content that provides the most value. This seems a self-evident concept. Yet all too often we’ve seen some in our industry gaming the system via click bait and other lowest common denominator shortcuts. This is not what the doctor ordered during a global pandemic.

The fact is that premium publishers have experienced dramatic growth in the scale of their audiences and engagement in their content. Audience Activated Engagement has emerged as a highly productive monetization model. And increased time and attention on websites has unlocked the hidden value of previously undervalued below the fold ad units.

Duration Media didn’t predict the future when it was launched in mid-2018. However, we understood that our success was going to be predicated on building a future competitive advantage. And given the way 2020 is unfolding, I’d say that this — along with strategic resilience — is something every business needs to double down on.

About the author

Bruce Brandfon is Chief Media Officer of Duration Media. Prior to that he was Executive Vice President of WebSpectator. He was Vice President and Managing Director at Publicitas. Prior to joining Publicitas, Bruce was Vice President of Sales for the Philadelphia Media Network. He has also held leadership positions at Scientific American, Newsweek, and Time Inc. Brandfon is Director of the Board of Advisors at Planet Forward. And he’s an Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at Westchester Community College. He contributes frequently to industry publications.

Advertising | Perspectives

Consumers and advertisers are overwhelmed by the tyranny of choice

Maybe we already know this, but let’s all pause for a minute or two to consider some mindboggling numbers. Globally there are nearly 2 billion websites of which 400 million are active. More than 500,000 new websites come online every day. This adds another 200 million sites to this massive universe every year. More than half the world’s population uses the internet with nearly 4 billion users who are averaging almost seven hours per day online.

Remember when Springsteen was worried about “57 Channels and Nothin’ On”?

Are we too late?

It is no wonder that many of us in the industry (not to mention our family, friends, and customers) feel overwhelmed by this avalanche of news, information, gossip, click-bait, facts, “alternative” facts, opinion, and social media that is consuming roughly half of our waking hours. And let’s face it, the call to action for supply chain optimization, brand safety, fraud protection, and commitment to cleaning up the overall digital ecosystem is way past due.

The consequences of further foot dragging about this mess will be dire. This has been made clear by recent events including literal threats to our democratic traditions and commonly accepted norms for civilized behavior. The fact is that we need to take ownership of these issues and figure out a way to improve consumer experience online by better surfacing quality content (and thereby providing optimized ad experiences).

Too much of a good thing

“Logic suggests that having options allows people to select precisely what makes them happiest. But, as studies show, abundant choice often makes for misery.”

–Barry Schwartz, PhD  Professor of Social Theory and Social Action at Swarthmore College, in Scientific American

Consider for a second the stress, second guessing, uncertainly, mental fatigue, and overall feeling of dissatisfaction when you are confronted with the menus at Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. Now consider the tyranny of choosing from 400 million websites. We can never turn back the clock. but we can make things easier on ourselves and fellow human beings by focusing on quality and accuracy and engaging in behavior that reduces stress and anxiety and increases engagement and satisfaction.

Less is more

Imagine if there was a way to reward publishers of premium content with increased advertising revenue based upon the duration of their users’ engagement. Let’s call this User Activated Engagement, or UAE. The greater the time spent reading content, the more impressions that individual users would see. Your audience would be served ad impressions only when they are engaged in the content on your site. And these ads would produce a higher return because they would become available for purchase only when they are in view, and adjacent to content that is relevant to the reader.

Moreover, since the primary beneficiaries of this newly found income will be premium publishers, an inevitable thinning of the herd will occur. We will all have fewer choices in the marketplace of ideas and those of lesser quality will fade. Advertisers will become more confident in the supply that is available. And audiences will benefit from time better spent, rewarding entertainment, and intellectual fulfillment.

Smart investments

The key pillars of effective advertising investment would be met: the right time and place for an ad message guaranteed to be viewable when purchased and served. And despite the imminent disappearance of the cookie, these ads will be contextually relevant. This is not necessarily because of the advertiser segment and editorial content, but because the context will have been determined as being relevant and engaging to the reader.

High quality, premium publishers would be main beneficiaries (along with advertisers who could expect that their ads will be viewable and therefore worth more). The long tail, 80% of the over 400 million active websites will become obsolete. The tyranny of choice will fade into distant memory. The supply chain will be rehabilitated. And quality will reign supreme in the kingdom of the internet.

About the author

Bruce Brandfon is Chief Media Officer of Duration Media. Prior to that he was Executive Vice President of WebSpectator. He was Vice President and Managing Director at Publicitas. Prior to joining Publicitas, Bruce was Vice President of Sales for the Philadelphia Media Network. He has also held leadership positions at Scientific American, Newsweek, and Time Inc. Brandfon is Director of the Board of Advisors at Planet Forward and an Adjunct Professor of Media Studies at Westchester Community College. He contributes frequently to industry publications.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.