Articles by: "Maureen Morrison, Independent Marketing Consultant"

How marketers and agencies can address increasing privacy regulation

October 10, 2019 Maureen Morrison, Independent Marketing Consultant

Privacy has been in the spotlight more than ever before. Tech giants like Facebook and Google have been scrutinized in congressional hearings, fined, and are under investigation from the Department of Justice, dozens of states attorneys general, and the Federal Trade Commission.

Regulation has taken hold via GDPR. Now on the immediate horizon is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which is set to go into law Jan. 1, 2020. (And other state laws are on the horizon.) Though it is less comprehensive than GDPR, CCPA is the first significant data privacy law in the U.S. and will therefore set a precedent for how companies comply to privacy regulations stateside. It also effectively ends what has long been an environment of self-regulation.

These laws certainly impact how players outside the tech giants operate, including client-side marketers and agencies. Media buyers and sellers, for example, are left to make sense of how to handle the demands of reaching targeted audiences at scale while also not alienating potential customers by mishandling data or using it in a way that makes them uncomfortable.

Privacy is, unsurprisingly, among the top concerns for executives in the industry, given the potential to affect how they target their advertising. A survey from Marin Software polled marketers across categories and asked them what challenges will most impact their businesses in 2019. Atop the list was data privacy, tracking restrictions and ad blocking.

Legal fragmentation

CCPA allows people to know who is collecting their data, what is being collected, and with whom that data is being shared. Businesses of a certain size will be required to comply. As of now, the CCPA is not yet finalized, though approval of amendments are expected to finish this month.

What the ad industry wants is one national law. Four industry trade groups, including the ANA, formed a coalition called Privacy for America to lobby to “Congress to ensure federal online privacy legislation is less strict than a law scheduled to go into effect in California in 2020,” according to Reuters.

Dan Jaffe, group executive vice president of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers, said of the ANA’s problems with CCPA: “At the most fundamental level, it is that it is a single state law. We don’t think that privacy rules work on a state-by-state basis. The business has already gone through a substantial amount of fragmentation and that is only going to increase in 2020 unless there is a federal law passed that preempts state laws.”

Last year, tech giants like Google, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft began lobbying the Trump Administration for a gentler federal law – one that would override CCPA. However, unless something major happens, it looks like the CCPA may set the tone for how online companies approach privacy in the U.S., at least in the near term. And the marketplace will have to respond quickly.

Privacy now

But despite cries for a federal law, CCPA will soon go into effect. So, what are agencies and marketers to do in the near term?

While companies have already had to make adjustments to comply with GDPR that can apply to CCPA, CCPA is “still a bit of ‘wait and see,’ given that there are still negotiations taking place and amendments being made,” said Jon Taylor, SVP of Global Data Strategy at WPP media agency Essence.

However, the looming California regulation will almost certainly affect media buys and plans, according to Taylor. This could result in more contextual-based ads (versus behavioral targeting based off cookies) and ads that are targeted to more general audiences. “Agencies and marketers need to be able to work more seamlessly across a spectrum of aggregated, normative data and granular, programmable data where it’s available. This may result in media plan that feature more generalized targeting options, but these are hopefully informed by more robust insights.”

For agencies, said Taylor, the challenge is around vendors and “predicting how these same new rules and regulations will affect partner offerings. For instance, the advent of GDPR saw some companies completely pivot their business models (Tapad), change the way data could be accessed and used (Google) or even exit the Eurozone completely (Verve).”

When agencies and marketers work together, Taylor says that “more marketers should bring their legal practitioners into discussions with their agencies around privacy issues” to ensure enforcement is happening everywhere along the supply chain. After all, “agencies have excellent points of view of these issues, and a broad market view, but are also not legal practices.”

First- and third-party data

Outside of agencies and marketers working together to ensure compliance, there is the issue of the growing importance of first party data. Tanya Forsheit, Partner and Chair of Privacy and Data Security Group, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, told the Wall Street Journal that transparency will be required, and that marketers and other companies like ad-techs, agencies, exchanges and intermediaries, will be among those held accountable. “Marketers will have to rely more on first-party data, the information they get from having a direct relationship with the consumer. They will rely less on third-party data that they don’t collect directly.”

Some, however, are concerned that the reliance on first party data resulting from privacy protections will only strengthen the hold that Facebook and Google have on the marketplace. “It’s actually concentrating power and market leverage within the walled garden, because they have certain advantages, direct relations with consumers,” Adam Solomon, CMO of marketing technology platform Lotame, told Ad Age.

“The effects of regulation mean that the walls of the walled gardens only seem to get higher. But conversely, the likelihood that those platforms will ever share data between them – for the benefit of the marketer – only seems to get lower… In a sense, our industry is at an all-time low in terms of data portability,” said Taylor.

About the author

Maureen Morrison is a writer and consultant, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on editorial and communications strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor at Ad Age for 12 years, covering agencies, digital media and marketers.

Viacom dispels stereotypes and reveals actionable insights with its “Generations” study

August 15, 2019 Maureen Morrison, Independent Marketing Consultant

As data and becomes more important for advertisers and other players in the ecosystem, media companies strive to provide more insights that illustrate their understanding of their audiences. One such company is Viacom, whose global insights team launched a research project this year called Generations.

The project includes videos that aim to dispel some stereotypes of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Gen Z. “We’ve all heard the terms Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers,” begins a video introducing the research. “But what do you really know about these groups? A lot of what we think we know is based on opinions, assumptions or stereotypes, instead of real data.”

Insights for everyone

Research spanning generations is a broad topic. However, Colleen Fahey Rush, chief research officer at Viacom, said that the Generations project “helps our company and our partners to better understand how people of all age ranges and demographic groups see the world. Plus, they allow our brands and businesses to stay ahead of the trends to make sure the stories we tell are resonating with our audiences.”

The videos can be seen on Viacom’s website, though the company said it shares much more detailed research with advertisers, agencies, distribution companies, and other partners. “We see it as our mission to understand how our audiences see the world and how that affects their attitudes. This allows us to stay ahead of the curve and ensure that the content we create continues to resonate with our viewers,” said Rush.

Research that informs the business

Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, MTC, BET, CMT, and Nickelodeon, has done a number of large-scale studies, which have found emerging trends among its audiences around the world. “Viacom differentiates itself from other media and content companies with its longstanding legacy of data and insights, giving us a competitive advantage in the industry,” said Rush.

She added that Viacom also sees Generations as “one of the added benefits of collaborating with Viacom. We are committed to knowing our audiences and sharing that knowledge with partners.” This allows them to “craft messages, products and propositions together that best speak to consumers.”

A spokeswoman for Viacom said that Generations was conducted by Viacom’s Global Consumer Insights group, which is not exclusively tied to advertising sales. Therefore, the research is not solely focused on the needs of marketers, nor can the company quanity how it directly impacts ad sales. Viacom Velocity, which sits within Ad Solutions, is primarily responsible for driving the company’s Madison-Avenue related research.

This week, Viacom reported that ad sales rose 6% to $976 million in its most recent quarter, marking “the first growth in ad revenue for the home of MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central since the third quarter of 2014,” according to Ad Age.

Lessons to be learned

Viacom said that last year alone its research “connected with over 1.8 million kids, teens, young adults and adults through consumer insights, covering 79 countries globally, from Sweden to South Africa and Argentina to Australia.”

Key takeaways from the Generations study include:

The stereotype in media and marketing is that Boomers are feeble grey-haired people living in retirement homes. “We know people are living much more active lives for longer than ever before,” according to a Generations video. Viacom also noted that the boomer stereotype that they’re all technically inept is false. In fact, many are much more tech-savvy than people realize.

As Gen Xers were growing up, new technology, communications, and cable TV channels like Viacom-owned MTV were spreading American culture around the world. The result is that Gen X a single global generation, with more cultural interests in common than previous generations.

According to Generations, the biggest misconception about Millennials is that they’re “lazy, no good for anything and that they’re spoiled,” according to Christian Kurz, SVP of Viacom’s Global Consumer Insights. Instead, he said, many don’t have much money, they’re very entrepreneurial, open-minded, and prospering in the face of adversity.

Born after 1997, Gen Z account for 25% of the U.S. population and 33% of the global population. By 2020, they will account for 40% of U.S. consumers. Since they are still growing up, Viacom said not much is known about them. However, they predict that events like climate change, Brexit, and the elections of Barack Obama and Donald Trump will surely impact their lives, the extent to which we don’t yet know. The Gen Z Generations video noted that growing up in an increasingly fractured world can lead to stress and anxiety. And, Viacom reports that Gen Z is the most diverse U.S. generation we’ve had yet.

About the author

Maureen Morrison is a writer and consultant, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on editorial strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor at Ad Age for 12 years, covering agencies, digital media, technology and marketers.

As podcast advertising grows, big advertisers await better metrics

June 20, 2019 Maureen Morrison, Independent Marketing Consultant

There’s no doubt that podcasts are a growing business, as measured by audience and ad dollars flowing into the space. U.S. advertisers spent $479.1 million on podcast advertising in 2018, up 53% from $313.9 million a year earlier, according to a report released earlier this month by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Those who have advertised on podcasts are often pleased. “Podcasts are a phenomenal opportunity for brands,” said Michael Duda, managing partner at Bullish, a creative agency and consumer investment firm. “We’ve seen tremendous results for our early-stage brands who conduct marketing programs that are synergetic to their target profiles.”

But many advertisers—particularly large, established ones—still feel they need more solid metrics to justify their spending. Groups like the IAB work to address these concerns through initiatives like the compliance program it launched in December, which certifies that companies are adhering to its technical guidelines.

Measurement challenges

According to the IAB announcement, podcast advertising lacks uniformity in measurement systems and metrics. Their statement also notes that “meaningful measurement has been thwarted by an inability to connect, track, and analyze user requests; measurement products that use dissimilar, proprietary algorithms; and a lack of an agreed-upon set of metrics and their meanings.”

Though standards exist, marketers say podcast advertising generally performs better for burgeoning direct-to-consumer brands and other early-and mid-stage advertisers versus the multinational, established stalwarts. “The early and mid-stage brands do better with podcast advertising because they can measure it more effectively,” said Steve Shanks, partner at Ad Results Media, an ad agency specializing in audio and podcast advertising.

The top five business categories of audio and podcast advertisers were direct-to-consumer brands, followed by financial services, business-to-business, entertainment, and telecommunications brands, according to the IAB report.

Common currency

But larger, more established consumer brands need additional reassurance from a metrics perspective if they are going to invest more heavily in podcast advertising. “The reason some larger brands don’t get into it is because with their media mix models they don’t know how to effectively buy this medium, and therefore the direct-to-consumer brands are smarter in the way they approach it and take advantage of the channel,” said Shanks.

“What the industry needs is one common currency of how we count downloads and making sure that all networks and shows are abiding by it,” he said. He added that the best standard now is IAB’s, “but not every network or show is abiding by those standards. If a download means something different depending on who you’re speaking with, it’s going to be hard for some of the larger brands to trust this space.”

Although some podcast networks may not adhere to these standards, Shanks said he’s noted that several of them “are making the effort to switch over.”

Hurdles to accurately provide universal metrics standards are numerous. The IAB’s standards note that “the ability to track podcast content and ad playback largely depends on the player requesting the file” and that only a sliver of “the market share enables client-side tracking as it exists in other forms of digital advertising.” The IAB also said that the Apple Podcasts app, for instance, commanded about 50% market share for podcast players, and yet prevented any client-side tracking or even the ability to count a “play.”

Targeting Improvements

Marketers also have a need to better target their desired audiences on audio platforms. Spotify wants to prioritize advertising around podcasts, and we’re beginning to see what that looks like. This week the company announced that advertisers can now target ads based on the podcasts people are listening to, according to the Verge.

Though these ads won’t be inserted in the shows themselves (they will run in between songs on its free service), advertisers can now “target based on the category of podcast they consume, which is likely going to be much more specific and fruitful for the advertisers.”

Test marketers for the new targeting service were Samsung and 3M. With this new ability, Samsung can, for example, target people who listen to tech and business shows, versus the previous targeting which was by age, gender, and music genre.

Audiences abound

Still, podcasts represent the opportunity for brands of all types to reach a growing audience. The IAB/PwC report projects that podcast ad revenue in the U.S. will generate $1 billion by 2021.

The preferred ad type for podcasts remains host-read ads, representing about 63% of U.S. podcast ads in 2018. Just over half of U.S. podcast ads are still direct-response ads, though that has decreased since 2016 from 73% as brand awareness ads grow in popularity.

Dynamically inserted ads continue to grow as well. In 2018, they accounted for about 49% of ads, up from 41.7% in 2017. Host-read ads, whether baked-in or programmatically inserted, tend to perform more efficiently than produced ads, said Shanks. He said this can be looked at like ads on influencer channels. When executed well, these provide much more value for listeners and advertisers, assuming pricing is the same.

Services emerge

In addition to Spotify’s efforts, we’ll continue to see more companies develop solutions to bring hefty ad spend to podcasting. This week in Cannes, audio platforms, media companies and agency networks are touting new audio and podcasting services to take advantage of the rise of streaming audio and bring more advertisers into the fold.

WPP and iHeartMedia announced a new venture called Project Listen, which will offer “creative consulting and media planning covering multiple platforms, including broadcast radio, digital streaming, podcasts, smart speakers and live events,” according to Ad Age.

“Project Listen is about tapping into the scale of audio and moving from the traditionally transactional radio business to the future of audio advertising where insights and ideas lead the way to growth for brands,” iHeartMedia CEO Bob Pittman said in a statement.

Pandora is planning to promote Studio Resonate, “a consulting arm that aims to help brands navigate tasks like creating a ‘sonic logo,’ which is a tune or sound that listeners associate with any given brand,” according to Ad Age.

So, while established brands may only be cautiously wading into the shallow end of the audio advertising pool, a slew of players are testing the format. And new solutions are being developed from all sides of the ecosystem so that the marketing and advertising opportunities sound as good as the podcasts themselves.

About the author

Maureen Morrison is a consultant and writer, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on marketing, editorial and communications strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor at Ad Age for 12 years, covering agencies, digital media and marketers.

The cannabis business is booming. So how about the cannabis ad business?

May 2, 2019 Maureen Morrison, Independent Marketing Consultant

Do a search for cannabis-related articles and thousands will come up in the results. And with good reason: Recent years have seen the legalization of it in 10 states now, with 33 states allowing marijuana for medical use. This has given way to countless articles written about the burgeoning legal industry and startups offering cannabis and CBD products.

Billions of investment and consumer dollars are flowing into the legalized cannabis space. Last year, legal cannabis was a $10.4 billion industry in the U.S., employing a quarter of a million people, according to New Frontier Data, a cannabis market research firm. According to a report from the Associated Press citing New Frontier Data, “Investors poured $10 billion into cannabis in North America in 2018, twice what was invested in the last three years combined… and the combined North American market is expected to reach more than $16 billion in 2019.”

But for all the explosive growth of this new and legal market, the advertising part of the equation has not kept pace. The largest digital platforms don’t allow cannabis ads. Cannabis articles may appear on many publishers’ sites, but few allow advertising of these products. The fact is that cannabis is still a Schedule I drug in federal law, and the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 prohibits advertising and selling of such products. State laws vary widely, causing many with ad space to sell to err on the side of safety.

It’s no surprise, then, that many of the publishers reached for this article just don’t allow cannabis advertising, particularly in national publications. One major publisher with a number of popular titles said that it doesn’t accept cannabis advertising. Though it does accept ads for topical cannabidiol (CBD) oil products to the extent allowed by law.

Publishers leery of cannabis ads

Meredith Corp. said that it doesn’t accept any marijuana or cannabis-related products (including Marijuana-based THC, Cannabinol [CBN] or CBD products) or any other product that’s illegal under U.S. law. One exception the company now allows is Epidiolex, which contains CBD and has been approved by the FDA to treat childhood epilepsy and can be legally advertised for such use under federal law.

Meredith said it also now accepts industrial hemp-related products, including Hemp-based CBD or CBN products, with THC content of 0.3 percent or lower. Hemp products of this sort were previously illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. However, they were made legal under the 2018 Federal Farm Bill, enacted in December 2018.

There’s more leeway on the local publication front. Local newspapers and publications in states where cannabis is legal for recreational use may have an easier time accepting ads, depending in state law. The Seattle Times, for example, accepts cannabis advertising.

“Cannabis advertisements are reviewed by our staff to ensure they meet our general advertising creative and copy policies. There are Washington State rules for this category of advertising, and we comply with those requirements,” said Gary Smith, VP of advertising at the Seattle Times. “While there are complexities around accepting this type of advertising, it has been a growing part of our overall client mix. And we’ve had very few customer complaints associated with the inclusion of this ad content in our products.”

Is the duopoly doing it?

Publishers need not worry that they’re losing out on cannabis ad dollars to Google and Facebook. Both have shied away from allowing cannabis ads. Google’s policies state that ads promoting products that alter mental state for recreational use, including “legal highs,” are prohibited.

Facebook similarly prohibits such ads, though the company reportedly formed a group to “examine its approach to cannabis,” which suggests that it could be moving towards a more permissive stance. In the meantime, state legal cannabis businesses are allowed to create verified business pages on Facebook, and appear in search results (they were previously blocked from search),” according to Bloomberg Law.

Varying state laws are a hurdle for brands that want to market cannabis products in multiple states where it’s legal. And given that that Google and Facebook don’t allow cannabis ads, and that many publishers shy away from them, Cannabis brands often rely on outdoor advertising and sometimes even events.

The brand perspective

Jason Deland, co-founder and chairman of cannabis brand Dosist and founding partner at ad agency Anomaly (which handles advertising for Dosist), said that their media strategy has largely prioritized outdoor advertising for creating awareness. Zoned areas that allow for outdoor cannabis advertising in California have helped Dosist build its brand, as has its retail location on Abbot-Kinney Blvd. in Los Angeles’ Venice Beach.

Dosist has also had event partnerships with Barry’s Bootcamp, with messaging focused on sleep and the health benefits of cannabis. The company also has advertised with Cannabis-friendly publications like High Times. As for social media, Deland says that Dosist creates organic content on its own pages.

Other brands have tried to circumvent the social media ban on cannabis ads by using influencers to promote their products or promoting prices on their own social accounts. However, that can have its own set of headaches and influencers can sometimes have murky return on investment.

For now, it seems like unless there is a change to the categorization of cannabis at the federal level, most companies with ad space to sell won’t allow cannabis advertising anytime soon. There are the rare exceptions of course, as noted above with Epidiolex, and more of those may come in the future as pharmaceutical companies look to get more cannabis-related drugs approved. Others are hopeful that with the recent allowance of industrial hemp products to be advertised – thanks to last year’s Farm Bill – that the federal government will ease up eventually on cannabis, but only time will tell.

About the Author

Maureen Morrison is a writer and consultant, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on editorial and communications strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor, and spent 12 years at Ad Age covering agencies, digital media, and marketers.

What advertisers think of YouTube’s brand safety problems

March 7, 2019 Maureen Morrison, Independent Marketing Consultant

It’s safe to say that brand safety has been one of the most pressing issues in marketing over the last two years. Advertisers have been made all too aware of the perils of digital media and what can happen if an ad runs alongside harmful content. Often, marketers may not even aware of where an ad will run, thanks to programmatic. So, they can be caught off guard when the issue spreads on social media.

The most recent brand safety concern happened in February when a YouTube user posted a video that highlights patterns of comments by pedophiles on otherwise innocuous videos. These people made comments that sexualized the kids in the videos. In other instances, these commenters shared links to child pornography.

Soon after, several advertisers including Nestle, Disney, AT&T, and Epic Games all pulled their advertising from YouTube. YouTube responded by disabling comments on most videos that include children under 13, as well as on some videos featuring older minors. It had also been reaching out to agencies and brands, reassuring them that YouTube is still a safe platform for their ads.

Brands and Boycotts

Many people feel that when brands boycott a platform, it’s just grandstanding PR. And really, boycotts haven’t materially affected YouTube’s financial performance. But these days, advertisers are generally concerned by the responses from platforms like YouTube and Facebook, with one digital ad executive recently telling Ad Age that YouTube’s promises “ring hollow, however, given this latest flare up is just one of many brand safety failures in the past two years.” They just keep happening, and so the cycle of brand boycott, only to inevitably return to the platform, continues.

Ad Age noted that YouTube offered flimsy solutions for advertisers. “YouTube has offered half-measures for brands, the executive says. For instance, YouTube is telling some brands to categorize ads as ‘alcohol’ (even if the company is not an alcohol brand), that way it tricks the automated ad system into avoiding videos with themes that appeal to children and families.”

Do Advertisers Really Care?

However, some observers think these brand safety issues have been overblown. It has been suggested that some advertisers are much more worried about consumer backlash over brand-safety incidents than they are about the incidents themselves. In the grand scheme, there are relatively few flare ups when considered in the context of how many ads are served, says media analyst and consultant Thomas Baekdal.

“What brands are worried about is to be called out about something – often outside of their control – and to face some type of backlash. Because of it… they are worried about what people might say or do on social channels,” he says. “They are also worried about activists, who in recent years have grown far more aggressive. And again, with the help of both the press and social media, they have managed to have a far bigger impact using very few resources.”

That may be true. But any time a major advertiser like AT&T, which spends a total of billions in advertising annually, pulls its advertising from one of the world’s largest platforms, reporters do need to cover it – regardless of whether or not it’s a cynical PR move on the brand’s part. (You could argue that the business press should stop covering PR stunts like this altogether, but that’s an entirely different conversation.)

All or Nothing

Baekdal also questions the move to ban comments, arguing that in some cases, comments are integral to a platform’s existence, or a content creator’s success. “One of the things we have to remember is that YouTube is fundamentally a two-way channel. It’s a platform where you are communicating rather than simply publishing. So, taking away comments entirely is a pretty drastic step that, for some channels, could destroy them,” he says. “If you have a YouTube channel where the discussion and the community are what defines the focus, removing comments would kill that channel. More to the point, it punishes the wrong people.” In fact, if some of the comments are inappropriate, disabling all comments penalizes the video’s poster.

Shelly Palmer recently wrote a column for Ad Age that’s worth reading in full. He argues that we should stop looking at YouTube to ever be totally brand safe. Palmer posits that there is no possible way to make YouTube, or any environment that relies so heavily on user-generated content (UGC), 100 percent brand safe. “Asking ‘Is YouTube safe for my brand?’ is a better question, and it is the proper lens for any serious marketing discussion.”

The Quality Question

For publishers, there’s a potential upside to all this uproar. Just after the most recent YouTube incident, Digiday noted that agencies began looking to directly buy from premium publishers on YouTube, potentially providing a revenue boost.

And let’s not forget brand safety is not a one-dimensional issue. And, for many advertisers, it isn’t limited to these noisy consumer outcries and PR flare ups. At the Digiday Media Buying Summit in November, GroupM’s Joe Barone defined it in a number of ways, including viewability and concern over bot traffic. Less flashy, but still important.

“We’ve also begun to talk about is the idea of quality. If we can get a quality environment, quality inventory from quality publishers, that are seen by real people in appropriate contextual environments, those ads sell better. Brand safety is linked directly to inventory quality and client results. Clients have become very educated on this process. They ask the same questions. They start with questions like ‘you mean to tell me my ads aren’t being seen?’ or ‘bots are clicking on my ads?’”

About the Author

Maureen Morrison is a marketing consultant working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands. She previously was a reporter and editor, having spent nearly 12 years at Ad Age covering agencies, digital media and marketers.