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

Menu

Category results for "Perspectives"

Industry-Research | Perspectives

WebRTC is the newest, trickiest front in the fight against redirects

One of the great challenges in digital ad security is the fact that the bad actors always start this race in the lead. Whenever the legitimate ad industry gets to work eradicating one security threat, malvertisers find another point of entry to deploy their sinister wares.

For the past couple of years, the industry has had its sights on auto redirects, which can abruptly end the user’s session, prevent the affected publisher from monetizing that session, and potentially damage that user’s trust in the publisher’s site. The fight against redirects is ongoing. And now it’s complicated by a new attack vector—vulnerabilities in the commonly-used web WebRTC protocol. Those vulnerabilities are now responsible for a quarter of all identified redirects.

Exploiting a vulnerability

WebRTC is a framework that facilitates audio and video calls and chats across different web browsers and mobile apps, including VoIP tech (i.e., web phones). It’s used by a large number of major digital companies—Google, Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera. Back in 2015, media outlets reported WebRTC had a security flaw that could expose users’ real IP addresses. At that time, this was treated as a risk for users who wanted to browse anonymously. Now, malvertisers have gotten in on the game, using that same point of entry to unleash redirects on users.

This rash of redirect attacks is particularly sinister because they take advantage of WebRTC, which is a distributed peer-to-peer service. Blacklisting doesn’t work here as a security method, because there’s effectively no server or domain to blacklist. The perpetrator of the attack will send the request for a redirect to a STUN server, which itself can’t be blocked because it’s used by legitimate companies (Google, Microsoft and so on) running legitimate scripts. If you were to block these attacks, you’d block any data from major cloud-based services.

Targeted and tenacious

The scammers’ strategy gets sneakier from there. WebRTC allows bad actors to identify whether the user already has a public IP or is outside of the targeted range for their attack. It even allows them to identify whether the “user” is likely to be a real person or merely an emulator set up as a security measure. If the user does not seem to be a real person within the desired range, they’ll simply be shown a legit ad from a third-party programmatic ad platform. If they “pass muster,” they’re served a redirect code. And now the perpetrator also has logged their VPN, IP and local network addresses.

In short, blocking any one entity launching these redirects is nearly impossible. Their code is written to evade at several possible security points, using channels that are already difficult to moderate because of their decentralized nature. In researching this problem, GeoEdge found some of these bad actors will evade detection even if it means leaving revenue on the table that they could potentially hijack.

The trouble with header bidding

Technically, any form of malvertising could sneak through WebRTC. But so far, the attacks we’ve identified have been redirects. The bad actors are exploiting vulnerabilities in the programmatic marketplace. In particular, they use header bidding, which has been exploited in 87% of redirects through WebRTC. All told, our research has shown that redirects are costing the digital ad industry $325 million per year, and 24% of those redirect attacks exploit the WebRTC loophole.

GeoEdge studied how these malvertisers operate by reverse-engineering scripts, discovering the malicious code, and using it to launch trial attacks. From that point, researchers could investigate how to block attacks via WebRTC without also breaking WebRTC’s functionality. Ad blockers, they found, were one possible method. However, at times, ad blocking technology can prevent WebRTC from working properly.

The real-time approach

A more effective strategy is one that is already becoming industry standard—analyzing code, recognizing when an unfamiliar script show similar characteristics or behaviors to a known threat, and blocking the problem code before it reaches the publisher’s page. This real-time approach has been embraced by a growing number of publishers in the fight against redirects from other vectors. It’s proven similarly effective in guarding the WebRTC entry point, without impeding the user’s ability to communicate with others across various browsers and devices.

The fight against malicious and low-quality ads will always find its way to new fronts. As it does, all legitimate digital companies, including ad security providers, must find those fronts and engage. When the bad actors manage to evade security methods the industry has relied on in the past, it is time to develop new technology. We may not know what risks we’ll face in the future, but for now, the industry’s best bet is to move toward real-time risk detection and blocking as table stakes in the digital security game.

To learn more, download the GeoEdge white paper. WebRTC Malvertising: fighting a new form of obfuscated attacks.
Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives

In a crowded streaming market, content alone will not ensure survival

The cord-cutter’s dream of paying less for entertainment content is already on the rocks. Early analyst warnings about the reality of subscription saturation have filtered through to the mainstream, with a Mashable article titled ‘There are officially too many damn video streaming services’ reaching the front page of reddit. In it, Mashable’s Senior Tech Correspondent Raymond Wong argues that while Disney’s annual $69.99 fee is probably worth it for access to Disney’s vast stock of content from Marvel, Pixar, Fox etc., the arrival of yet another challenger to Netflix’s streaming dominance may ultimately be bad for the consumer.

Between Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Video, CBS All Access, the upcoming Apple TV+  and any number of other services, it’s easy to see why. Each has exclusive content across a wide variety of genres, so in theory each at least have one or two shows of interest to most audiences. It’s the ice cream stall dilemma on a larger scale: A huge amount of choice, but actually picking one feels more like denying yourself access to every other service.

How much is too much?

So, to get access to all those films and shows would require a number of subscriptions, the total cost of which will run into the hundreds of dollars per month. Small wonder that redditors pushed the Mashable article to the front page; the promise of cheaper, unbundled OTT entertainment is now in doubt. Subscription saturation is already here, and there will be casualties. Even Netflix has already borne the brunt of Disney’s entrance into the space, having lost as much as $8 billion off its market cap in the aftermath of the announcement.

To compound the problem, it’s highly unlikely that the number of streaming services has capped out. For media companies with huge back catalogues of film and television shows, it is far better to own the distribution system, audience data, and direct revenue. So, expect more efforts like The Criterion Channel to launch. Meanwhile, to differentiate themselves from the giants like Netflix and Amazon, smaller streaming platforms like Shudder are making a play for niche audiences clustered around a particular genre.

Standalone value

However, while people are more habituated to pay for entertainment content than digital news, there is still a finite amount of subscription revenue out there. More than any consideration, the exclusive content available on a streaming service will be a deciding factor for audiences. That does not mean, however, that the broadest range of films and shows will necessarily win out.

The lure of a new show is what typically attracts subscribers to a streaming service in the first place. CBS All Access made the exclusivity of shows like Star Trek: Discovery the tentpole of its marketing. It even went so far as to commission some short episodes between the first and second seasons to convince subscribers who might have been tempted elsewhere to remain with them.

Similarly the announcement of Apple TV+ notably contained no information about pricing. However, it did showcase the triple-A nature of its commissioned shows and movies, with names like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams, Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Aniston, and Kumail Nanjiani already on board.

Originals approach

Netflix, wary of the media companies whose content is has licensed until now pulling their content, is also heavily investing in originals. It is reportedly spending $15 billion in 2019 on content, with a commensurate increase in its marketing budget so that everybody knows about it. Analysts expect a close to $3 billion marketing budget this year. It is obvious, then, that the range of content each platform has is currently seen as the differentiating factor for the bigger players in the space.

(This issue is muddied slightly by content considerations, with some US ‘exclusives’ being carried by competitors internationally as with Star Trek: Discovery appearing on Netflix elsewhere, and the requirement for streaming services to create a proportion of their content domestically when they enter a market like France.)

As mentioned earlier, however, there are some services that are making their niche nature the selling point to consumers, trading less mass-market appeal for a more targeted approach to exclusives. Horror-based service Shudder (owned and operated by AMC) has both negotiated the exclusive rights to certain horror movies and commissioned original content, while DC Comics’ VOD service (currently only available within the US) offers access to shows based around popular characters from the comics.

These services, with lower price points, are wisely trying to avoid the crush at the top by offering services that are additive to the larger services rather than in direct competition.

However, as the field becomes more crowded, it is unlikely that content alone will be the sole deciding factor for audiences looking to optimise their subscription spending.

Here, then are three criteria that might help determine which of the current services will be among those counted as ‘winners’:

User experience

Much has already been written about the discovery and recommendation options offered by Netflix, Amazon Video, and their ilk. Between the wealth of user data to which they have access and some smart people at the helm, those services have made user experience as smooth and effective as is possible. In April 2017, UX expert Justin Ramedia wrote:

“Netflix, through an easy-to-use interface, showed us how simple watching entertainment through the internet could be. They used strategic partnerships with Nintendo, Xbox, Roku, Amazon and more to ensure that people didn’t have to watch from their computers. Anyone could sit with their friends and family and stream thousands of hours of media whenever they liked. That genie won’t go back into the bottle.”

One of the criticisms that was most frequently levelled against The Criterion Channel’s defunct predecessor FilmStruck was that its UX was lacking. While in the UK, VOD services like the ITV Player and the BBC’s iPlayer are serviceable lack some of the recommendation tools that have been instrumental in making sure that users stay glued to Netflix even after the whole series has been binged.

The reality is that as newer entrants into the market begin offering exclusive content, they will inevitably be measured against the best in the environment. In order to succeed they’ll need to be as good or better to compete, as we’ll discuss later.

Platform availability

As Ramedia pointed out, Netflix made it a point to have a presence on each and every possible platform, from desktops to connected televisions to games consoles, including the shockingly poorly selling Wii U. Now, Disney appears to be following suit: Its announcement included a slide that showed each piece of tech hardware it intends the service to run on.

The point about existing across all these platforms isn’t that those streaming services believe they’ll necessarily get tons of sign-ups through those platforms or even because they exist on them. After all, the install base of the Nintendo Switch, while impressive for a relatively young console, is far smaller than the number of people who will sign up on desktop or connected TV. Instead, it is primarily in service of providing a holistic service to their subscribers, ensuring that they always have access to one particular streaming service on each and every device they own.

As with UX, the idea is to reduce any possible friction for a subscriber base, to ensure that no competitor gets a look-in or advantage from existing on a device that Disney+ does not. And as another plus for us Switch owners, it all but guarantees that Netflix will join Hulu on the console sooner rather than later.

Entrenchment

For many, Netflix’s early entrance into the market all but guarantees it success. It is the go-to comparison when we talk about rival streaming services, and its ubiquity has led to ‘Netflix-like’ comparisons for other digital services. Its entrenchment in the market is primarily due to the early mover advantage it has enjoyed, of which the service is keenly aware. As its competitors gear themselves up to compete in terms of content, Netflix appears to be digging itself in deeper by prioritising maintaining market share above profit. As Variety’s Todd Spangler reports:

“One reason Netflix is continuing to make big investments now is that it’s going to face serious new streaming competition from media giants Disney, WarnerMedia and NBCUniversal starting later this year. So it’s focusing on building out a wider moat instead of delivering profits, a strategy Wall Street continues to praise.”

That makes it an uphill struggle for any new entrant into the market. This is the case even for those without the deep pockets of Amazon, Apple or Disney who can gradually chip away at Netflix’s 139 million global subscribers through offering lower price points or a greater back catalogue.

Despite the ongoing success of the larger streaming services, growing consumer dissatisfaction with the total cost of subscriptions and a soft cap on the amount people can afford to pay means competition is only going to get fiercer over the next few years. And as the dismal performance of YouTube Red (now Premium) demonstrates, investment in original content alone is unlikely to be the sole differentiating factor. Instead, a combination of the other three criteria and harder to measure qualities including audience affinity with a brand are likely to be the determining factor for success in the streaming world.

Perspectives

DCN’s must reads: week of April 18, 2019

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Perspectives

Reduce, reuse, refocus: How to scale your branded content operation

We’re living in the age of “banner blindness,” where internet users are either subconsciously or consciously (read: grumpily) ignoring display ads.

This means that of the small number of readers that are seeing these ads, a truly dismal percentage — 0.05%, to be exact — are clicking on them. But this wasn’t always the case. If you ask some old guard advertisers about the golden age of display ads, they might speak reverently about the pixelated 1994 banner ad (purchased by AT&T on HotWired.com) that inspired 44% of viewers to click on it. What brilliantly crafted message garnered this level of engagement, you ask? “Have you ever clicked your mouse right HERE? YOU WILL.”

Needless to say, times have changed. People increasingly seek out companies with a human face behind them, and the best way to show your humanity as a brand or publisher is through storytelling.

However, story-driven content has a major problem: scalability.

Fifteen percent of publishers cite scaling content production as a stumbling block. Yet 90% expect their company’s revenue from branded content to increase over the next year. With most publishers creating content for multiple different brands and clients, it can feel like an insurmountable task to give each one the attention they deserve.

The 3 Rs of Scale

If you’re looking to scale your branded content production, there are three words you need to keep in mind: reduce, reuse, and refocus.

Reduce

Rather than over-saturating your readers’ feeds with branded content, consider focusing your efforts on a smaller number of pieces that do more heavy lifting when it comes to engaging your audience and building your client’s brand.

Instead of putting all your time and energy into creating a wealth of broad, generic content, try homing in on a few key topics or issues that align with your client’s goals and your audience’s interests — and be honest with yourself about what those interests are. A quality piece of content is one that tells a story. Stories — especially ones with a compelling character or cause behind them — engage our entire brain, which is why we remember them and forget every banner ad we’ve ever seen.

For example, if you’re working with a travel and hospitality client, hunt for a compelling story about the destination that you’re promoting and then tell it in an inspiring way. The New York Times’ T Brand Studio knew this when they teamed up with the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel in Vancouver. Rather than discussing room service options or bedsheet thread count, their article introduced readers to the quarter of a million honeybees that call the Fairmont home, and shared what its staff are doing to protect them.

Reuse

There’s a great deal of pressure placed on publishers and content creators to consistently produce new, original content. While staying on top of industry trends and addressing topical audience concerns is certainly important, you should also be taking stock of pieces that you’ve produced in the past and coming up with ways to repurpose them.

To effectively reuse (and by extension, scale) your content, start thinking “modular.” Focus on writing foundational pieces that you can then add building blocks onto, like videos, photo galleries, or infographics. If your client has hosted a brand activation or event (or even has just a few evergreen pieces of content under their belt), you could easily turn that into a string of modular content.

Another tactic is to take stock of what kind of content you already have on your site that the client could lend their support to. Maybe you have an exceptionally popular series that their brand could be integrated into. This is a great way to lend your publication’s authority to their company and allow for a more seamless content creation process.

Refocus

The key to refocusing your content efforts is to keep revenue top of mind. Think about what you’re selling and why. Then, consider how you can make the content more profitable for you and your brand partner. The right decision will help you maximize revenue while also giving your sales team room to negotiate with clients.

When it comes to branded content, not all business models are created equal. However, depending on your and your brand partner’s goals (i.e. impressions versus engagement), one model may be much better suited for your needs than another.

Model Behavior

For instance, the Flat Fee model ensures all costs are fixed, from creation to distribution. It’s advantageous for partners who have strictly defined expectations for their content. If you prefer to adapt your strategy on the fly, this isn’t the model for you. Another option is to split the costs of production from distribution. This makes it easier to charge incrementally based on client expectations, while still making sure your creation costs are covered. You can also use this method to turn a single content piece into a significant revenue-earner by selling the client extra promotional assets, like reads and impressions.

Choosing between these two is important, too. The Cost Per Thousand Impressions (CPM) model measures cursory views, not engagements. Therefore, it’s not the best choice for those seeking to build a connection with readers. It is, however, perfectly suited to a campaign that includes a large number of assets like banners and other display ads. In contrast, the Cost Per Engagement (CPE) or Cost Per Read (CPR) model is well-suited to branded content, as it bundles the content with a number of high-quality reads so advertisers know exactly what to expect.

As you’re scaling your content, keep in mind that even a small amount of high-quality content can go a long way if you’re smart about what you’re creating and how you’re packaging it. The overarching goal is to communicate your brand partner’s unique selling features to your customers, so keep your target audience in mind. Set yourself up for success by finding new and unique ways to scale your content, from production through to distribution.

Featured Post | Perspectives

Publishers have their mojo back

I’m calling it. 2019 is the year publishers get their mojo back. While there’s still work to be done – and the rewards for many are further down the road – the signs are pointing in the right direction. 

More than ever, digital media companies understand that their most precious assets are their audiences and advertisers. They understand that they must foster this relationship over time through their programming, advertising opportunities and the overall experience they create wherever they touch their customers. And, they understand that their brands are proxies for this trust. Without a doubt, the companies that publishers choose as business partners — whether distributing their content or advertising — can, and do, have a lasting impact on this trust.

Those of you who have been in the digital media business for a while are probably thinking: “Haven’t we been here before?” and perhaps you’re wondering what’s really changed in the past two years. Here’s the way I see it:

Facebook: pivots around publisher content

Initially, publishers believed the promise of a fire hose of traffic to their sites but eventually grew tired of the hoops they were jumping through to address Facebook’s changing priorities. From organic content to paid promotion, external traffic evolving into Instant Articles, embedded video becoming Facebook Watch, and everything-must-be-free to efforts to support paid subscriptions – it’s mind boggling. But all of this has resulted in publishers wanting to control their own destinies more than ever before.

Apple: push for consumer privacy

While Apple’s push for consumer privacy in its Safari browser is a laudable approach, it has hamstrung publishers’ ability to monetize their web inventory. At the same time, it pushes publishers towards Apple’s closed app platform where they cough up 30% of their revenues from selling subscriptions to their own apps. In an odd way, this 30% take-rate by Apple has made its reported 50% take on its new Apple News+ product seem more acceptable. In any case, growing consumer trust through a higher privacy bar while building in real support for publisher ad and subscription revenues are steps in the right direction.

Google: control of advertising supply chain

Google has demanded that publishers allow it to track their customers and collect their behavioral data across the web. At least if they want to get the full benefit of what has evolved into a Google-influenced, if not controlled, advertising supply chain. Google has also essentially made it a requirement for publishers to participate in AMP if they want to avoid being lumped into a news black hole on mobile. The relationship with Google can easily be one of the more sensitive issues inside any media shop and rocking the boat will almost certainly have consequences. However, consumers aren’t happy with unrestricted tracking, and that bodes well for trustworthy publishers who are transparent and handle consumer data with care.

Emerging platforms: a chance to get it right

There are new platforms growing quickly, which will succeed or fail based on their ability to fully appreciate the value of high-quality programming. Each one surfaces new negotiations and concerns. Roku is one to keep an eye on as they have the chance to reinvest in high-quality, brand-differentiated programming by truly partnering with their publishing partners. Or, they may be the next Blackberry — steamrolled as their market advantage is lost to other larger platforms that can beat them on technology alone. However, the path to success for emerging platforms will be true partnerships with trusted content brands.

What’s next? 

While we may never know exactly what has caused this shift, it is a positive sign that digital media companies here and in Europe are also asking for the same things, which I’ve seen first-hand. Publishers now speak of Facebook, Google, and even Apple not simply in terms of opportunity but with skepticism. They see the positives of each in driving new audiences, innovations, and experiences – and to be a part of what is “next.” However, they’ve turned a critical eye to each platform’s motivations and are pressing for better terms, including:

  • Protecting and preserving the relationship with their audience. They know that trust and value reside in the relationship: The data, the brand and two-way dialogue with the customer. 
  • Ability to drive subscription or membership revenue. For too long, this was antithetical to the interests of platforms, which wanted to touch as many users as possible for the purpose of mining their data for targeted advertising. The global discussion around this issue has shifted, starting in Europe. Now, the rest of the industry is trying to catch up. 
  • True partnerships. They’re not looking for another quick fling, featuring a spotlight appearance at Facebook’s or Apple’s soiree. Hopefully that no longer carries the glamour it once did as the hangovers are real. Instead, publishers are looking for fair value and a long-term commitment by the platforms to work together, solve issues, and build success for all parties.

Publishers everywhere are looking at these opportunities with a shrewd business eye. They recognize that these opportunities are being designed and offered by an intermediary to their customers. And, as the stock market clearly demonstrates, these intermediaries are focused on maximizing their own profits.

Whatever the reason, or confluence of events that caused it: The non-negotiable, take-it or leave-it discussions from platforms are in the rear-view mirror. Change is here and publishers have rediscovered their mojo.

Now it’s time to put it to work.

Marketing | Perspectives

Are YouTube video ads getting longer?

When YouTube first introduced the six-second video ad in 2016, it seemed like the future of the industry would be all about shorter ad content. At the time, Google linked the launch to the rise in mobile viewing, saying that “many people prefer to watch on their smartphone – for the control, personalization and ease it offers.” Everyone expected to see more snackable inventory and ad formats.

Among advertisers, these six-second “bumpers” quickly became a commonly used format. A number of marketers claim to love them, and for good reason. The six-second video seemed to address the problem of some viewers ignoring ads outright or complaining about an extended intrusion on their viewing experience.

Quick Success Story

Google was quick to tout the success of six-second campaigns as well. A blog post from April 2017 titled “Say It in Six: Why marketers and creatives are embracing the newest video ad length,” reports that they analyzed 122 six-second US campaigns and “found that 70% drove a significant lift in brand awareness, with an average lift of 9%. On ad recall, they perform even better – over 9 in 10 drove ad recall globally, with an average lift of over 30%.”

To keep up with the industry leader, YouTube’s competitors focused on shorter video advertisements, too. Facebook, for example, rolled out six-second ads almost two years after YouTube’s initial launch of the format. Per this Facebook blog post, “in a mobile-first world, shorter video ads drive results” as consumption patterns have shifted, with people not “watching ads for as long as they used to, on any medium.” However, there is some evidence that the market is recalibrating – at least on YouTube.

Room for Growth

Here at MediaRadar, we analyzed all online video ads that ran in January and February of 2018 and 2019. In doing so, we were able to compare the ads that ran on YouTube to ads appearing on other video and streaming platforms year-over-year (YoY).

Surprisingly, the data shows that, for 2019, longer video ads are becoming more common again. Only 16.5% of YouTube ads at the start of 2019 were six-second ads (down from 20% in 2018) and 30-second videos made up 24% of YouTube ads in 2019 — up from 19% in 2018. This is a statistically significant shift for the site and could even signal a category-wide change

Additional data about video length mined in the study supports the longer-ad trend:

  • 15-second ads were the most commonly used format, accounting for approximately 40% of all video ads running during the study and 47% of ads on YouTube; this was consistent YoY. There is some nuance involved here, however. Fifteen-second ads were previously not available for auction to all advertisers. Only recently has YouTube opened up the supply from a reserved model.
  • There are almost no 0-5 second ads. The format made up only 3% of all online video ads and 1% of YouTube ads.

So What Time is It?

Is this signaling the death of the short six-second advertisement?

I’m not so sure.

However, it does show that long-form digital video content still has a role to play, as it allows for more information to be conveyed and has proven more effective than videos six seconds or shorter. According to analysis by Teads, “six-second ads have an average view-through rate (VTR) of 55% on mobile devices but have an EmotionAll score of 3.6 compared to 5.1 for 30-second ads.” They are viewable, but not always resonant.

However, I wouldn’t count out the six-second video altogether. It has a place in the attention economy, especially when a younger demographic is targeted. Research time and time again finds that Gen Z, for example, which watches YouTube the most – and does so primarily on mobile devices – is more receptive to shorter ad formats. This might be why we’re seeing the 15-second video ad as the house majority. It just may be the video advertising sweet spot, balancing the desire to keep things short but long enough to drive an emotional impact.

Marketing | Perspectives

Attention is abundant, but you have to earn it

Advertisers used to take our attention for granted — because they could.

For every hour of television we watched, networks force-fed us 17 minutes of commercials. Radio jingles were a fixture of every car ride. Whenever we opened a newspaper or a magazine, we were greeted by pages upon pages of slogans and taglines.

In those days, marketers could always count on having a direct line to consumers. There was no opting-out; audience attention was an entitlement. But we all know those days are long gone.

Today, reaching consumers and building connections require marketers to earn attention — a more difficult task that requires far more innovation.

Now, for less than $10 a month, you can stream almost every song ever recorded or binge watch shows and movies for hours — all without the threat of an ad.

Even where the majority of advertising budgets are spent, scale has been the defining metric and continues to persist today. On social media, where it’s still possible to reach consumers at scale, audiences are far from captive. Instead, the average person scrolls through 300 feet of feeds every day — the height of the Statue of Liberty, including the torch. It might be easy to capture a click, but it’s much more difficult to make a connection.

The job of a marketer is ever changing. Once the mouthpiece of innovation, a marketer now needs to be the source of innovation, through new customer acquisition strategies, consumer mobile experiences, or customer service, to name just a few. For those who try to avert this new reality, there are real business consequences. (See: the DTC disruption of larger incumbents across nearly every industry, or the $15B writedown of Kraft — an action directly tied back to lack of investment in the brand and innovation).

The risks of not building a brand that matters — a brand that is worthy of people’s attention — are becoming more evident.If we’re not entitled to time with audiences, what can we do to earn it?

It’s in this light that marketers and media companies are becoming more alike. Delighting audiences, creating connections, building a brand people trust are not only priorities for us, but they’re also prerequisites for building a modern media company.

If you’re nodding along thinking that this state of things is obvious, I ask you this: If we’re not entitled to time with audiences, what can we do to earn it?

1. Redefine context to include mindset

I wake up in the morning and check how the Sixers did last night (trust the process), read a few daily newsletters, and waste time by saying something snarky on Twitter on my way to work. In the office, I’ll read industry news, research a client’s latest business opportunities in preparation for a meeting, and end my day listening to a podcast while trying to find the newest restaurant in New York worth a try.

Why am I telling you my media diet? For starters, it’s because this user did much more than act as a male 18-34, business-decision-maker who recently put another pair of white Converses (free ad) in his cart. I acted like someone who didn’t want to look stupid in front of colleagues to going on a fact-finding mission and getting in dinner-planning mode.

I am the same person through those experiences, though my mindset changes constantly — with different expectations, different intentions, and a different level of receptiveness to very different messages.

Every minute we’re online, our attitude changes. It’s no longer enough to frame context solely around premium environments or whether the words on the page are brand safe. It’s about reaching and connecting with people based on the mindset they’re in, not just the latest pair of shoes they put in their cart.Do a job for audiences. Don’t just look for a transactional relationship based on personal information.

People have many (often independent) identities and marketers should treat people like the multi-dimensional — and yes, fickle — internet users that we are.

To earn attention and build real connections, do a job for audiences. Don’t just look for a transactional relationship based on personal information. Consider the whole context (and the whole person!), and meet audiences in the right mindset.

2. Measure what matters — not what’s easy to count

Too often we optimize for what’s easiest to measure, focusing on the data that’s most readily available.

We even try to justify bold decisions, like Nike’s recent campaign with Colin Kaepernick, with easy-to-access metrics like stock price: “What a bold move, their stock is up XX%!” In reality, if Nike’s core customers love and identify even more with the brand because of it, that sounds like enough of an outcome to me. People overly worried about what Nike’s stock price does in the immediate aftermath aren’t assessing Nike’s long term health anyway.The harder something is to measure, the more it’s worth your time and energy.

Real, long term returns come from optimizing for things that are harder to measure. And just because it’s harder to measure doesn’t mean it’s not worth focusing on. Rather, the harder something is to measure, the more it’s worth your time and energy.

Our industry values scale, clicks, views. But what about impact, connections, and loyalty? These are the metrics that matter.

How do you make an impact? How do you make a connection? By communicating brand values to your audience through creative storytelling. Telling great stories transcends platforms, audiences, formats, and environments. Combine this with our new definition of context and you will build deep audience relationships delivering both near and long term business results.

Earning attention means remembering value creation exists outside of a spreadsheet. Don’t let technology and data set your entire strategy. Make a connection, earn one.

3. Find a long term partner worthy of your trust

My final message for marketers is this: I need your help just as much as I believe we can help you. Like you, we are laser-focused on developing stories that break through the noise and appeal to audiences. And like you, we do it across platforms — through articles and videos, podcasts and live events.

But that’s only part of the reason marketers and media companies make such good partners. Modern media companies work every day to earn audience attention, beginning with an unwavering dedication to audience trust. These are not transactional relationships and they are not lost in 300 feet of mindless daily scrolling. From this perspective, it’s obvious to us why consumer trust in social media is half that compared to modern media.

From there, we take a holistic, strategic, and long-term approach to building our brand and making an impact — and we approach our partnerships the same way. Our goal is to find collaborators who are in it for the long haul, who make us smarter about what we do — and who expect us to do the same for them. These kinds of long-term partnerships are more strategic, consultative, and iterative (and more fun!).Let’s find collaborators who are in it for the long haul and who make us smarter.

As a result, this delivers compounding returns. Partners who have mastered creative storytelling in all forms, develop technology platforms for publishing, deliver high-value distribution channels, and layer insights across everything will continue to emerge as leaders.

To push us forward, let’s think of audiences in their fullest contexts — mindset-first — and respectfully foster relationships, loyalty, impact, and deep connections. Let’s lean into the creativity and storytelling that we know matters most. Let’s be worthy of our audiences trust and their time — and earn their attention together.

Ryan Pauley is Vox Media’s Chief Revenue Officer. When he’s in the mindset to waste time, you can find him on Twitter @rypauley.

Perspectives

DCN’s must reads: week of April 4, 2019

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Perspectives

5 steps to protect your website from digital ad fraud

There are many estimates for how much the digital advertising industry loses to ad fraud every year. Whether the number is $6 billion or $60 billion, fraud is a critical issue that causes advertisers to waste their ad spend and digital publishers to miss out on revenue that is stolen by fraudsters.

There are steps that everyone in the supply chain—including publishers—can take to protect their businesses against fraud. Here are a few suggestions to reduce your website’s risk for becoming a target for ad fraud.

1. Don’t Purchase Traffic

Legitimate publishers work hard to create quality content and drive audiences to that content. There are vendors that sell a fixed number of website visits for a fixed price. If the promise of generating a fixed number of website visits for a few dollars seems too good to be true, that’s because it probably is. A publisher might not know that the traffic is robotic because it was designed to pass through fraud detection as human. The best way to keep bots off your site is to avoid buying sourced traffic. Drive human audiences to your website through legitimate marketing activities such as email campaigns, sponsored social media posts and search engine marketing.  

2. Separate Humans from Bots  

There are some easy-to-implement preventive tools publishers can use to increase human interaction and limit bots. Encourage users to register for website access or implement a paywall. CAPTCHAs are another method that give users simple tests that only humans can answer. Newer CAPTCHA programs are efficient at determining whether a visitor is a human with little or no user input. Another non-intrusive technique to detect bots is referred to as a “honeypot,” which is an invisible image or form field on a webpage. While humans can’t see it, bots parsing through the html code will interact with it. Once identified, this nonhuman traffic can be filtered out of site measurement reports.

3. Continuously Monitor Traffic

It is important for publishers to understand where their site traffic is coming from and to continuously monitor traffic sources. A critical part of every digital marketing campaign is setting up the landing page URL to determine which campaign is responsible for traffic. A publisher might drive traffic by running a social media contest or sending an email blast. These types of marketing activities can be easily identified in web analytics. However, if the source is unknown or if the traffic exhibits suspicious characteristics such as spikes at unusual times or if it’s coming from one location or device type, these are red flags that the publisher needs to address. Publishers can take the proactive step of protecting media buyers by filtering traffic from bots and data centers and encourage their advertising partners to do the same. This prevents ads from being served to nonhuman traffic and increases exposure to real viewers.

4. Don’t Rely Solely on Fraud Detection Companies

Ad fraud detection services are a significant part of how the market transacts because they measure general and sophisticated invalid traffic and add friction to combat fraud. There are, however, limitations to any technology and different methodologies used, so it’s important to implement good business practices and human intervention to guard against bot traffic on your site and help minimize the risk of fraud.  

5. Follow Best Practices

Quality publishers do everything possible to minimize the risk of exposing their clients to fraud. By adhering to best practices, you can assure advertisers that you are taking necessary steps to attract human audiences and eliminate bots.

  • Work with accredited vendors you can trust (and make sure those vendors do the same).
  • Establish good business practices for monetizing your site such as those mentioned above.
  • Educate your staff to make sure they know that they are responsible to follow best practices.
  • Keep up with current and upcoming industry solutions. Publisher adoption of ads.txt, for example, helps demand-side platforms detect unauthorized digital sellers. With the release of OpenRTB version 3.0, which includes “Ads.cert: Signed Bid Requests,” the industry is taking the next step to improve transparency and security in the buying and selling process by ensuring that bid requests cannot be tampered with by downstream parties.
  • Engage in an independent, third-party audit to identify areas for improvement and show advertisers that you are taking steps to provide transparency and a safe place to reach their target audience.
Learn more about what you can do to help minimize ad fraud by downloading the AAM white paper: Three Truths That Help Confront the Digital Ad Fraud Crisis.
Innovation | Perspectives

Not just for news: HBR’s evergreen approach to newsletters

The first successful American newspaper was founded in 1704 by a postmaster named John Campbell. Called the Boston News-Letter, it was not unlike many email newsletters today: Campbell wrote “a summary of the most noteworthy items of information that passed through his post office and circulat[ed] that newsletter to a small group of friends.” As journalism historian Christopher Daly writes in his book Covering America, Campbell “filled his paper with stories that he lifted from London newspapers – supplemented by letters from his friends, news of the comings and goings of ships, public announcements, and some paid advertising.” Campbell didn’t have access to Substack or TinyLetter, but his product – a prototype for American newspapers – should sound familiar to subscribers of modern email newsletters.

As media companies and the public have grown more skeptical of social media platforms over the past few years, email newsletters have seen a resurgence. Publishing companies are being built around them, new publishing tools are gaining momentum, and we’re seeing countless experiments in editorial style, format, and more. But for all that experimentation, much of publishers’ effort around email newsletters has focused on what’s new. That makes sense, given that reporting the news is journalism’s central charge, but it’s only one opportunity that email provides.

Evergreen Approach

At Harvard Business Review, we recently launched a newsletter designed around more evergreen content. We wanted to blend the focused, short-run, “finishable” nature of pop-up newsletters with a more educational, course-like approach. We were inspired by how online learning platforms convey a sense of progression and by The Economist’s Espresso app, which offers the feeling of having completed the day’s news. The result is our 8-week email series on Managing Data Science.

When we started thinking about this project in early 2018, there were already lots of excellent newsletters devoted to data science and machine learning. Many of these, though, focused on technical, business, and societal perspectives. We wanted to cover the challenges that organizations face in actually managing data science work and teams.

A Must Read

HBR was inspired by how online learning platforms convey a sense of progression and by The Economist’s Espresso app, which offers the feeling of having completed the day’s news. The result was an 8-week email series on Managing Data Science.

Based on the success we’ve had with other curated products like our Must Read book series, we hypothesized that readers would prefer a finite series of carefully selected content over an ongoing weekly or monthly newsletter. We interviewed numerous data scientists to better understand the biggest management challenges that they were facing on their teams and to get their feedback on the concept. Then we commissioned and edited eight digital articles that became the heart of our email series. The articles were written by professional data scientists who’ve worked at companies including Google, Apple, Netflix, Stitch Fix, and Coursera. Each email in the series focuses on one theme (like the different types of data scientist), with all eight amounting to something of a mini-course on managing data science.

Following on the newsletter success that publishers including Axios and DealBook have had, we designed our email series to be more than a collection of links to content. Each issue links to one of the eight articles, but also contains what we think of as a “mega-summary” – a 400-word version that basically gives you the gist. It also includes further relevant reading from HBR and other sources, as well as a more lighthearted stat or chart at the bottom to reward readers who make it all the way through.

So far, Managing Data Science has been a success. More than 38,000 people have signed up for the email series, and our open rate is over 40%. We expect the audience to grow substantially throughout 2019.

Popping the Popup Bubble

In our experience, the evergreen-series approach to email has significant advantages in terms of product development, user acquisition, and editorial resourcing. Unlike an event-based pop-up newsletter, we didn’t face pressure to drive signups immediately at launch. We were able to stagger promotion over several months, testing and gathering feedback. This ultimately allowed us to make improvements to the design of the newsletter before promoting it to a larger audience. We’re now able to continue promoting the series and driving engagement with our readers without endlessly creating new content. Instead, we can focus on incrementally improving the series for new subscribers.

We’re not the only ones experimenting with evergreen content in newsletters. The New York Times has given its Smarter Living material regular space in its morning news briefing. Even closer to our experiment, The Information is offering email courses on topics like the future of mobility; Vox.com launched a newsletter on giving to charity at the end of 2018 that followed a similar approach; The Washington Post has a 12-week email series on cooking; and the Pew Research Center recently launched a two-week email course on immigration.

Engagement and Inspiration

These examples as well as our experience suggest that evergreen newsletters can become a critical part of publishers’ strategies. For one thing, email engagement tends to decline over time; short-run newsletters don’t ask readers to sign up in perpetuity. Therefore, they tend to have higher engagement. They also help publishers focus on a particular audience. And that focused relationship is between the publisher and the user, not mediated by social media algorithms. Finally, as mentioned, evergreen newsletters are a chance to take an iterative approach to improving email products. Because the content doesn’t need to be refreshed every day or week, more attention can be spent to continually improving other elements of the experience – such as the subject line – and adjusting where users would most benefit.

Newsletters are only going to become more important for publishers in the coming years. They can take many forms, and news briefings likely will (and should) be the quintessential email product. But email programs don’t always need to emphasize what’s new. They can help users learn about new topics or acquire new skills, too.

About the Authors

Nicole Torres is a senior associate editor at Harvard Business Review. Walter Frick is the deputy editor of HBR.org and will be speaking at DCN Content Everywhere on April 25.

Perspectives

DCN’s must reads: week of March 28, 2019

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Featured Post | Perspectives

Taking a bite out of Apple News+

This week, Apple announced a new suite of services including Apple News+ and Apple TV+, subscription services for news and video content respectively. It’s an interesting move for Apple, which excels at creating premium experiences, enjoys strong customer loyalty, and has the ability to potentially deliver audience scale. There are, however, serious questions about the revenue split, consumer relationship, app-market dominance, access to content, and Apple’s long-term commitment to publishers.

While few details are available at this point (particularly about Apple TV+), it appears Apple News+ will cost $9.99 per month with Apple taking a hefty 50% cut and distributing the remainder to all of the participating publishers. Tim Cook did not announce a price point for Apple TV+ but it seems likely to have similar characteristics as Apple News+, including a similar revenue split and distribution structure. 

A Lopsided Relationship

With these news services, Apple will control not only the relationship with the consumer, but will also control the data about the consumer.  It’s hard enough to build a subscription business without having another company serve as the middleman between the content creator and their audience.   Moreover, as New York Times’ CEO Mark Thompson put it, “Bundles always dilute the brand.”

More troubling is the fact that Apple runs the app marketplace itself via the App Store while simultaneously offering a media consumption app that competes with publishers’ branded apps as well as those of other aggregators such as Flipboard. An example of the inherent conflict of interest is that Apple places its own apps front and center, pre-installed on more than a billion phones worldwide. Beyond a glaring competitive advantage, controlling the marketplace and delivery mechanism of its competitors’ apps gives Apple unprecedented insights into the transactions of those companies (think Amazon selling its own brands while seeing everyone of its competitors’ transactions).

Market Monopoly

Apple forcing the reported levels of revenue splits and data terms underscores larger concerns about the dominance of platforms.  As Senator Blumenthal, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee has stated, “[t]here is much stronger agreement among me and my colleagues that there needs to be more aggressive enforcement action on tech companies.”  Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently called for the break-up of Apple and the other platforms. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has long voiced concerns about potential bias of big tech firms. Members of Congress are concerned that big tech platforms have too much influence and are harmful to society.  Although Apple has avoided a lot of the privacy gaffes of other tech giants, the fact that Apple can boldly propose such lopsided terms shows how the landscape is perilously tilted in favor of the big platform companies.

Bringing further voice to the concerns raised by policymakers, Spotify filed suit against Apple claiming that Apple “purposely limited choice and stifled innovation.” Spotify claims that Apple uses its platform to disadvantage competitors in the music streaming business, including by taking a 30% cut of subscription revenue.  While Apple is not proposing to get into the news business, the Apple TV+ product sounds like Apple will be both distributor and competitor.

And, considering the fact that Apple has expressed concerns in how digital advertising works, it seems an ironic choice for the company to favor advertising-based business models over subscriptions for publishers.

Quick Fix or Long-term Success?

Publishers are also rightly concerned about whether Apple will maintain a long-term commitment to this initiative. Facebook famously changes their terms, goals and algorithms about every six months, which makes it extremely difficult for publishers to build a sustainable business. Other social platforms have rolled out paid incentives to content producers only to withdraw them as soon as the programs are off the ground.  Publishers have rightly grown wary of purported platform support.

At the end of the day, Apple needs to make a serious commitment to making distribution work for high-quality news and entertainment. As we have seen in Google and Facebook’s own (hardly altruistic) need to invest in the production of content that their business models undermined, building a model that sustains quality content creation is the bedrock of long-term success.