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

Category results for "Perspectives"

Perspectives

Getting the whole story on ad blocking

Covering the “adblock wars” (as Doc Searls calls the situation) is hard. It’s like going to a peaceful protest where organized looters show up and mix with the protesters.

  • If you’re reporting on the event and you quote some protesters without mentioning looting that you know about, then you missed half the story by ignoring what the store owners could have told you.
  • If you cover the looting but not whatever the peaceful protesters are saying, then you missed the opportunity to find out anything about the issue behind the protest.

It’s hard to read about ad blocking without seeing just one side of a complicated story. On one side, web ads have a malware problem, and a fraud problem, and the long-running paradox of why the most targetable ad media are the least valuable and the most blocked. Web ads clearly need some serious help. For users, running a wide-open browser that leaks personal data and accepts risky scripts is not a realistic option. Some kind of protection tool under the user’s control is good for users, and for brands and publishers that depend on reputation-driven advertising.

But we can’t lump looters in with reformers, or we start fooling ourselves on real problems in the ad blocking scene, the same way that ad tech proponents keep fooling themselves on malvertising and fraud. Even in the browser’s built-in help, users aren’t getting the facts they need.

ADblockscreen

Are users getting the truth about Adblock Plus?
One web browser’s built-in info, the source of the box shown above, makes Adblock Plus look pretty harmless. It’s labeled as the work of an individual—but it’s a corporate project. If you look at the actual code, it’s labeled “Copyright (C) 2006-2016 Eyeo GmbH”. That’s not the tricky part, though.

This description says that Adblock Plus “can” mitigate tracking and malware. But if you actually flip that cute little switch thingy, you automatically get the “Acceptable Ads” paid whitelisting program, which enforces no standards on tracking or security at all. In order to get the protection claimed, you have to both add an “EasyPrivacy” filter list subscription, and turn off “Acceptable Ads” with a confusingly named “Allow some non-intrusive advertising” checkbox. If “Acceptable Ads” is left on, it overrides the EasyPrivacy subscription, which is not clear from the UI. If Facebook or some other user-tracking site had this level of transparency, users would be starting petitions.

This paid whitelisting isn’t just “controversial”. It’s actively wrong by any standard but the Silicon Valley “anything for network effects lol” standard. It is one of the four problematic practices covered in a recent complaint from the Newspaper Association of America (PDF) to the US Federal Trade Commission.

[A]s a review of the practices of ad-blocking companies discloses, consumers do not “opt out” of an ecosystem by using ad-blockers. Instead, they “opt in” to a deceptive new environment that does not adequately disclose its practices to consumers.

Adblock Plus has raised quite a brouhaha among surprised users, with the company’s recent announcement that it was going into the targeted advertising business. It looks like the plan was a surprise to unaware “partners” Google and AppNexus, too. But whether or not Adblock Plus is really an ad network now, the company still participates in the web advertising market as an intermediary, creating trouble for legit web sites. And ultimately the “adblock wars” will be won or lost based on choices made at those sites. The people who work hard to put news and cultural works on the web will have to decide what to do about ad blocking. Web publishers are in a double crisis right now.

Intermediaries can afford to hand-wave on the fraud problem, tell brand advertisers to go hire a security expert somewhere, and concentrate on blocking. Publishers, who bear the real costs of adfraud, can’t.

The good news is that promising solutions are already out there. The “reinvention not reinsertion” concept, from Dr. Johnny Ryan at PageFair, is a good example. Better privacy protection for a smaller number of higher-quality ads helps make them resistant to both blocking and fraud.

Privacy tool developers and publishers share interests, but in order to understand what we have in common, we must communicate clearly about the difference between, on one side, legit user concerns and the tools that address them, and on the other, the publisher-hostile paid whitelisting racket. If we want to make a reasonable case for next-generation advertising, it has to work for the people who write, shoot, edit, and publish our news and cultural works. That starts with telling the whole story.

Don Marti (@dmarti) is a contributor of code and documentation to the aloodo.org project, a low-friction way for sites and brands to reclaim the value of online advertising from fraud and ad blocking. He is the former editor of Linux Journal. Don is a participation strategist for Mozilla, where he works on open source collaboration issues. He does not speak for Mozilla on this site, and any opinions expressed here are personal ones. Don can be reached by email at [email protected].

Perspectives Image
Perspectives

DCN’s recommended reading: week of September 15, 2016

Our recommended reads from around the web: 

Perspectives | Policy

Spin this: We need to actually address the consumer need

Apple recently announced a fairly big change in their “Limit Ad Tracking” setting. Going forward, when a consumer activates the setting, the Identifier For Advertising (IDFA) will be set to 0. Thus, advertisers and ad tech companies would no longer be able to track that device across apps or websites and over time. While Apple asked companies to honor the “Limit Ad Tracking” setting before, it was hard (maybe impossible) to know whether companies actually complied. Now the setting has some teeth.

In response, ad tech lobbyist Alan Chapell is accusing Apple of giving consumers a way to opt out of advertising altogether. Naturally, as someone who advocates on behalf of publishers on these kinds of privacy issues, I had some initial reactions.

First, it’s absolutely ludicrous to say this is an opt out of advertising. Certainly it’s an opt out of behaviorally targeted advertising. But, the ads aren’t being blocked – they can still be served. What’s more the advertiser can still know that the ad has been served, where it was served and how it performed – companies would have a number of other options to derive this data. But let’s be clear: Advertisements can and will continue to be served. Apple’s change simply allows consumers to stop third party companies (with which they have no relationship) from using their IDFA to track everything they do on their device. There is actually a healthy argument that this change will make context and consumer relationships more valuable, which is important to both the consumers and the publishers of the content they enjoy on the web.

Which brings me to my second point: Consumers have been looking for ways to limit third party tracking for years and Apple is simply trying to meet that consumer need. Early on, consumers signaled their desire to limit tracking by clearing cookies – those tiny bits of code that ad tech companies planted on your computer. According to TRUSTe’s 2015 Privacy Index, 63% of consumers still clear their cookies. Then consumers started turning on the Do Not Track (DNT) signal in their browser. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has developed a standard, which the ad tech lobby has been fighting against tooth and nail. And, of course, now consumers are increasingly turning to ad blocking software.

Finally, Chapell points out that “addressability should not be under the total control of a single entity.” Sounds like a great idea to have a multi-stakeholder group help set policy and technical standards. But, when the W3C (you know – the people who helped create the web) convened a multi-stakeholder group of representatives from all segments of the industry along with a few consumer groups, the ad tech lobby including Chapell worked to undermine and destroy the effort.

To answer the question posed by Chapell – do consumers have a right to opt out of advertising? – it should be painfully obvious by now that consumers are already opting out of advertising. Instead of throwing stones at groups and companies trying to address the underlying consumer need, perhaps Chapell and the ad tech lobby could work on giving consumers an easier and more robust way to express their preferences. DNT would be a decent start. Without better choice mechanisms, consumers are going to increasingly turn to blunt tools like Apple’s Limit Ad Track setting and ad blockers.

Perspectives

The four fundamental elements of getting digital – and the marketing mix – right

Marketers have steadily improved the integration of digital strategy into overall brand strategy, but still face lingering doubts on achieving the appropriate media mix. Research is crucial.

Here’s a bold proclamation: “There are no lines between traditional and digital marketing,” according to the study Getting Digital Right 2016. In our third annual survey, Millward Brown Digital scans the horizon to assess the state of digital marketing. Based on responses garnered from more than 300 senior executives from brand, agencies, and media companies, we identified four principal findings for marketers navigating the evolving, multi-channel and cross-channel landscape.

1. Assemble the Team
Because customers now expect seamless experiences regardless of where and when they interact with brands, strategists have increasingly integrated ideas and implementation across traditional and digital channels. According to 74% of respondents, they have developed integrated strategies, representing a steady uptick from the 59% in 2014 and 67% in 2015. Note, however, that within the digital realm of Desktop/Laptop, Mobile and Social, there is room to improve integration; 33% of participants report these channels are not well integrated. A well-coordinated team will not only align digital and traditional strategies, but also maintain consistency within the digital sphere, so cross-channel efforts complement each other.

2. Master the Journey
Despite the importance of integration of traditional and digital strategies, 55% of marketers indicate they are not confident their organization understands how and where to reach and influence consumers in the buying process. Further, half of the respondents indicated they were not sure their organization has calibrated the media mix appropriately to align with the consumer’s journey. This 50% represents a worrisome increase from the 34% of 2014 and the 43% of 2015 that expressed uncertainty. In other words, creating the ideal mix of multiple channels – digital (total of 64%) and traditional (36%) – requires an even greater understanding of the consumer’s online and offline behaviors than before and pinpointing those touchpoints is essential for success.

3. Elevate Insights
Given this lack of confidence in calibrating the media mix, it is not surprising that marketers place an ever-greater emphasis on research and data. Indeed, brands, agencies and media companies all report they expect research budgets to increase in the next three years. Brand professionals are now more confident in how their organization uses Big Data than they were in 2015 – 41% compared to a shocking 14%! Still they remain less confident in their use of Big Data relative to their agency and media colleagues (59% and 60%, respectively). This suggests brand marketers may rely more heavily upon their counterparts at agencies and media companies for analysis. Because these agency and media marketers feel quite comfortable in their use of Big Data, they are more likely to generate actionable insights and devise ways to incorporate them into campaigns for their clients.

4. Unleash Impact
IncreasewithROITracking ROI of digital activities is a top priority for all respondents. It is the perennial issue: how to connect the dots between any promotional channel (or cross-channel) and the ultimate sale. The tools to track and effectively measure digital marketing continue to improve, yet measurable results from some segments, such as content marketing, events/conferences and webinars, remain murky. More research is needed, and, because brand marketers are less likely to substantially invest in such analysis, they will seek guidance from their agency and media partners who are allocating more dollars to this area. In fact, if they had the ability to better track ROI, nearly three-quarters of marketers would increase their spending in digital (74%) and cross-channel (71%) activities. The need to build tools that measure online and offline activities and how they lead to sales essentially unites all the themes discussed here: integrated traditional and digital teams, calculating the marketing mix and using research to understand and influence the customer journey.

So, now that three-quarters of marketers have evolved from siloed traditional and digital marketing teams to integrated brand strategists, there are plentiful opportunities to adjust media budgets in alignment with the consumer path to purchase. Synchronizing tactics within the digital realm creates a consistent consumer experience. Plus, an increased focus on research will permit measurement of campaigns, active incorporation of findings and adjustments to the marketing mix. The improved ROI for digital marketing will propel those integrated marketers to the head of the category. They will be getting digital right, and there truly will be no lines between traditional and digital marketing.

Feel free to download a copy of Getting Digital Right 2016 if you are interested in learning more.

Aaron Peterson is Corporate Marketing Manager for Millward Brown Digital (@Millward_Brown). As such, Aaron is a frequent contributor in industry media, hosts webinars, authors thought leadership, and manages the company’s flagship event, The Digital CMO Summit. Prior to his role in marketing, Aaron brings over 8 years of experience in client management and marketing research for Fortune 500 brands.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

The deal with disclosure and the ethics of native advertising

When it comes to native advertising, publishers are walking a fine line between reader trust and new revenue streams. For much of the short history of native advertising, publishers and media watchers have been debating about its transparency—or lack thereof—but in late 2015 the FTC weighed in and laid out a number of guidelines for publishers and advertisers to abide by.

According to the FTC, in general, disclosures should be:

  • in clear and unambiguous language;
  • as close as possible to the native ads to which they relate;
  • in a font and color that’s easy to read;
  • in a shade that stands out against the background;
  • for video ads, on the screen long enough to be noticed, read, and understood; and
  • for audio disclosures, read at a cadence that’s easy for consumers to follow and in words consumers will understand

As recently as April, however, AdWeek reported that 70% of Native Advertising did not comply with the FTC’s recommendations. Now Polar has taken a (slightly different) look at “The State of Disclosure.” The report found that 7.5% of native ads still aren’t using any terms to label their sponsored content. Yet, even with the hold outs, the report concludes, “2015’s FTC Guidelines for Native Advertising have influenced the levels and types of disclosure premium publishers are using on native placements.”

Polar found the most commonly used disclosure term is “Sponsored”—and all of its variants—appearing in over 55% of native ads. “Promoted” comes in next. Terms like “Partner” and “Presented By” are less popular than just not disclosing at all.

“Promoted” however is the best performing term, with a 0.19% CTR, compared to “Sponsored” with a 0.16% CTR. Still, there is more to the story. For desktop audiences, the term “Sponsored” marginally outperformed “Promoted” by approximately 26%. On mobile devices “promoted” dramatically outperformed “sponsored” by 105%.

So why aren’t companies hopping on board with “Promoted” if it delivers more clicks? Carla Johnson, an executive level strategist at Type A Communications, says, “I think this is for a couple of reasons. One is that the term ‘sponsored’ is a more commonly used term than ‘promoted’ and companies want to use terms with which people are familiar. It could also be that many companies don’t know the performance difference between the two. The interesting thing about the statistic is what the performance of both would be if they were used in equal volume.”

“This remains a thorny issue for publishers and advertisers alike—see Jon Oliver’s coverage of the topic on his HBO show for a good laugh—and publishers seem to just prefer the ring of ‘sponsored’ to ‘promoted’, even though the differences are indistinguishable,” according to Tim Bourgeois, Executive Editor of ChiefDigitalOfficer.net, and digital strategist at East Coast Catalyst. “Also, while most marketers and agencies are increasingly embracing data-driven tactics, they are also constantly making trade-offs between performance and aesthetics, and this is an example of where aesthetics is winning out, at least for the short term.”

When it comes to disclosure, it isn’t all about terms. Polar found that over 85% of native ad units contained only one disclosure term, but most incorporated two to three design elements—such as shading, a distinct border, or “info icons.” This is where things get murky. Relying on your audience to understand that a slightly grayed out box, or a different color border means that a post is actually a native ad—and not just a design choice—is less than transparent. For those immersed in the world of digital media and marketing these may seem like clear indicators of native content, but to the average reader, they don’t mean much. If these elements are accompanied by a clear “Sponsored” disclosure they can only serve to further call attention to the nature of that content, but without it, they are virtually meaningless.

Even with clear disclosures, audiences seem to still struggle to identify the difference between native ads and editorial content. MediaPost reported that in a Grady College experiment, “Overall, only 17 out of 242 subjects—under 8%—were able to identify native advertising as a paid marketing message in this experiment.” Experimenters “displayed 12 different versions of the ad, with varying types of disclosure labels (“advertising,” “sponsored by,” “brand voice,” and “presented by”), as well as different positions for the disclosure label including at the top, middle, and bottom of the page.”

With results like that, one has to wonder if the only thing left to do is point a giant neon arrow at sponsored posts. But readers’ inability to separate editorial from advertising content also says something else about native advertising—maybe even something good. If the goal of native advertising—and, more widely, content marketing as a whole—is to provide content that is on par with editorial content, then “Mission Accomplished!”

With Folio reporting that “Over two-thirds of magazine publishers leverage their own editorial teams to produce native advertisements, according to a study from FIPP and the Native Advertising Institute” it seems only natural that the quality of the content would make it virtually indistinguishable from the editorial. Whether or not you think that’s ethical depends on your outlook.

If you’re a marketer looking to deliver great native advertising, you’re probably thrilled that your audience can’t tell the difference between your copy and editorial. If you’re a reader, you might not be thrilled that you’re being fed advertising in the guise of editorial.

Here’s what it comes down to: If you’re a publisher you need to clearly mark your native advertising with disclosure terms, not just “design elements,” and continue to strive to make the content as compelling and useful as your editorial. From there it’s incumbent upon audiences to be more discerning—to pay more attention to what they are reading or watching—because unless there is a major sea change in the business of digital content (and audiences’ willingness to pay for it) native advertising is here to stay.

By day, I am the editor of EContent, where I cover the world of digital media and marketing. By night I am a reader and writer of books (including Inside Content Marketing), NPR addict, and avid gardener. Find out more at TheresaCramer.com or @TheresaCramer on Twitter.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue

Why Google’s crackdown on mobile pop-ups might be a good thing

It’s a relief for consumers and a worry for publishers: Google is cracking down on interstitial ads on mobile websites, thereby forcing publishers to rethink and revamp their mobile advertising strategies. And while the rationale might be good for Google and the ecosystem, it is worrying that the tech giant has so much power to act unilaterally.

These pop-ups, which publishers typically use to get a visitor to “like” a page on Facebook or sign up for a newsletter or serve an ad, for example, have become nearly ubiquitous across websites. Online publishers rely on them to help generate more subscribers or ad conversions. On mobile devices, where screens are smaller, these interstitials sometimes take up the entire screen, making users hunt around for a way to close them.

Dissuading Publishers
Let’s face it: These ads can be very annoying. And effective January 10, 2017, Google plans to dissuade publishers from using them by ranking those websites lower in its search results. As Mashable’s Emma Hinchliffe put it, “Google is pushing websites to choose between a high search ranking and obtrusive but lucrative ads.”

To be clear, not all interstitial ads will be penalized. Google has outlined the specifics of what it will deem appropriate versus obtrusive. Interstitials asking for age verification or permission to utilize cookies on a device are fine if used responsibly, as are banner ads that only take up a “reasonable amount of screen space,” according to a blog post by Google. But other commonly used ads that make content inaccessible, such as a pop-up that covers the main content of a website, or an interstitial that blocks the page unless a user closes the ad, are a no-no.

It’s an example of just how much authority Google has when it comes to advertising, as lower search rankings lead to less traffic on a website. But of course, more traffic—and the revenue that comes with it—is precisely what publishers and online operators want. So with this new scheme set to go into effect, using interstitials is tantamount to a lose-lose situation, as “Google’s continued nudges could make a difference in the long run,” according to The Verge’s Jacob Kastrenakes. The company had previously issued a penalty in November 2015 for the interstitial ads that asked users to install a mobile app, and is now somewhat rolling that penalty into this new decree.

Advantage of ad scrollers
What’s a publisher to do? Well, re-conceptualizing a mobile advertising strategy is obviously in order, to find out what mobile formats actually work. But it may not be as hard as some publishers think. A recent study by the IAB, the mobile advertising services provider PadSquad and the company Celtra, which works in display advertising, for example, found that “ad scrollers” may be the way to go. It’s an emerging mobile ad concept that allows the user to scroll the advertisement smoothly on or off the screen, and decreases “the tendency to block or overlook ads in the process,” The Drum’s Laurie Fullerton reported. The study delivered some stunning results on what happened when the scroller was used:

  • Brand category awareness increased by almost 26%
  • Ad awareness increased by almost 10%
  • Those who saw the ad were 17% more likely to consider it “distinctive”
  • Thirty-five percent of those who viewed the scroller ad expressed “positive feelings” about how the ad revealed itself
  • Sixty-three percent of those who saw the ad reported a higher purchasing intent after viewing

The study also showed that these ads were a hit with certain target audiences, namely Millennials. Forty-four percent of Millennials who viewed the ad reported positive feelings about the way the ad revealed itself, compared to 31% of those age 35 and over. Moreover, “while women saw the larger brand increases, men were much more impressed with the scroller’s look and feel,” according to the IAB.

Given that mobile advertising spending in the U.S. will increase by 41% this year and constitute 72.2% of all digital ad spending in 2019 (to become a $65.87 billion industry), publishers can’t afford to use ads without thinking of the big picture. But with smart and strategic understanding, publishers should be able to roll with Google’s changes. In fact, it might just push publishers onto better methods.

Perspectives Image
Perspectives

DCN’s recommended reading: week of September 1, 2016

Our recommended reads from around the web: 

Perspectives

Low Olympics ratings: What went wrong and what can we glean?

Everyone has been talking about the disappointing viewership of this year’s Olympics. Deadline reported that the Rio Olympics numbers had fallen 12% night-for-night from 2012. Additionally, the final Friday for Rio saw an audience drop of 19% from the comparable night of London 2012, which was also one of the lowest rated nights of that Olympics four years ago. Moreover, viewership among 18-to-49-year-old’s dropped by 25%.

While the viewer shift to live-streaming is one factor, that’s still a big dip. So, what happened?

The Buzz Before and During: A Comparison
Outbrain took a look to see if our headline data on the Olympics for 2012 vs. 2016 offered any insights. Here’s what we found.

The most clicked headline in 2012 was “The 8 Richest Athletes at the 2012 Olympics,” which was published four days after the 2012 Olympics began.

However, in 2016, the biggest spike in Olympics data consumption happened on 7/24/2016, 12 days before the opening ceremonies: “IOC decides against complete ban on Russians from Rio Olympics,” an Associated Press story that ran on multiple outlets.

OutbrainHeadlines

Additionally, 7 out of 10 of the top headlines we pulled from June 1st to the day after the Olympics were also arguably negative. And while the Top 10 Olympic Headlines in 2012 weren’t exactly beacons of positivity, their tenor was certainly more playful than grave.

A deeper look into our data from the period of 6/26/16 to 7/28/16 also reveals that whereas the largest content volume by keyword around the Olympics contained the keywords Russia and Zika, the two most in demand keywords (which were offered to audiences in relatively low volumes) were track and basketball.

So, while people may have wanted to read about the athletes and more positive (or even silly) stories, the majority of the content on the Olympics was far more negative.

One extrapolation is that all the negative coverage could have impacted the excitement going into the Olympics. Also, because the negative buzz peaked so early, it is possible that people were turned off by the games and neglected to consume content—or tune in—as the event progressed.

However, that’s just once piece of the puzzle. When taking in the bigger picture of the Olympics media coverage, here are some additional theories as to why we saw the ratings slip.

1. Competing Headlines
Pre-Olympics, our focus was elsewhere—particularly among the coveted Millennial Audience. If anything, July was the month of Pokemon Go, a viral sensation. One theory is that for these viewers, VR proved more engaging than real sports unfolding in front of them. Additionally, no one will disagree that this year’s election is uniquely engaging, with a new devastating headline emerging daily—if not hourly. It may have also been a distraction.

2. Complementary Headlines
It is also possible that the “IOC decides against complete ban on Russians from Rio Olympics” story took on more steam because of how it tapped into the overall narrative about Russia that has been unfolding in the US media. It is notable that July 27 (the peak consumption day for Olympics related content) was also when the Russia DNC hack gained credibility by American Intelligence. News outlets released a number of stories about this on July 27, the same day that the IOC Olympics headline peaked. While just a theory, it is possible that the Russia vs. American storyline was starting to sharpen and that the IOC’s ban lift only fueled more flame in the fire. It is also possible that people were just increasingly more interested in Russian-dominated storylines. Publishers may also have seen more click-throughs with this type of content and spotlighted it.

3. The Negative Headlines Didn’t Stop
Throughout the games there were sexist and racists media blunders all over the place. Add to this, the green Olympic pool and the Ryan Lochte embarrassment later in the game. These factors clearly contributed to the overwhelmingly negative tenor of the Olympics narrative this year, drowning out any positive coverage that emerged.

4. Olympics is No Longer a TV Event
No surprise here—we’re witnessing the demise of “event TV.” Super Bowl ratings also saw all-time lows and so did March Madness Championship ratings. Whereas people used to sit around the TV watching the Olympics together—and most live sporting events—that is happening less and less. Instead, people tune in on different mediums. (Such as Snapchat.) The recent Olympics ratings only further support this trend.  And to be honest, while 2012 Olympics ratings were better than this year, they were also an all-time low, which may suggest an overall trend towards declining Olympic viewership. Then again, it is possible that by embracing alternative viewing experiences (and a content narrative that consumers enjoy), this trend could be reversed.

5. The US Performs Too Well
Slate’s Justin Peters had an interesting theory that the US victory has become so normalized that viewers now ignore great performances. The drama—particularly for most covered sports like swimming and gymnastics—wasn’t there. Meanwhile, the sports the U.S. doesn’t dominate, like table tennis, badminton, and diving weren’t extensively covered by NBC.

What’s Next?
Already, there’s buzz about Japan hosting the next Olympics and everyone hopes that the next Olympics will be a turn in a positive direction. Early headlines seem promising, with their prime minister dressed up as Mario, “green” medals, and exciting new technology. But will it be enough to draw people in and will the headlines be as positive a month before the Olympic events commence? And, moreover, will it be enough to combat all the other competing trends? We’ll have to wait and see how it all unfolds.

As our data shows, exposure to positive or negative headlines early on definitely does appear to be one piece of the story. Overall, what we do know is that 2016 viewers were not as engaged as in years past. Whatever the reason, they tuned out. And the marketers that rely on their dollars will need to work hard to get them to tune back in.

JenniferBassettJennifer Bassett is Outbrain’s Managing Editor. She has 10+ years of experience in the content strategy and editorial space. She began her career as a book editor and has consulted for top agencies, non-profits, and media companies including Memorial Sloan Kettering, Havas Worldwide New York, and Interbrand. When she’s not talking content, she’s playing music with her bands The Missing Footage and The Living Kills. You can read more of her writing at jennifer-bassett.com.

Perspectives Image
Perspectives

DCN’s recommended reading: week of August 25, 2016

Our recommended reads from around the web: 

Advertising | Perspectives

To mock or not to mock? Avoiding fraudulent advertising campaign verification

To mock or not to mock? That is the question frequently asked by media publishers trying to meet advertiser demands related to digital campaign success. The industry’s intense focus on viewability and transparency issues associated with ad fraud hijacks the limelight from another vital area of interest for advertisers: Are campaigns actually running as contracted?

What the advertiser wants, the advertiser gets
To justify the millions (and millions!) of dollars spent promoting products, advertisers rightfully demand proof that their campaigns execute as promised. From expected ad rendering on the page to accurate targeting by geography and behavior profiles, advertisers want to know that the right ad has been served in the right way in the right location on the right page to the right demographic. In fact, when considering the average spend of a large-scale national campaign flight, many advertisers will assert they deserve to know their campaign is performing as promised.

Authenticated ad inventory yields benefits
The advertising ecosystem is a dynamic environment processing millions of ads covering billions in spend at any one time. Considering that 5% of display and mobile ads are served incorrectly at launch and countless more break during flight, publishers need to actively monitor and protect their ad-generated revenue channels.[i]

Authenticated ad inventory helps publishers secure ad revenue by avoiding pre-planned delivery overages to compensate for anticipated discrepancies. In addition, it also reduces the frequency of misfiring campaigns, thus minimizing instances of “make good” campaigns.

Ad verification is more than good looks
Reputable publishers recognize the value of their high-quality inventory and demonstrate it by providing proof of ad delivery according to established terms. This is a complicated prospect in an age of large-scale campaigns incorporating ads of varying formats (i.e., HTML5, pre/mid/post-roll video, native, etc.) through multiple platforms (i.e., display, tablet, smartphone, gaming consoles, etc.) across increasingly granular targeting segments.

A Photoshopped mock-up or full-page capture of the ad on a screen is a start, but it isn’t enough. Presenting a “mock-up” of how an ad should look could be considered fraudulent as it’s not a true representation of how an ad performs across all formats, devices and geographies. In fact, several industries (Tier 2 automotive, pharmaceutical, etc.) and countries (especially those in Latin America) regulate advertising-based billing processes and require third-party verified screenshots upon invoice presentation.

Beyond the visual of “how” an ad looks on a device, publishers must prove that each ad is delivered as contracted with the advertiser. Continuous monitoring of campaigns at launch and throughout flight will quickly detect errors associated with targeting, creative and device-specific issues that impede optimal campaign execution.

Authentication of possibly hundreds of ad combinations—by size, format, device and geography—is used by publishers to substantiate inventory value and by advertisers to audit and measure campaign ROI.

Consider this
To verify accurate ad placement, execution and targeting, a publisher must consider these five factors:

  1. Legitimacy: Screenshots of ads in a live environment truthfully demonstrate that an ad is delivered to the right target. A “mock-up” or “test page” may display how an ad appears on a site, but in reality it provides a false sense of security for how the ad is actually executing. It also infers that the ad will render the same across all devices, OS, formats and geographies.
  1. Accuracy: Mock-ups can’t prove ad placement as many ad units only occur behind paywalls or require an IP address in order to serve the correct messaging to the individual user.
  1. Automation: Imagine scaling the manual process of verifying ads across the overwhelming number of devices, browsers, user profiles, formats, sizes and geo-locations. Without automation, the task is almost impossible. Leverage technology to streamline the process.
  1. Costs: Carefully consider the total cost of ownership when deciding between an in-house or outsourced process. While in-house resources are easier to control, it is difficult to secure funding and keep the staff engaged. On the flip side, outsourcing requires integration, training, probable coordination with targeting vendors, and continuous oversight which could ultimately be more costly than anticipated—not to mention the complications of managing a remote team, in a case of choosing a non-local entity if a non-native entity is selected.
  1. Quality Assurance: Reliance on mock-up designs to certify campaign execution will no catch errors that occur at launch or throughout the campaign flight.

Ad verification is a complex, yet critical endeavor for publishers looking to highlight inventory value. Don’t mock it.

ChrisChris Olson founded The Media Trust (@themediatrust) with Dave Crane in 2005. He currently serves as CEO, where he drives the company’s vision, direction and growth plans. Prior to establishing The Media Trust Company, he spent four years as the chief operating officer and board member at Spheric Media. From 1998 until 2000, he was the vice president, global equities at Commerzbank; and from 1993 until 1998, he was the vice president of electronic trading at Salomon Brothers, Inc.

[i] The Media Trust analysis of millions of ad campaigns verified over the course of 10 years
Perspectives

No comment: NPR joins the growing list of media companies shuttering comments

Given its moniker—that P does stand for public—it seems particularly significant that NPR has opted to cut comments from its site and instead focus its resources on social media as its means of engagement. As the company’s announcement points out, “NPR introduced public comments to its website eight years ago, when many of today’s most popular venues for digital interaction didn’t yet exist or were in their infancy.”

Another factor in the decision is the fact that only about 1% of its audience is currently commenting on its site. Bloomberg’s former digital editor Joshua Topolsky also cited low reader participation as a reason for Bloomberg’s recent decision to drop comments. Topolsky’s team felt that they’re more likely to reach a more representative cross-section of their audience via external social platforms.

NPR plans to focus on maintaining its presence across Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and Tumblr—as well as support journalists’ efforts to interact on their own accounts. Yet, undoubtedly, maintaining that presence across numerous (and ever-proliferating) social media sites takes a toll on any organization that must prioritize its resources.

Recode is another site that opted to focus on conversations in social media and to eliminate comments. According to founder Kara Swisher, social media provides a more optimal setting to “engage a smart audience that’s not trolling.” This sentiment was in large part shared by The Week’s Editor-in-Chief Ben Frumin who, upon announcing that the site would no longer include comments, specifically called out the problematic nature of pseudonymous commentators. Though it should be acknowledged that social media is not without its share of trolling and other bad behavior, something platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are struggling to combat.

Other sites that have opted out of comments sections cite research that connects unruly and unpleasant comments with a lowered estimation of the content and brand with which it is associated.

Organizations such as CBS, The New York Times and The Guardian remain committed to their comments sections (for now). To confront the issue head on, CBS decided to require all of its online commenters to use real names and The Guardian went so far as to undertake a study of its own comments section as part of a larger series on online harassment. The picture painted by the study was not pretty, with particularly bold lines underscoring the high level of vitriol aimed at female writers as well as those from ethnic and religious minority groups, and LGBT people.

While The Guardian does not plan to close down comments across the site, it has opted to reduce the number of places where comments are open, particularly around contentious subjects. The New York Times also limits the number of articles on which comments are permitted, though it plans to increase the number.

NPR’s Managing Editor for Digital News, Scott Montgomery, emphasizes the organization’s continued commitment to experimenting with opportunities for community engagement, such as the Hearken audience engagement platform, which is already used by dozens of NPR member stations. Yet as Elizabeth Jensen, NPR’s Ombudsman/Public Editor pointed out in her post examining the decision to eliminate comments, sites that are managing to keep comments civil are those that make a significant investment in moderation resources; resources that many media organizations need to apply to creating quality content and to continuously evolving distribution—and engagement—strategies.

NBC Olympics
Perspectives | Uncategorized

Here’s why NBC isn’t fretting over lower Olympics TV ratings

For so long, live sports were the one remaining chip that pay TV had to keep people from cutting the cord. But that chip is slowly losing its value, as Twitter scoops up more streaming sports, and ESPN considers launching its own streaming service.

And for this year’s Olympics, NBC is letting more people see highlights on its NBC Sports app, while limiting live-streams to pay TV subscribers. The result is that NBC has seen a big shift from TV viewing to streaming for the Games in Rio — but all views are off from the highs in London in 2012.

As CNN’s Frank Pallotta put it, “After six days of prime time coverage, the NBC broadcast network is averaging 28.1 million viewers, about 20 percent fewer than it had during the London games in 2012. The totals are almost 10 percent lower than the Beijing games in 2008.”

And consumption habits have changed drastically since eight years ago, and even four years ago — with a lot more people consuming sports content on digital devices. But still, NBC attracted between 20.6 million and 33.4 million viewers on its broadcast network alone this year, according to Nielsen data. “Those are really big numbers by today’s standards,” Barry Lowenthal, president of media buying firm The Media Kitchen, told Reuters. NBC also saw a bump in TV ratings last Thursday thanks to emotional wins from popular Olympians — ratings which were quadruple the ratings of CBS, ABC and Fox combined.

Comparing any year to London requires some context: London’s 2012 opening ceremonies attracted 40.7 million viewers. That’s tough competition for anyone.

Hooked on Highlights

So it’s important not to discount these TV numbers, as well as not to overestimate how much growth is coming in through digital streams. Sure, NBC recently recorded its 100 billionth minute of live streaming, but the combined online and television network viewership in the first five days of the games was still 8.6 percent lower than the recorded numbers during 2012.

Online growth may be helping to offset the decline in TV ratings, but it may just be that the overall digital landscape — with people catching only the short clips of the highlights online and breaking news alerts coming onto phones before competitions are aired on tape delay — is making it more difficult to sit and watch a game continuously anywhere. With Hulu and Netflix and Amazon, as well as traditional TV programming, there’s a lot of competition for our attention.

“It’s not that we’re watching less, it’s that we’re watching more than three channels,” Victor Matheson, a professor at the College of the Holy Cross, told the Wall Street Journal’s Joe Flint and Suzanne Vranica.

Advertising Remains in the Mix

Consumers have also become accustomed to one of the boons of streaming and on-demand viewership, which is that they don’t have to sit through ads. But the opposite is true with these Olympics. It’s harder to escape ads, whether you’re watching live to catch the action as it happens, or watching highlights on the app, where ads are shown at the beginning of each clip. And that adds up to quite a lot when the app continually crashes. (Of course the best way to avoid ads is to skip them on your DVR.)

Another potential relief from ads might come if Comcast (which has paid for the U.S. rights to broadcast the Olympics through 2032) offers a subscription package to consumers that eliminates ads entirely. That could be a way for the company to monetize that impatience.

In some ways, the challenge of reaching more fans — whether through traditional or newer mediums — is the challenge of knowing who those fans are and what they want. It’s not necessarily the case that all TV viewers will eventually migrate online. It’s also worth noting that this year is a bit exceptional with other news stories distracting audiences. From the presidential elections (whose conventions were also live-streamed) to the anxiety over the Zika virus, distractions from breaking news stories and events has been boundless. It could be easy for any sports event — yes, even the Olympics — to simply creep up on a person.

But no matter how you slice it — TV, social media, app, DVR, streaming, etc. — the Olympics are one of those cornerstone events that will always bring in paydays to networks, no matter how people get the content.

 

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.