For publishers obsessing over ad-blocking (and few aren’t), the news lately has been mixed and confusing. A recent IAB/YouGov study in the U.K. finds that more people are using ad-blockers, but that more than half would disable their blockers in exchange for viewing content. And while Google has banned ad-blocking software in the Google Play store, they still allow ad-blocking browsers. And the IAB has set out guidelines for publishers to deal with ad-blocking visitors, but hasn’t addressed the root of the problem—the poor customer experience with ads.
For publishers treading the complex world of ad-blocking, these are strong indicators that they must figure out a healthy balance of insistence, tolerance and acceptance. Pure standardization on ad-blocking might not ever happen given current circumstances, and so publishers ought to take note and take the necessary action for their business and audience.
Popularity of ad-blockers The IAB study found the number of people using ad blockers in the U.K. has increased to 22%, from 18% just a few months earlier. It also found that ad-blocking was most popular among 18- to 24-year-olds, with nearly half of respondents (47%) using them. And the number of people around the world who use ad-blocking software has doubled in the last two years to 200 million, according to estimates by Adobe and PageFair, an anti-blocking service. Apple’s decision last fall to allow ad blockers on its latest iOS update has no doubt propelled the propensity toward ad-blocking.
That Google, then, has taken a firmer stand against ad-blocking while still allowing for ad-blocking browsers in its app store shows how confusing this territory is. No publisher wants to lose out on the revenue that these ads generate (a report by Adobe and PageFair found that ad-blocking could cost publishers $41.4 billion globally this year, compared to $21.8 billion in 2015). But no one wants to be the bad guy to the consumer either, and the reasons people use ad-blocking software are clear: They are unhappy about behavior tracking and slow page-load times.
As Emily Bell recently put it, ad blockers are used by people who aren’t necessarily out to harm the industries behind the advertising, but who are looking out for their wallets. “Ad-blocking thrives because of a failure towards consumers,” she wrote in the Guardian. “Forcing people to consume advertising that strips their data and costs them money is hardly a vote-winning strategy.”
That’s likely why Google hasn’t completely jumped ship when it comes to ad-blocking, according to Android Police’s Ruddock. “Google knows that ad-blocking browsers are popular enough that not having them on Android could hurt the platform.”
Solutions for publishers? So what is the best strategy to have? Guy Phillipson, chief executive of IAB UK, said transparency is key. “Part of the solution to tackle ad-blocking lies in making consumers more aware of the consequences, which seems like it’s starting to filter through,” he said. “If they realize it means they can’t access content or that to do so requires paying for it, then they might stop using ad blockers. It requires reinforcing this trade-off message—ads help to fund the content they enjoy for free.”
A few websites, including Forbes, Wired and the Washington Post, have already started doing this. When Forbes detected users with ad blockers visiting their sites, it asked them to turn the software off—and 42% of visitors obliged.
The IAB also released its guide for publishers on how to approach their consumers to turn off their ad blocking software by offering a “D.E.A.L.”, which stands for Detect, Explain, Ask and Lift restrictions or Limit access, based on the consumer’s choice. So chances are, more websites are going to start this negotiation process with users — asking them to either turn off the ad blocker or pay up.
The new IAB guidelines are not without their concerns, though, with the IAB acknowledging it’s a drastic measure that could alienate users. And as Ed Papazian of Media Dynamics Inc. questioned, “How is this going to work unless publishers with ‘good’ content, who get users to disable their ad blockers, also find ways to minimize the disruptive impact of too many ads per page and their helter-skelter intrusions on the user’s experience with the site?”
So while consumers will perhaps learn to accept the business models behind the content they want to access, the onus to make the ad experience better for users is still on the publisher. And having a better ad environment, in the end, is better for users, publishers and advertisers.
Programmatic ad buying behavior more than doubled over the last two years despite major ad fraud and transparency concerns. The ANA (Association of National Advertisers) and Forrester just released the results of a new study reporting of a new study reporting an increase in programmatic ad buying habits among marketers from 34% in 2014 to 79% in 2016. This research was conducted last month among 128 ANA members.
Two-thirds (66%) of marketers reported “I understand it (programmatic) and use it to execute campaigns” compared to 23% in 2014. Nearly all marketers reported programmatic buying of display advertising and eight in 10 (84%) reported purchasing programmatic video advertising.
Marketers identified key benefits of programmatic ad buying as:
Better targeting (90% rating),
Real-time optimization (76%),
Managing buys across multiple channels (66%)
Reach consumers at multiple points along the purchase path; decreased cost of media (62%, each)
Ability to personalize ads to individual consumers (60%)
Reach more consumers by buying ads in more channel (56%)
Dynamic ad placement (49%)
Access to a broader set of media options (48%)
Faster executions of media buys (43%)
Ability to buy ad directly from media companies, without an agency (24%)
Still markets cite there three top concerns in programmatic ad buying as the higher bot fraud in programmatic buys (69%), the lack of transparency to the costs within the programmatic supply change (64%) and the potential for buying traffic with low viewability (63%).
The research confirms the industries rapid adoption of programmatic buying habits. With the reported complexity of programmatic amid critical concerns, 31% of marketers stated that they expanded their in-house capabilities to manage programmatic ad buying. It appears marketers are looking to new opportunities to fully analyze the digital supply chain from request to execution.
Custom content studios are not new, but they sure are hot! In March we found out that New York Magazine is building out its own content studio. In February, Grantland founder Bill Simmons announced he is getting into the branded content game, as did The Irish Times. It’s safe to say that “branded content” is no longer a bad word (or phrase, as the case may be) in media circles. That being said, not every publisher has the know-how to start up their own content studio.
In May, my book Inside Content Marketing, will hit the shelves. Like many other books on the subject it will take a look at what it takes to be a great content marketer—from strategy to measurement—but one thing defiantly sets it apart. The book is not just for marketers. Inside Content Marketing also takes a look at content marketing from the perspective of publishers who are now in competition with their former advertisers.
Here are five insights from Inside Content Marketing that should inspire publishers of all sizes to get into the custom content creation business:
Too many publishers are still missing out on sponsored content revenue.
“In 2014, Digital Content Next found that 73% of its members currently offered native advertising solutions to advertisers. Yet, the Cxense “Extraordinary Insight” survey found that just 20% of respondents were running native ads. Clearly there’s a big gap between the premium brands that make up the DCN membership (think ESPN and NBC Universal) and the rest of the media world—and that’s a crying shame.
Brands still need you.
Publishers have what most brands do not: Reach. The typical brand does not have an audience to rival the average publisher. In 2015, Joe Pulizzi, founder of the Content Marketing Institute, predicted that brands were willing to start paying to promote their content. The time is right to start targeting advertisers interested in running sponsored content on your site.
Your audience is ready for sponsored content.
“The gist: As long as you’re honest and transparent with your audience they will actually appreciate your native advertising endeavors. Would you rather have a banner pop up every time you go to a site, one of those annoying ads that suddenly starts playing a video extolling the benefits of Product X, or a well-crafted piece of content that reels you in with its quality? If the last option sounds preferable to you, it probably sounds best to your audience as well.”
You already have all the tools you need.
You have writers, an audience, and a distribution network. Most importantly, you have editorial expertise that many brands still don’t have. Now all you have to do is put a price on all that you bring to the custom content table.
Sponsored content created by publishers performs better than content created by brands.
“A study by Chartbeat and The New York Times found ‘that most Paid Post content produced by T Brand Studio during the research period proved to be significantly more engaging than the content supplied by third parties.’ In other words, research confirms that content created by The Times’ staff out-performed content provided by brands.”
Of course there’s more to launching a custom content studio—like establishing guidelines and editorial boundaries, all of which Inside Content Marketing delves deeper into—but these five insights should inspire you to start thinking more seriously about offering your content creation expertise to brands.
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, NPR addict, and avid gardener. Find out more at TheresaCramer.com or @Cramerstrasse on Twitter.
I have no doubt the next year will bring meaningful developments in defense of the open web—the essential platform where publishers are able to distribute and monetize their content directly with consumers. On the open web—one in which information flows freely and gatekeepers are not able to restrict that flow—transparency rules, from sources to source code, and the most valued commodity is trust.
To that end, champions of the open web are now writing and debating rules that will impact the value of publishers’ relationships with their readers and viewers. It’s our role at DCN to ensure that the united voice of the 74 premium publishers in our membership is clearly heard.
Last week, DCN sent an important letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after it recently signaled it’s drafting the privacy rules it promised last year when it issued the Open Internet Order (aka “Net Neutrality”). Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which include both carriers and cable operators, have argued that the rules of the wider web are sufficient for them. Of course, Verizon Wireless famously proved otherwise last year.
DCN, as the voice of premium publishers, has asked the FCC to consider context and consumer expectations in writing these rules. Significantly, it appears that no ISP wants to be identified as holding a privileged position in being able to collect and use data on consumers. I’m not sure how this argument holds water considering the fact that consumers now keep personal, connected devices on 24/7 wherever they go. Consider that your mobile broadband provider can see all the activity on your phone—your web history, app usage, phone calls, friends and even your location history—and then tie that data back to the subscriber data they have about you. Clearly ISPs have a heightened responsibility to provide transparency, choice, and control for consumers.
ISPs have begun to fund research from respected academic and industry thought leaders in an attempt to prove that they are in an inferior position to companies like Facebook and Google in collecting this data. Let’s face it: There are also plenty of concerns about how Facebook, Google (and much of the adtech complex) mine data across the web and mobile as well, and our interest in a higher level of consumer trust is certainly not limited to the ISPs. All parties collecting data out of context of consumer expectations carry responsibility to be transparent and offer real choices to consumers. That said, just because some parts of the marketplace have systemic problems with trust doesn’t mean we should default to the lowest common denominator for ISPs. We should all aspire to do better – publishers as well, who carry the flag of trust as much as any party.
DCN’s focus on data ownership and consumer privacy is not only an effort for securing consumer trust but also an effort to secure the economics that will pay for the trusted content of the future. Location and behavioral data collected by third parties is what currently fuels much of the dysfunctional digital advertising marketplace. You know, the one where Google and Facebook eat half of the dinner while adtech gobbles up much of the marketers’ dessert. This market, unlike any other media, consists mostly of direct response advertising targeting thumb taps, installs, clicks and fleeting actions – not the kind of advertising that engenders consumer trust and funds premium content experiences.
Then, of course, there is the rising specter of ad blockers. The industry has rightly been up in arms over this issue for more than a year. The IAB, which represents ad tech companies, went so far recently as to call ad blockers “an unethical, immoral, mendacious, coven of techie wannabes” with “silly titles and funny walks.” Although it made for an interesting sideshow, this is a serious issue and we need to be clear on what is happening: Google, the single largest recipient and dependency of advertising revenues and by far the largest and most influential member of the IAB, is paying the #1 blocker, Adblock Plus (“ABP”), to have its ads “whitelisted” and thereby likely helping to keep ABP’s lights on.
However, pointing all of the blame at ABP and their sketchy business model only does so much because I’m not so sure that consumers care. If ABP and any other for-profit ad blockers went away tomorrow, there are plenty of non-profit ad blockers that would immediately fill the void. The best thing the leaders of our industry can do is to focus on solving the problem from the consumer’s perspective.
I see countless examples of DCN Member companies taking this approach and testing a wide range of possible solutions to ad blocking, from revamping ad and content experiences to consumer education to streamlining mobile experiences by reducing interference by intermediaries. And this month, I have the opportunity to explore approaches and issues from another vantage point at dozens of meetings with senior leaders of European organizations representing advertisers, agencies and publishers. As always, I’ll be leaning in, particularly focused on seeking consumer-focused insights that help advance the future of trusted content. I expect these insights to include thoughts on Google AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, ad blocking and an issue very much related and important in 2016—data ownership. I’ll keep you posted.
It’s no secret that investment in TV advertising is declining, with brands allocating more dollars to digital ad spend. This represents a huge opportunity for digital media. Marketers are looking to re-allocate ad spend, set a cross-platform strategy, and re-purpose video content online.
Linear TV ad spending is projected at $66 billion in 2016 – but $1.5 billion already shifted from TV to digital in 2015. While this amounts to less than 3% of the total $66B spend, this is still a huge amount in absolute dollars. This is not a new trend by any means, but one that continues to build momentum. Importantly, most of the beneficiaries are relative newcomers to video (think YouTube).
Here are some factors that are leading to this shift:
Changing media consumption habits: Consumers are increasingly spending time online, away from their television set. And even those watching video online are not watching in the same way. For example, instead of tuning in to linear TV, audiences are watching some of the most popular shows in one sitting (thanks to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu) or skipping traditional shows entirely, making a good business for alternatives like Twitch.
Appealing video content online. There are many examples of success in video, but YouTube stands above all. After only 10 years in business, YouTube is now believed to earn more than $7 billion in annual revenue. Despite some criticism of its “less-professional” content, YouTube is every bit a competitor to broadcast TV.
Here at MediaRadar we’ve recently added TV ad intelligence into our platform. We took a close look at the data to understand the opportunities outside of traditional TV and video streaming sites.
Here are three discoveries:
Online video advertising on DCN member company sites has low overlap with linear TV. There were 3,025 advertisers placing TV spots in Q4 of 2015 on national broadcast and cable networks. Of the 3,025 brands however, just 209 also placed on DCN member websites in this same period. This demonstrates a big opportunity to upsell and convert traditional TV advertisers to digital platforms.
Top ad categories in TV have low overlap with online. The top five product categories advertised for DCN members are Retail, Professional Services, Home Furnishings, Apparel, and Financial. Of those top five, however, only two overlap with TV’s top five: Retail and Professional Service. Making inroads with traditional TV advertisers will mean forging stronger relationships in product categories less associated with web advertising.
TV advertisers do buy across media platforms. Of the national TV advertisers, 50% are buying cross-platform for online video already. This is not to minimize the very different silos that TV, print, and digital are purchased by. But on the other hand, some of the biggest, highest-margin, deals are done across media formats, including even print.
As TV advertisers continue to rethink their strategy, digital media should consider doing the same. Specifically pursue advertisers who are open to shifting away from TV. Upsell existing customers who already buy with you, but not online video. Target early adopters who have already started the shift from TV to online video. Finally, find the product categories that are spending on TV, but not with you, and show them the value of partnering with online video.
Todd Krizelman is Co-Founder and CEO of MediaRadar (@MediaRadar). Growing up near the epicenter of technological innovation in Palo Alto, California encouraged him to become an entrepreneur and co-found of one of the world’s first social media sites, theGlobe.com. Krizelman also held leadership positions at Bertelsmann’s Gruner + Jahr and Random House. With his expertise in ad sales and innovation, Krizelman joined veteran web architect, Jesse Keller, to found MediaRadar in 2007.
On Friday, February 26, Jason Kint, CEO of DCN, wrote to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler to lay out the perspective of premium publishers with regard to their upcoming privacy rules for broadband providers. The letter urges the FCC to require broadband providers to provide consumers with transparency and meaningful choice with regard to the collection and use of personal information especially when this data will be used for purposes that fall outside of a consumer’s expectation and outside of the context of the interaction where the data was collected.
For example, a reasonable consumer would expect a mobile broadband provider to collect data about how a consumer uses their mobile device so the company could make improvements to the broadband service or ensure efficient management of the network. However, consumers would not expect (or even know) if a mobile broadband provider was using this same set of data to tailor advertising to consumers on websites or apps.
As several news outlets reported, at least one mobile broadband provider was inserting a unique identification header every time a consumer’s mobile browser fetched content from a website. This header was used by advertising partners of the mobile broadband provider to identify individual consumers, track their online behavior and target advertising based on that behavior. However, neither the mobile broadband providers nor their partners meaningfully disclosed to consumers’ information about this activity or the ability to opt out. In addition, it was later discovered that the header was being used without the knowledge of the broadband provider by some of their advertising partners to respawn cookies that a consumer had deleted – effectively reversing a consumer’s choice for privacy.
Consumers have different expectations with regard to 1st party, direct relationships versus other types of transactions which are indirect and out of context. The FCC’s privacy rules should account for the differences in these relationships. As our letter points out, greater transparency and choice will help rebuild consumer trust and help the digital economy reach its full potential.
History reminds us that often, some of the most impactful ideas in the media industry were inspired and developed not in valleys or alleys, but in ivory towers.
Samuel Morse with his recorder, photograph taken by Mathew Brady in 1857 cc wikicommons
Today, most of us view Silicon Valley and Alley as the hubs of disruptive technology and the successful start-ups born and raised there as the leaders in a quickly evolving industry that will continue to revolutionize the world. But history reminds us that often, some of the most impactful ideas — specifically, those in the journalism and media industry — were inspired and developed not in valleys or alleys, but in ivory towers (aka universities).
Many of us may know that Samuel Morse pioneered the commercialization of the telegraph in the U.S., but we may not know the inspiration behind his research: the work of his friend, electromagnetism researcher, Charles Jackson.
William Paley, the broadcasting tycoon responsible for the early success of American media staple Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), injected innovation in his business with the introduction of color television — specifically, the field sequential color system — developed by Peter Carl Goldmark, a scholar at University of Vienna who later led CBS Laboratories.
Jonah Peretti, a father of social content, used his research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in tandem with key learnings from the field of network science developed by his friend, then Professor Duncan Watts, to create BuzzFeed.
Jonah Peretti, Photo Courtesy of The Associated Press
These real-world examples illustrate that innovation is, in some cases, the application of academic research. Morse, Paley and Peretti tapped into the knowledge hub of academia to disrupt the market, launch new businesses and discover creative solutions to existing challenges. For those of us in today’s media industry, these examples should remind us to not simply look toward Silicon Valley for solving tomorrow’s problems, but rather universities that stay grounded with a longer-term approach.
Two types of Innovation
The futures lab can be seen inside the Reynolds Journalism Institute on the campus of the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri. Photo courtesy of the Reynolds Journalism Institute.
The challenge of industry-academia collaborations stems from the existence of two types of innovation: the innovation of media practitioners and firms, and the innovation of academia — one looks for answers to specific problems, the other aims at the creation of knowledge.
The solution is to develop a third approach — a mutually beneficial approach to research and development wherein incentives and timelines are aligned and projects are those that look at exploring high value concepts and challenges on behalf of a media firm, yet outside of the company’s mainstream activities. This challenge is broad enough to appeal to an academic, but still has the real world impact potential a media practitioner and/or firm is looking for. New fields such as virtual reality, artificial intelligence and automation are some of the prime candidates for this model.
For professors, the goal is to prepare their students to be well-equipped for their post-educational careers.
“More than ever, journalism education needs to focus on experiential, project-based learning.”
—Reynolds Journalism Institute futures lab director Mike McKean.
Collaborative research projects require open lines of communication between universities and media organizations so they can better address the challenges faced by both parties.
“Students will be the industry’s future leaders — and consumers — so it’s essential that as news organizations experiment with new formats and techniques, they’re doing so in a way that’s relevant to new generations.”
—AP interactives editor Nathan Griffiths.
Universities gain an avenue to apply insights learned in the classroom while professionals are exposed to new thinking.
“Journalists can learn from students about younger audiences — how they consume news and the best ways to engage them.”
—Berkeley Lovelace Jr., a journalism student who recently worked on project with the Associated Press.
Academic-infused Innovation
Facilitating partnerships do not require significant investments, especially compared to the addition of a new academic department or a new research lab within a company.
One such initiative is an experiment The New York Times run in partnership with NYU and CUNY to study hyper local news. Another is Hearst Corporation’s partnership with students from Parsons New School of Design to develop Glossy.io, a new approach to surfacing archives of digital magazines.
Students at Columbia Journalism School test AP’s latest virtual reality experiment.
This academic-practitioner partnership approach to research could be a new model for innovation. History and present day initiatives like those above reveal that when academics and practitioners work together to analyze data and apply key findings, impactful insights are formed, innovative strategies are implemented and new businesses are catalyzed.
Indeed, innovating our approach to media innovation — looking beyond valleys and alleys to ivory towers — will be worth our while.
I’m the Strategy Manager for The Associated Press and fellow at Columbia Journalism School. I write about media, storytelling and innovation. Let’s connect. (@fpmarconi)
Snapchat has gone from being a strange ephemeral video platform for teens to send sexy shots, to a walled garden of content where publishers and brands can reach millions with short-form content. With a user base of 100 million, and video views in the billions, it’s no wonder that Snapchat’s ad business is growing as fast as the company itself. But can Snapchat become a transformative platform for mobile advertising, as Facebook has, or is it just a flash in the pan?
For companies and brands looking to reach a young mobile audience, Snapchat offers a lot: The majority of its users are under the age of 25, it’s slated to improve ad targeting, and it is rumored to be testing longer-form sponsored videos for media channels on its Discover platform. It’s also possibly building its own application programming interface (API) and has recently partnered with Viacom. But these speculations of advertising growth come after the company has long been criticized for unstable pricing on advertising, failing to provide data critical to targeting users, and no guarantee on the ad viewership.
Launching an API? One major indicator that it might have staying power is that Snapchat is reportedly building its own API which would help automate the targeting and delivery of ads to specific users. Snapchat has yet to comment on these endeavors, but an API could also address key concerns among marketers, including ad targeting, tracking visitor browsing and searches outside of the app (which would help it collect data on its users). Better tracking could help publishers and brands figure out how many people are actually watching their ads.
In building its own API, Snapchat is following in the footsteps of platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter — companies that have matured as major ad players in the digital marketplace. An API would also allow for more kinds of ads on Snapchat, including those that include a “call to action” for consumers, such as downloading a new app. This is especially important given that Snapchat has previously been selling ads the so-called “old-fashioned way” — by working directly with brands and agencies. But an API, with its ability to execute effective campaigns and automate different orders, would help measure how successful these advertisements actually are.
The API would also help Snapchat grow out of a closed mindset. “The first thing an API does is allows them to create a partnered ecosystem that is technology driven,” Sean O’Neal, president of the online service platform Adaptly, told Digiday. “There’s only so much that a company is going to be able to develop themselves as it relates to their own native ad solutions.”
Viacom partnership Not only that, but Snapchat and Viacom have also recently struck an advertising deal that allows Viacom to sell ads on Snapchat’s original content. With its mobile video capabilities, Snapchat, after all, is an ideal destination for television and entertainment companies, while Viacom has more experience with larger brands that might not know Snapchat well. The deal wouldn’t just help an aging company like Viacom reach the coveted millennial audience. “Snapchat executives have repeatedly talked up their desire to pull in TV ad dollars, seeing themselves as the video epicenter of smartphones,” the LA Times reports.
However, despite the hype surrounding the potential for advertising on Snapchat, publishers would be right to remain wary as the company sorts out its goals, philosophy and practices. Part of the reason why Snapchat didn’t emerge as a major advertising player to begin with is that its sales team was small, and by some accounts, too old to understand how its digitally native audience would respond to ads on the platform. The fact that it’s most popular among a younger demographic was also a concern for some brands, who feel their core older audiences are more concentrated on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter anyway. And those companies, unlike Snapchat, offer much more data on their users than Snapchat does, which would make it easier to guarantee a return on investment.
Part of the problem is that ad pricing has been erratic on Snapchat. When Snapchat first offered advertising in January 2015, it asked brands to pay at least $750,000 for a one-day ad, according to CNBC. Prices have now dropped far below that threshold, with some saying ads could be had for $50,000 and even others getting ads for free because Snapchat liked the idea. It’s hard for marketers to jump in, when they might figure prices might drop in the near future.
While some folks contend that Snapchat is having its “Facebook moment,” with popular Discover content and attention to ads, it would be wise to proceed with caution until a potential API and more mature ad pricing takes hold.
In May, my book 
