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 "Revenue"

Advertising | Revenue

Here’s how to maximize the value of your PMP

For publishers, programmatic offers the opportunity to monetize and package inventory more efficiently than traditional direct deals. For some, it is a place to more effectively sell run of site (ROS) inventory. Others place blocks of premium inventory up for auction to generate revenue without the time, expense, and overhead of negotiating a direct sale. However, while programmatic has opened the door to greater efficiency and a new stream of incremental revenue, it’s also created challenges for premium publishers who want to protect user experience and exercise some control over the type of creative that appears on their pages.

For a growing number of publishers, this means turning to private marketplaces (PMPs). PMPs offer the efficiency of programmatic exchanges in a more controlled environment for premium advertisers. In this post, we’ll attempt to offer some tips to help publishers take advantage of what PMPs have to offer. But first, just what is a private marketplace and how is it different from an open exchange?

What’s a PMP?

Private Marketplaces are exclusive inventory packages offered to buyers via a deal ID. This Deal ID acts as a key to a private auction, or automated access to an inventory pool with pre-negotiated terms. PMPs make it easier for publishers, sell-side platforms (SSPs), and networks to set aside specific inventory packages and sell them to a pre-defined group of buyers. For advertisers, PMPs offer access to premium inventory in a closed environment before it’s made available to the open market.

Through a PMP, publishers can work more directly with advertisers without sacrificing the efficiency of programmatic automation. They also offer publishers the opportunity to build tailored packages of premium inventory and bundled custom audiences, which can fetch a higher price from advertisers than the same inventory might elicit on an open exchange. Most importantly in the age of ad blocking, PMPs give publishers a chance to offer their inventory to a vetted selection of premium advertisers. This ensures that quality content is matched with quality ad creative that won’t compromise user experience.

A PMP can be built and curated by a single publisher, or parent company of premium publishers, and can offer different deal types including first-look offerings or pre-negotiated rates. Supply-side platforms (SSPs), on the other hand, provide premium publishers with lower scale for video with an opportunity to monetize their inventory at a higher CPM by grouping it with like properties. Often how the deals are packaged and the specific inventory they contain can impact publishers’ bottom line. Below are some best practices for maximizing the value of your PMP.

Tips to make the most of your PMP

Use an automated solution to optimize for viewability

A growing number of buyers are turning to PMPs to meet stringent viewability requirements. Major media-buying powerhouse Group M has gone so far as to release its own custom viewability standards, which are more rigorous than those of the MRC. Inventory that meets these more rigorous standards is the gateway to securing advertising dollars from premium brands like Unilever and Volvo. Optimizing your inventory to meet those viewability demands and building PMP packages around viewability thresholds is a great way to maximize incremental revenue and ensure that you’re able to charge buyers for the true value of your inventory.

Optimize for brand safety to score global brand dollars

A tumultuous news cycle, the rise of fake news, and the proliferation of unsafe content on social platforms has led to a major industry-wide focus on brand safety. Buyers across the board have prioritized brand-safe inventory for their digital campaigns to avoid finding themselves on the wrong side of a social media mob. UM Worldwide recently appointed a global brand safety officer, elevating the challenge of finding brand safe inventory to the C-suite. However, brand safety is subjective. Different brands have different sensitivities, and different regions have different ideas of what constitutes a risky placement. Using an optimization tool to create content category packages allows publishers to capture diverse brands and global advertiser dollars with their featured content.

Work directly with buyers to understand their needs

PMPs combine the efficiency of a programmatic transaction with the intimacy and trust of a direct deal. That means the publishers who value user experience can control which advertising partners have access to their inventory. However, that communication and vetting is a two-way street. Work directly with the buyers participating in your private marketplace to identify their needs. Just because your PMP focuses on high-viewability inventory packages doesn’t mean that advertisers aren’t also looking for packages that are low in fraud. Understanding these needs and packaging your inventory toward them can provide a competitive advantage in securing additional premium brand dollars.

Advertising | Revenue

6 Business questions to consider before investing in programmatic advertising

Having worked for an email data company in a previous life, I’m used to the predictions that people love to make about the death of a specific marketing channel. Remember when Slack was going to kill email or Google+ was going to kill Facebook? We all know how those worked out.

With GDPR now in effect, I’ve been hearing a lot of predictions about the impending demise of programmatic advertising. What’s ironic is that greater transparency and protection of consumer privacy rights are very positive steps forward for the industry. So, for publishers who’ve never invested in programmatic, now is actually a great time to do so.

That being said, as with any investment of time, money and resources, companies should arm themselves with as much information as possible; consider what’s best for their business (instead of focusing on what everyone else is doing); and make sure that they understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of making such an investment.

Here are six business questions for publishers to consider before investing in programmatic:

1. What are your goals?

This may seem obvious, but beyond making money, it’s important for publishers to clarify exactly what success looks like and define their desired outcomes. In addition to a new revenue stream, do your programmatic goals include: gaining insights into your audience data and behaviors? Exposing your inventory to a new set of buyers? Expanding brand recognition? Gathering data to build a business case for a larger investment? Or perhaps you are considering using programmatic to drive ecommerce activity? Each of those goals requires a different approach, so it’s important to define the “why” before focusing on the “how.”

2. How much does the user experience matter?

Too often we see publishers making trade-offs with the quality of their user experience in favor of displaying more ads or using ad formats that aren’t in-line with IAB or Coalition for Better Ads standards. It can be tempting to forgo best practices when revenue is the only metric that matters (which it shouldn’t be).

Your users—and their willingness to visit and spend time on your site on a consistent basis—are even more valuable. That’s why it’s important to ensure you have a responsive site with load times of three seconds or less (Google shows quicker-loading mobile pages higher up in its search results) and a design that is uncluttered and easy to scroll and click-through. Don’t let first-order thinking trump what’s best for your users.

3. What is your biggest fear?

Before investing in anything new, it’s a good idea to go through a fear-setting exercise. Tim Ferris has a great template that he designed to be used for working through personal and life decisions, and it can also be applied to business decisions. This includes:

  • Defining your fear (what is the worst thing that could happen);
  • Outlining what steps you could take to prevent the worst possible outcome;
  • If the worst outcome happens, defining the steps you would take to repair the damage; and
  • Determining the short- and long-term costs of taking no action at all and sticking with the status quo.

For most publishers, this exercise would likely involve fears related to ad quality or fraud issues. If that’s the case, consider using anti-malware software (like Confiant), which can help prevent malvertising. It’s not foolproof, so to repair the damage, publishers should have a plan for investigating and taking down these ads. For example, have a segment of super users you can rely on to report issues and test fixes. And work with reputable partners who have rigorous approval standards in place and will be responsive to your support requests.

4. Are you taking a collaborative or siloed approach?

If you’re a larger publisher, you may have the budget to invest in creating fully-staffed teams to focus on sales, ad ops, and editorial. If so, don’t make the mistake of running those teams in silos with little to no opportunity for cross-functional collaboration.

When it comes to programmatic advertising, everything is connected, and shared goals are critical for successful outcomes. Decisions involving how your inventory is sold and trafficked and the page(s) it’s displayed on require ongoing and frequent communication between the sales, ad ops and editorial teams to ensure the best possible results. For successful collaboration to take place, it’s important to define the dependencies between teams and how each individual team contributes to the bigger picture of increasing user engagement through producing original content that also displays relevant advertising.

5. How important is testing and optimization?

I don’t know of a single marketing channel where the marketer doesn’t gain performance improvements by adopting a learning cycle of testing, adjusting, and optimizing. Often, the whole point of investing in a new channel is to gather data you didn’t have before. Then you can use the data to test a variety of hypotheses that result in varying degrees of ROI. This means it’s important to consider if you have the tools, resources and tolerance for continually tweaking what’s working (and what isn’t) to produce the best possible results and get the highest return possible on your investment. It’s an art and a science and it takes time to perfect, but it’s worth it.

6. What type of company do you want to work with?

The ad tech space is full of companies providing a wide variety of products and services for publishers. Not all of them will suit your needs or align with your business practices, so it’s important to do your research. Pay particular attention to claims that seem too good to be true (for example, promises of 100% fill rates). Ask questions about a company’s support model (for example, what are the average response times, how are requests prioritized, and what is the coverage model on weekends and holidays).

It’s also important to understand how each company is (or isn’t) compliant with the various US and international data collection and privacy laws governing digital advertising (i.e., GDPR, COPPA, PIPEDA, CAN-SPAM, etc.) and whether they’ve implemented the bare minimum for compliance or adhere to both “the spirit and the letter” of the law. For example, Sovrn is the only exchange offering a free Consent Management Platform (CMP) to help publishers with GDPR compliance, instead of putting the burden on the publisher to figure out how to be compliant on their own.

According to eMarketer’s “US Programmatic Ad Spending Forecast 2018,” almost $47 billion will go to programmatic advertising this year. And, by 2020 programmatic will account for 86.2% of digital display spend. Now is a great time to explore if programmatic is worth investing in for your business. Start by focusing on what makes your content and audience unique, your tolerance for risk, your desired outcomes and what you want to learn.

Advertising | Industry-Research | Revenue

Post-GDPR impact: Programmatic remains strong in the U.S.

Long before GDPR took effect in May, both publishers and advertisers tried to install safeguards to prepare for its impact on industry practices. We’ve seen some of the effects already. Email marketing distribution lists have shrunk. Companies are re-evaluating and optimizing the data they collect to increase data privacy and consumer trust. Some publishers are even blocking access to EU-based residents altogether.

But how has GDPR affected the ways advertisers buy? It’s been reported that programmatic purchases have plummeted in the EU since GDPR has gone into effect. Companies now need to prove they have user permissions, which becomes tricky if you’re selling advertising on websites where you have no ownership or control. We’re aware of certain firms whose revenues are down from 33% to 50%, in just the past 30 days, presumably due to lagging compliance.

Here at MediaRadar, however, we evaluated programmatic ad spend in the U.S. The impact isn’t nearly as drastic as some may have believed.

Number of brands buying programmatic is up

Surprisingly, our own data found that the number of brands purchasing programmatically in the U.S. has increased since April. This shows that brands still value the convenience of programmatic purchases, even with the new regulations. It’s important to note that this increase in programmatic interest actually came prior to GDPR. From January to May of 2018, we saw 86,695 brands purchase programmatic ads, with the number of brands increasing month over month.

Direct buys are increasing at an even greater rate

From January to May of this year, digital advertising has surged. During this period, the number of brands that purchase programmatically increased, yet direct buying also grew, and at a much faster rate. Because of this, the total percent of programmatic purchases among all digital ad buys has actually decreased. In Q1 of 2018, 61% of ads were placed programmatically. Since then, that percentage has dipped to 59% in April, and to 58% in May, despite programmatic strength.

In looking at the big picture, we found that the rate of programmatic ad buying has been largely flat in the U.S. year-to-date. Digital advertising as a whole is thriving, regardless of GDPR implementation. This proves that the increase in programmatic spend can be attributed to the overall popularity of digital, as opposed to programmatic itself. We believe this trend in the U.S. will continue. Programmatic will remain popular among advertisers, barring a wave unexpected GDPR violations as a result.

About the Author

Todd Krizelman (@ToddKrizelman ) 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.

Featured Post | Innovation | Revenue

How publishers can (and should) harness the power of membership

Adopting a membership orientation can be a simple and powerful way for media companies to reinvent their business models. In fact, membership can make them practically disruption proof.

Over the past decade or more, publishers have had to deal with two related transformations that are causing them to rethink their business models: the shift from print to digital and from ad-centric to reader-centric.

The shift to digital dominance has changed the economics of production, the limitations on timing and publishing frequency, and the reach on distribution. Startup media companies can establish a brand, create content—perhaps without a dedicated team of content creators—and distribute it globally with a minimal investment. Legacy publishers have had to seriously rethink everything in light of the shift—and rising competition.

There is a glut of content available, much of it available for free. This means that many readers are less willing to pay for much of the professionally created content of traditional media companies.

Meanwhile, advertisers have more places to advertise, at the same time as consumers are increasingly able to hide or ignore the ads, making advertisers less willing to invest in cost-per-click ad models.

What’s a publisher to do? The answer could be rethinking your offering beyond the current product, with a membership mindset.

The Rise of the Membership Economy and the New World of Subscriptions

With the rise of what’s come to be known as the Membership Economy, companies in virtually every industry from software (Salesforce) to hardgoods (Peloton) have been moving from ownership to access, from anonymous transactions to known relationships with customers, and from one-time payments to ongoing payments.

Technology is extending the ways companies can interact with the people they serve. Always-on devices, declining costs of both generating and distributing content, and perhaps most of all, the ability to leverage data and algorithms to provide a more personalized experience, have changed consumer expectations. Consumers expect companies to optimize services for their individual needs, and to “learn” their preferences over time.

Companies that optimize their services around building a long-term formal relationship with their customers, rather than focusing on their own products or short-term revenue, are disrupting long-time players. Think of what Amazon, and particularly Amazon Prime, has done to retail, or what LinkedIn is doing to professional associations and recruiters.

These membership-oriented businesses are able to build predictable revenue through subscription pricing, even as many traditional subscription businesses struggle. This is because they understand that the initial moment of transaction is the starting line, and not the finish line. To move from a subscription to a membership approach, businesses need to focus on engagement, and understand the warning signs of churn.

Membership is the mindset of the company—the focus on understanding what the customer wants and is willing to pay for, forever, and delivering that. Subscription is just a pricing decision. Many media companies have always offered a subscription option, but few have been focused on treating their subscribers like members, and focusing on their evolving, long-term needs.

But some media companies have committed to membership approaches, focusing on winning their subscribers for the long-term and in many cases offering new features to better achieve their subscribers’ goals. New media companies like Spotify and Netflix have pointed the way to success, and traditional media companies like the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian and the New York Times have followed that lead with a member-centric approach.

Three Steps to a Membership Mindset

This approach can be adapted to suit virtually any media company in 3 steps.

Step one

Get a clear picture of who your “members” are. Are you in business to support advertisers or readers? There is no shame in either. But too many publishers are getting lost in the middle—trying to become more reader-centric while not being willing to give up any ad revenue. The problem is that advertisers want volume of eyeballs while readers want unique content and experiences. Their goals aren’t aligned, and media companies that spread themselves too thin, trying to manage both, end up doing neither well.

Step two

Determine your “forever promise” to those members. Is it around entertainment or deep analysis?

If your focus is on readers, is your promise to be hyper-focused on a specific topic like The Information or broad and high-level like theSkimm? And if you serve advertisers, how creative are you in devising solutions that help them achieve their ongoing business objectives? If you asked your best (happiest, most loyal) subscribers why they stayed with you, what would they say?

Step three

Use that “forever promise” as a guiding principle in determining the content and features you offer. Don’t be limited by your current product and packaging.

Netflix used to offer “3-dvds-out-at-a-time” and then moved into streaming content. Now they are investing $8 billion to create unique content to deliver through multiple channels including cable and mobile device. But their forever promise of “a great assortment of professionally created video content delivered in the most efficient way possible with cost certainty” hasn’t changed at all.

Once you start focusing on your best members, and optimizing your offerings around them, instead of building around your products (magazine, newspaper, 30-minute sitcom) you will create a virtuous cycle of product and service creation that protects you from competition and builds tremendous loyalty.

Does Information Really Want to Be Free?

There’s a piece of Silicon Valley folklore that has Steve Wosniak and Stewart Brand in conversation at the first “hacker conference” in 1984. Apparently Brand told Wosniak that information wants to be free. To this day many believe that consumers are unwilling to pay for any kind of content. This is simply not true as everyone from Netflix to The Financial Times has proven.

While it’s OK to give some content away for free, as a trial, or even invest in a freemium model, it’s critical to make sure you understand the return on investment of your free component.

Many organizations are using a “metering” model, in which readers get a certain amount of free content each month before hitting a paywall. With a few exceptions, this is generally a terrible model. Consumers can “game the system,” consuming as much free content as they can get without any intention of paying. Publishers aren’t able to discern between good prospects and free riders. And they can’t treat different segments differently.

Metering is neither a clear trial—a way for someone to understand the value you provide—nor does it provide a benefit to the company (like data insights) or to paying subscribers (a network effect, like LinkedIn). It’s a tactic in search of a strategy.

An increasing number of savvy publishers are closing the metering loophole, like the Boston Globe, which has gone from 10 to 5 to 2 free articles per month, since launching digital in 2011. The New York Times has also dropped from 10 to 5. At the same time, organizations are tracking the journey from prospect to paying subscriber, making note of the articles and topics that drive conversion and retention.

When you optimize content around paying subscribers, and treat those subscribers like members, the metric changes from clicks to engagement among paying subscribers and qualified prospects. Suddenly Kim Kardashian articles aren’t seen as successful, while in-depth analysis of the bond market, with its small but fully committed following, becomes “Most Valuable Content.”

Taking the Plunge to Membership

It can be scary to change the business model. Moving to membership requires focusing on a specific group of people, and letting other readers go. It requires clarifying your corporate mission. If you are going to have an obligation to your readers, be specific. By “readers” is that anyone who might ever read an article? Or paying subscribers? And if none of them paid you, do you still have an obligation? Just because you have always offered certain features or content, if it doesn’t attract new subscribers, or hook them so they’ll never want to leave, there’s no reason to keep those features.

You also might want to look at new features, like live events, in-depth research or educational content to more fully deliver on your promise.

I recently spoke to a group of senior business and editorial executives of major publishing companies. Many held that their businesses would be unable to survive without advertisers. And yet, many others (of all sizes and from across the globe) have been able to build new models blending old offerings with new ones and being paid by their consumers. It’s possible, but it requires focus and discipline.

It’s hard enough to join the Membership Economy as a startup, paths blazed by Salesforce, LinkedIn and Netflix. But for companies that have been around for decades, or even centuries, transformation is hard.

There are the tactical changes: how does content creation change when the goal is paid loyalty and binge watching and not anonymous “drive by” consumption? What about selling to consumers and not corporate advertisers?

But there are also cultural changes: it can be hard to take a more data-driven approach in an industry based on experience and instinct. As new skills become more important, what happens to the influence of long-time employees? And how do you find the courage to take very real risks that might tank a proud and successful organization?

It’s not just publishing facing these challenges. Retail, consumer products, nonprofits, services, manufacturing—any business that depends on customer engagement and loyalty is dealing with disruption.

And the north star to guide these new paths is the customer.

About the author

Robbie Kellman Baxter is the founder of Peninsula Strategies LLC, a consulting firm based in Menlo Park, CA that helps companies excel in the Membership Economy. Her clients have included large organizations like Netflix, SurveyMonkey, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as smaller venture-backed start-ups. Over the course of her career, Robbie has worked in or consulted with clients in more than 20 industries.

Robbie has been quoted in or written articles for major media outlets, including CNN, HBR.org, and The New York Times. She has an AB from Harvard College and an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Before starting Peninsula Strategies in 2001, Robbie served as a New York City Urban Fellow, a consultant at Booz Allen & Hamilton, and a Silicon Valley product marketer.

A sought-after keynote speaker, Robbie has presented to thousands of people in corporations, associations, and universities around the world.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue

Thinking differently about outstream video ads

Assaulted by a sudden rush of sound while surfing the web, you probably have found yourself asking “where is that audio coming from?!?” We’ve all been there, frantically searching for the video ad that auto-played with sound. This negative video experience has become so problematic that leading browsers now stop video that auto-plays sound. Without a doubt, this should have us all asking how can publishers gain the revenue benefit of video without annoying readers?

Marketers enjoy video because it creates a deeper connection with the audience. And publishers are willing to push the boundaries of an acceptable video experience in the name of improved RPMs. That said, there are three things publishers can do to take advantage of these improved connection and revenue opportunities while creating a healthy and friendly user experience:

Personalization is Relevancy

Video ad content must be personalized for the reader. The over-abundance of video demand shouldn’t be a license for inundating the reader with whatever demand meets the viewability (vCPM) completion rate goals. Make video ad content relevant and users will engage and stay through completion.

Video signals are important

The experience must be customized based on reader habits. If the reader has shown a propensity to engage with video, make the video experience more prominent with more entry points to accommodate their preference. Gather signals like time of day, device, and user’s preference to consumer short and long-form ad content to help tune their session.

Interruption is non-starter

Allow video ad content to become ‘native video’ and non-interruptive. On mobile this works best by emulating a feed experience through inline play. Alternatively, by placing it at the end of an article in non-feed formats, you can show at the exact moment the reader is deciding what content to consume next.

These strategies are required for a successful and user-friendly auto-play video experience. However, there’s another powerful alternative: enabling click-to-play outstream video ads. Publishers can put the control back in the hands of reader while proving to marketers that lean-in, long-form video ad content and immersive storytelling experience they’ve been looking for.

Outbrain’s Click-to-Play solution, which we launched earlier this year, has averaged view times of 37 seconds, 49% completion rates, and 10% conversion rates for 60 second videos. This proves that amazing engagement stats can be achieved while giving full control to the viewer.

Lots of value can be extracted from auto-play video ads for both publishers and marketers. But we need to think differently and invest in the right mix of video experiences. If we do, we’ll all be able to forge a relationship with our readers that keeps them coming back.

Perspectives | Revenue

Publishers: Focus on fraud

I’m going to start by saying something that really shouldn’t shock you. Digital ad fraud is a crime. The word fraud is right there in the name. Fraudsters, whether they’re using sophisticated bot networks or deceptive spoofing tactics, are stealing money from advertisers. Yet the digital advertising industry has historically treated fraud as, at best,  the cost of doing business or, at worst, a budget-sapping nuisance. But if the headlines are to be believed, that’s changing fast and publishers need to take steps to clean house if they want to be sure they’re protected.

Over the last few months, we’ve all seen signs that public officials are taking a renewed interest in the digital media ecosystem. While Congress has been busy trying to figure out Facebook, the New York district attorney’s office recently launched an inquiry into the business practices of Newsweek owner IBT media, saw the company’s offices raided and their servers seized. Though that investigation was wide-ranging, ad fraud was significant component.

The investigation may be part of a wider trend. FBI investigators recently attended the Rubicon Projects Executive Exchange conference where Special Agent Evelina Aslanyan reportedly told ad industry executives that ad fraud “represents a whole new world of crime for publishers and consumers.” The appearance suggests that the bureau is gearing up for a push on cybercrime and that ad fraud will now fall firmly in that category.

While fraud is often framed as a challenge for advertisers, it’s possible for even legitimate publishers to unwittingly become entangled with ad fraud. There are a handful of steps publishers can take avoiding being caught up in the wave.

Avoid traffic-sourcing schemes

It’s not uncommon for publishers to “buy traffic” in order to deliver on impression quotes and meet their obligations to advertising partners. There’s nothing inherently wrong with employing third-party services to extend or increase the audience for your content, especially if that additional audience is human and comes from a legitimate marketing activity like sponsored posts or content recommendation services.

However, some vendors who offer additional traffic can’t deliver human eyes. Instead, the impressions they deliver are from bots. It’s this kind of invalid traffic that can leave publishers in hot water with advertisers and the authorities. Thoroughly vetting traffic vendors is the best way to avoid paying for fake views or even inadvertently charging for them.

Employ a verification solution

Verification isn’t just for the buy-side. Advertisers employ verification solutions to identify, and in some cases block ads from serving on invalid or non-human impressions. For publishers inadvertently receiving fake traffic. this can be a headache requiring refunds or campaign extensions to meet impression goals with legitimate traffic. However, verification cuts both ways and ad fraud detection solutions can help publishers to clean up their inventory and supply chain.

Additionally, publishers can use verification technology to detect fraud on their own sites and pages. Verification technology can help publishers with vet traffic vendors and ensure that none of the traffic they’re serving to advertisers is invalid. Sell-side verification technology gives publishers greater transparency into the quality of their inventory allowing them to make more accurate projections of its value.

Automate optimization

Sell-side verification solutions have been available to for over a decade. They allow publishers to assess their inventory and identify potential invalid traffic before exposing it to ad impressions. However, the process of cleaning up that inventory can be time-consuming and costly.

Automated optimization gives publishers a way to remove fraud from their deliverable ad inventory. Optimization solutions integrate directly into publisher ad servers which allow them to redirect fraudulent audiences to house ads. This prevents bots from collecting cookies and carrying them to other websites and provides an added layer of protection against inadvertent fraudulent traffic from unscrupulous vendors.

The takeaway

The focus on fraud isn’t likely to let up anytime soon. While publishers may feel some added pressure to deliver fraud-free impressions, this also represents a huge opportunity for premium publishers to capitalize on quality inventory. By taking a few simple steps to ensure that your inventory, as well as your traffic generation solutions, are safe and fraud-free publishers have the potential to score ad revenue worthy of their quality inventory.

Perspectives | Revenue

YouTube growth flat as brand safety woes continue

In lieu of Facebook’s reputation struggles, as well as changes to their Newsfeed, many publishers are considering YouTube for both inventory and audience development.

However, YouTube has problems of its own – namely, brand safety. According to a brand-new study by Oath and Advertiser Perceptions, polling more than 300 advertisers, 42% say user-generated content sites like YouTube aren’t addressing their concerns over brand safety. This study comes just a month after Cisco pulled all ads from the video platform. Per Cisco’s CMO Karen Walker, in her original blog post (the piece was later edited to remove mention of YouTube), “We have pulled all online advertising from YouTube until the platform has met our standards.”

As digital video consumption rises, publishers see YouTube as an obvious opportunity. Marketers do, too – but they’re also growing increasingly weary of brand reputation across the platform. In looking at our own data at MediaRadar, the numbers bear that out. Across a sample of 70 top YouTube channel pages, advertising spend has been flat in 2018, with only an 0.2% increase YTD. Publishers and marketers alike both want to tap into YouTube’s exploding audience (nearly 1.6 billion watch YouTube content at least once a month right now). But for this to be a go-to platform, there’s work to be done.

To YouTube’s credit, they’re taking on the work. At the company’s NewFront, YouTube talked up its newly expanded Google Preferred lineup, emphasizing its top channels as premium, brand-safe environments. They also touted the increase in human reviewers auditing content. However, as the Oath study shows us, the effort to resolve brand safety and win back trust from now burned and cautious brands will be slow-burn and long-term.

As that process continues, high-quality digital publishers are in a good position either way. While YouTube addresses trust, more marketers will flock to the service. This, in turn, could boost revenue opportunities for the publishers that want to play in that sandbox.

In the interim, however, digital publishers are still the beneficiaries. The Oath report also found that 45% of advertisers are moving spend to “well-regarded premium” digital publishers — think sites like USA Today, BuzzFeed, The Huffington Post, and The New York Times — until they feel standards have improved on social platforms like YouTube. It’s a win-win for publishers, with brand safety a key theme both now and in the future.

 

Revenue

Are ad-free environments winning video?

It used to be a given that advertising was the major driving force in media business models—from TV ads to sponsored content online. But two big factors have scrambled that equation: 1) data and brand safety scandals at Facebook and YouTube as the EU pushes stronger data rules; and 2) the rise of streaming content as cable-cutters and cable-nevers soar.

More and more, consumers are paying for premium content without advertising. This includes streaming services such as Spotify, Netflix and HBO. Even Facebook researching a new subscription-based, ad-free version as privacy concerns mount. As the upfronts take place this week, a new reality is setting in for TV networks as Magna projects a 2% decline in national TV ad sales each year through 2022.

For publishers, this means giving much more serious consideration of ways to offer consumers a user-friendly, ad-free environment. It’s also time for serious reckoning of what content will succeed with a subscription.

Incumbency and Monthly Rates

Make no mistake about it: The popularity of non-cable, commercial-free shows, and their seemingly indispensable association from today’s cultural conversation, means that TV — if we are still choosing to call this TV — no longer rots your brain. Rather, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other such services are, arguably, as good for you as the best journalistic enterprise. And that means that for many people, a monthly fee is worth it. The result is a profitable business enterprise.

But these networks have their own strategies and identities behind those business models. HBO has long been established as a premium cable network, and that incumbency has given the network a leg up. Subscribers who pay for HBO are probably likely to leave it on in the background after they finish watching their favorite show because they know they’re paying for high-quality content. Netflix also has a comparable consumer base. However, the typical Netflix consumer’s watch-and-go mentality means the network has to keep churning out new content.

Still, the high growth rate for both networks means their consumer base hasn’t even peaked yet. As cable continues to decline, both HBO and Netflix will have to remain nimble. But a loyal fan base willing to continue to pay will certainly help sow the seeds for more good shows to sprout.

AMC Networks Offers Multiple Options

In comparison, with fewer younger audiences and diminishing returns on network advertising, more traditional broadcast and cable networks must balance out their options. Take AMC Networks: Two-thirds of its revenue comes from distribution fees and sales of content to streaming and pay services, while one-third of that revenue pie comes from advertising. While its first quarter earnings set records, ad revenues were down 9%, distribution revenue increased 11%, including to networks like YouTube TV and Acorn TV.

AMC Networks CEO Josh Sapan anticipates this revenue pie will continue to adjust as trends change. “We will probably see that accelerate toward the non-ad-supported pieces over time,” he told Deadline’s Dade Hayes.

Indeed, the network has already invested in non-ad-supported options like a premium subscription service. So, the same time AMC is continuing to make itself a quality destination for advertisers, it’s also planning for a future where advertising will play a diminished role. And its recent boffo first-quarter financial results suggest it may be on the right track.

Europe’s Privacy Laws Shift U.S. Ads

It’s not just that publishers are working against changing consumer preferences. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), set to be enforced starting on May 25, will also shift the scales on data gathering and consent. Companies will have to be much more transparent about the data that they are collecting about users. Consumers in the European Union will also be able to access what data is stored about them and have the right to correct that data — regardless if that data is processed in or outside of the EU.

And that’s already influencing how much advertising may proliferate, as Wired’s Nitasha Tiku reports:

In March, Drawbridge, an ad-tech company that tracks users across devices, said it would wind down its advertising business in the EU because it’s unclear how the digital ad industry would ensure consumer consent. Acxiom, a data broker that provides information on more than 700 million people culled from voter records, purchasing behavior, vehicle registration, and other sources, is revising its online portals in the U.S. and Europe where consumers can see what information Acxiom has about them.

How Many Publishers Can Charge?

While ad-free environments are gaining steam, and more publishers are selling subscriptions in exchange for premium ad-free services to those with ad blockers, there are still only so many subscriptions that consumers can buy before getting overloaded. Om Malik argues that publishers will have to stop drinking their own Kool-Aid and eventually reckon with the fact that few among them will be able to fully capitalize on the subscription craze.

More likely, as ad-free environments proliferate, publishers will have to consider them as part of the mix, especially with the loss of advertising to the duopoly and data security. While not every publisher can simply put up a paywall and watch the money roll in, every publisher can consider just what they can charge for, and what their audience really values.

Industry-Research | Perspectives | Revenue

3 questions to ask your data when evaluating a paywall

While the digital publishing world seems enamored with direct reader revenue lately, here’s a quick reminder that it is difficult to ask people to pay for something that used to be free. And there are a lot of decisions that go into setting up a successful program such as determining the threshold for a free article limit, deciding on a call-to-action, and identifying the right people at the right time.

We wanted to understand the existing subscription model landscape, so we analyzed 1,870 domains in the Parse.ly network. Just under one third (29%) use some type of paywall. The majority of those use some type of membership paywall or a metered/partial paywall. And barely 2% of our entire network deploy a full paywall.

If you’re considering moving from that 71% group into the reader revenue group, you probably have a number of questions, starting with: is this the right move?  Other big things to consider include: Who should be seeing your call to action? And what’s the ideal “free article” limit?

Parse.ly’s Head of Audience Development Solutions, Kelsey Arendt, encourages clients to find the answers in data for these three questions when evaluating which paywall method makes the most sense for your site.

What subset of my audience are “super-users”?

Super-users are your most consistent and reliable audience. They appreciate your content and they trust you. That makes the valuable as a target group for a paywall call-to-action and as an exclusive audience for premium advertising partners or for VIP offers.

Selecting the right paywall method hinges on an understanding of audience loyalty distribution. To determine whether you have a sufficiently-monetizable subset of loyal superusers, ask yourself:

  • How often do my visitors read?
  • How engaged are they each time they visit?

Reader frequency and article engagement help you decide what the cut-off for your call-to-action to subscribe should be, whether it’s a paywall after five free articles or 10.

To illustrate this, we took a look at a sample of aggregated data from the Parse.ly network. Seventy percent of the audience to these sites visit a single website four times or less per month. They also read less than 10 articles per month. Said another way, those readers would not be affected at all if a site implemented a metered-paywall with a limit of 10 free articles a month.

The promising opportunity lies with the other 30%. Take one of the smallest groups, the 3% of the audience who visit a single website nine times per month or more. This loyal group can, and should, be identified if they are the ones who are most likely to convert into subscribers.

Imagine a moment when you walk into your favorite store, the one you go to all the time and where they know you. If someone tells you that they have something special for you, you tend to trust them and consider their offer.  Audiences that have made it to that “circle of trust” for your site, might be more receptive to the idea of a paid membership model, thus increasing your chance of converting them.

What content belongs behind a paywall?

Another way of asking this question is: What content resonates with your super-users? To find out, consider the sections or topics your most loyal audience already loves.  Figure out what your most loyal audiences pay the most attention to and consider making one of your premium offerings.

Measuring total engaged time reveals the content that resonates the most with readers. Total engaged minutes encompasses both breadth and depth. The team at Slate focuses on engaged time for exactly this reason.

Am I adding value for my readers?

While you have to examine the data behind the potential audience and what they’re most interested in, you should also ask yourself what else you can offer them.

The reason why readers subscribe will always come down to your unique voice and your brand. But as much as people like your content, they also value their time. So, any moment with them must either add value to their life or come at the right time.

There are so many ways to add value to a membership or subscription model. A few that have been explored: exclusive benefits, an ad-free experience, discounted events, direct input into editorial, or VIP access. But don’t limit yourself to what you’ve seen. Maybe your audience would sign up in exchange for a book of coupons to local stores or for an exclusive app download that made them more efficient with their time.

Ask not what your readers can do for you—ask what you can do for your readers.

Paywalls: Not always the perfect solution

At the end of the day, if you want your readers to pay attention to your work, you need to pay attention to their needs and interests. Data can help you understand whether a subscription model might work, and how to get your subscription offer in front of the right people at the right time.

And what if the data shows that paywalls don’t make sense? Paywalls, meters, and memberships are just a few methods of monetization. Even if you can successfully monetize that 3% of super-users, you’ll still need to explore other revenue options.

The other 97% of your audience can still help you generate other types of revenue, like native advertising, merchandise, or advertising. And of course, data can help you find opportunities for those options too.

Innovation | Revenue

Why Jarrod Dicker is betting on the blockchain to save publishing

To many, it would seem that Jarrod Dicker had a dream job running the innovation team at The Washington Post. He led one of the most experimental journalism shops in the country with the backing of Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. While Dicker recognized his good fortune, he also saw room for something more – something you might not even find at one of the most progressive publications around. He saw a hole that needed to be filled and that maybe the blockchain would be the right fit.

That’s why last February, Dicker quit his job at the Post to become the CEO of Po.et, a publishing blockchain startup. It was a company offering a publishing model so fresh and compelling, Dicker simply couldn’t resist.

The attraction? A chance to create a way out of the revenue box the publishing industry is in.

Dicker had been working on building a new ad model at the Washington Post, but he recognized that approach would only get him so far. “What we were doing at Post was first step toward building new vision of the media industry,” he said. However, he knew it was going to be very hard for one publisher to change the revenue model for an entire industry.

Like many, he questioned whether it was possible to survive long-term with the current advertising model, particularly in a world of poor advertising experiences, where consumers increasingly opted to use ad blockers. Dicker thought that there had to be a better way – and that might just be the blockchain.

Poet’s Perspective

The blockchain may seem like a strange savior, but Dicker suggests we consider the full utility of an immutable, irrefutable record. If you could prove ownership and perhaps even truthfulness beyond a shadow of a doubt, maybe you could shift from the ad model to one where revenue comes directly from content consumers.

He says that Po.et is working today as a technology layer where creators can place ideas and, using programming hooks, build licensing and revenue models on the platform. “If someone created content, they can create proof of work and attribution and manage permissions all on the platform. Then they can share a public key and anyone can use it, or if it has value they can charge to unlock it,” he said.

The company started with a set of open source tools that publishers and individuals can tap into to build applications that take advantage of the platform. “If you are a publisher and your content goes through Po.et., you can define when and how to share your content based on rules and permissions. If the permissions rules are broken, there are indicators to warn you, and that brings smarter and more efficient ownership to this space,” he said. It also frees the content owner from using ads because the value is based on the content itself, rather than on an ad model.

Po.et’s revenue

The promise of this approach is a sophisticated licensing mechanism that takes something like Creative Commons and allows content owners not just the ability to apply their license/sharing method of choice, but also a mechanism to enforce it. This enables Po.et to act as a marketplace where you can attach a license to your content that requires people to pay a fee to use it. Then the platform will handle the transaction for you based on the rules and permissions you have applied.

The whole idea is egalitarian in a sense. It puts the revenue power in the hands of the content owner or publishers. However, as we have seen in the last couple of years, that which is open and free is also subject to gross manipulation by people or nation states with an agenda. What’s to stop people from gaming the market?

Dicker sees the marketplace itself as the defense against such abuse. As such, he wants to avoid having some sort of formalized policing method. “Policing the platform is going against what’s happening with a decentralized [system] and blockchain. If people have to stake tokens, dollars and reputation, there is more value with this incentive,” he said. He believes this buy-in and the nature of the blockchain itself will help prevent any abuse of the platform. “That’s the beauty of the blockchain. Everything is on the ledger and everyone can see whatever is happening,” he said.

He still plans to find ways to keep the marketplace from getting polluted. “There will be ways to sift out content if marketplace isn’t sifting it out. But what we are working towards is something that can be leveraged by all and used by all, and that’s the core ethos of what we are trying to do.”

Poets on the blockchain

In fact, Po.et was so invested in the blockchain multi-owner vision they did a $10 million Initial Coin Offering or ICO to sell tokens and raise money for their project. The idea behind the ICO was to get buy-in from a group of investors committed to the idea of building a decentralized marketplace for content owners and a more discoverable network not beholden to larger networks like Facebook or ad models.

Dicker says that people bought these tokens, not as an investment vehicle as you might think, but because they believe in the company. “Even though there is a token, it can’t be bought and sold. They hold that token because they believe in the mission,” he said. Dicker believes that kind of buy-in will help reinforce the underlying structure of the platform and make it more difficult for people to try and find ways to work around it.

“Everyone who has an idea should be able to control that idea. How do we make it simple to store that content and assign a set of permissions that define who can see it and who can’t.” Whether such at vision can thrive, even with the best of intentions remains to be seen. But Dicker sees a better way for the publishing industry on an open platform where the owner controls how the content gets shared and monetized – and where advertising no longer forms the primary basis of the revenue model.

Innovation | Perspectives | Revenue

Why many mobile ad experiences fail and how to make yours work

Mobile is as personal as it gets. That’s why people feel annoyed when mobile ads delivered to their devices and apps are a mismatch with their desires and expectations. To cut out unwanted noise and shut out ads that deliver a poor user experience, consumers are reaching in record numbers to mobile ad-blocking technology. Unfortunately, bad ad experiences don’t only alienate and frustrate consumers; they also deprive publishers of an important chance to monetize their assets and audiences.

So, what is a bad ad experience?  Unsurprisingly, ads that disrupt or distort content people are trying to read or enjoy lead the list of most “hated” annoyances, according to research from Nieman Norman Group. Pop-up ads, auto-playing video with sound, interstitial ads that must be viewed before content can be viewed, and postitial ads that obscure the content or just breaking the browsing flow are ad approaches and formats that people want to avoid.

Naturally, in the Age of Personalization—marked by milestone studies that reveal 78% of consumers said they would be happy to receive mobile advertising that is relevant to their interests—mobile ads that are out of sync with people’s interests and context are also a “fail.” However, this doesn’t appear to deter publishers and brand marketers from plowing huge amounts of money into mobile ads that people ignore.

It’s a dynamic that threatens to bankrupt the entire digital ecosystem. At one level, mobile ad spend is rising into the stratosphere. Research firm eMarketer reckons ad spend in the U.S. alone, which accounted for 66% of all digital ad spend in 2017, will increase to 72% (or $65.8 billion) in 2019. At the other end of the spectrum, the vast majority of brands and publishers are wasting budget ads that fail to inspire or influence consumer behavior.

Dangerous Disconnect

New research based on internal data from Verve, a location-based mobile marketing platform that connects advertisers with consumers, puts this dangerous disconnect into perspective. Over half (56%) of respondents surveyed in the U.K. think most ads they see on their mobile phones are “boring or dull.” As a result, the average person in the U.K. ignores 7 mobile ads each day. When looking at the national population, this figure translates to a massive 20 million. “In their current state,” Verve reports, “mobile ads are not making the cut.”

Only one in ten respondents (11%) believed their mobile ads were genuinely helpful. This figure increased significantly with the quality of the mobile ad experience. While just 17% said they were “likely” or “very likely” to interact with a generic ad on their phones, over twice that number (38%) said they would do so it the ad was related to their interests or hobbie. And 34% said they would engage if the ad was related to where they were at that particular time.

Lack of relevancy is part of the problem, lack of imagination is the other. A 2017 survey of 100 advertisers and 1,000 consumers regarding their recent experiences and preferences toward mobile ads conducted by Forrester Consulting and commissioned by digital advertising creative management platform Celtra found that poor creatives may be at the core of bad ad experiences.

The study revealed that more than two-thirds of advertisers believe at least half of their mobile advertising budget is wasted, sunk into the development and deployment of mobile ads that can even harm their brand image. In fact, a whopping 73% of all mobile ads seen in a typical day fail to create a positive user experience.  “The overall digital content experience is littered with creatively uninspired ads, irrelevant ads, and intrusive ads with slow load times,” the report states. “The consumer experience has gone terribly wrong.”

The solution is more engaging ad creatives. Companies that crack the code, using creatives that are more relevant and less disruptive are sure to see improved customer response rates and higher brand recognition, the report concludes. As Mihael Mikek, Celtra founder and CEO, put it in a press release at the time: “Smart advertisers have a significant market opportunity to drive high levels of customer engagement and sustained competitive advantage by leveraging strong creative in their mobile ad campaigns.”

Vendor spin aside, the data suggests positive mobile ad experiences promote positive consumer perceptions and influence actions. The findings also support my personal view that the ability to craft and evaluate effective mobile ad and in-app creatives is at the core of what marketers must learn and master to ensure their campaigns move the needle, not miss the mark.

Inspirational and Relatable

Effective marketers follow the data to determine what works. “But it’s not just about amassing Big Data,” Haydon Young, Director of User Acquisition at Dots, writes in an insightful post. “It’s about creating a Big Picture view of your users by blending what you know about them in the digital world of mobile and apps with what you observe about them in the “real world”.

He recalls how a re-think of ad creatives rocketed conversion rates for Covet Fashion – an app for fashionistas and the shopping obsessed. Observing shoppers in real-life, at malls and shops, helped his team architect an ad experience catered to its unique audience demographics (“moms, daughters, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and everything in-between”). It allowed them to align with their aspirations (“a vast and diverse group of races and body types united by the singular desire to be a part of the fashion and beauty world”). Rather than use ad creatives that depicted super-models, he removed the faces altogether. This encouraged users to picture themselves in the clothes and look they wanted most. The creatives worked because they spoke to the audience ambition to be and look amazing.

The takeaway: Ad creatives succeed when they address audience demographics and desires and encourage people to unlock their real potential. It’s no coincidence that brand creatives “rooted in real life” are crushing it, according to the Global Marketing 2018 Trends study from Freedman International. From fashion brand ASO that refused to photoshop models in its ads to Fitbit that has switched from using professional athletes to showcasing average people working out, companies are winning audiences with imagery that portrays the real world as it really is.

Test for Success

Authenticity is a must across the entire ad experience. Be upfront about what your app offers and choose mobile ad creatives that are descriptive, not deceptive.

“The most important thing to do creatively [in the ad] is to show users what the experience is within the app,” observes Helene Trompeter, Media Manager at The Weather Company and a Mobile Hero recognized for her app marketing accomplishments. “Being straightforward and visualizing the benefit of your app capabilities [in the ad creative] almost always outperforms lifestyle imagery.”

Even the coolest creatives won’t appeal to everyone in your customer base. So, use data to develop effective segmentation and targeting strategies. “Ad copy and images may perform differently depending on user demographics, operating systems, and interests,” Trompeter explains. Choosing the right creative for the right audience is an ongoing task that requires the discipline to test and the courage to innovate. It can be a daunting task, but Trompeter tells me there are some shortcuts. Dynamic ads and creative templates can remove a lot of the heavy-lifting, making it easy for marketers to mix and match hundreds of creative variations to ensure mobile ads are fresh, relevant and engaging.

Trompeter achieves this by applying what she calls the “80/20 rule.” In practice, she runs “about 80% of budget toward historical performers and 20% toward testing.” It’s a smart approach that recognizes the hard truth about effective advertising. Marketers have to focus ad spend on what is proven to work. However, they also need to experiment with ideas and ad elements that take them outside their comfort zone.

Push the Boundaries

Verve Foundry can use part of the screen or all of it to create an animated experience.

Meaningful and effective mobile ads follow the data and demographics to appeal to the target audience. But using the right ad format can also make a huge difference. Walter T. Geer III, VP and Creative Director at Verve, tells me new ad formats that build on existing ways people interact with the mobile Web and apps on their devices are boosting audience engagement. “Scroll, pinch, swipe—it’s all about delivering the best possible ad experience with ad formats that let consumers use their fingers and put them in control.”

The days of using the consumer’s mobile device as a “launching pad” for ads that disrupt and annoy are over, Geer says. “The future is about creating an opportunity that is cohesive to the device and using the data to ensure mobile ads deliver the right opportunity and one that is relevant to the individual.” This is also where ad formats that “augment and enhance user activities” play a major role, enabling a positive brand experience and driving closer customer connection.

A prime example is Canopy Onscroll, a new ad format developed by Verve that combines two engaging experiences into one without interrupting the consumer’s core app experience. Animation beyond the banner activates when scrolling. “It’s one of our highest engaging ad units and a great example of how giving users choices. In this case, showing subtle animation completely activated by scrolling—is capturing people’s attention with advertising that is effective, not intrusive.”

Effective and emotive mobile ad creatives are a huge departure from the annoying screen-takeovers and one-size-fits-all ad experiences that characterized the early days of digital marketing. Stronger creatives, real-life imagery, and innovative formats that push the envelope point the way to positive ad experiences that will engage, motivate, and activate consumers.

Perspectives | Revenue

Advertiser concern about journalism’s fate should be due diligence, not philanthropy

What role do advertisers play in the state, or the plight, of contemporary journalism? What role should they play?

Jim Rutenberg’s New York Times piece last year entitled “Ad Buyers Have a Say in Whether Real News Survives” generated some discussion in both news and advertising circles around these questions.

Particularly, people debated his proposition that marketers should “do their part to support” quality journalism. Ben Thompson called Rutenberg’s piece a “rather fanciful suggestion” because advertisers “are (rightly) motivated by what is best for their business.” Meanwhile, an anonymous ad buyer told Shareen Pathak at Digiday that it’s particularly difficult to “hold up products that people don’t want. I don’t see corporations getting into that business. And I don’t see my agency recommending they do.”

I’m sympathetic to the point that agencies and brands shouldn’t be responsible for providing philanthropic support of companies running for-profit news organizations. After all, there’s always the option to provide underwriting for non-profit news organizations if we’re talking about patronage. However, Rutenberg’s piece, and the discussion around it, moves us into potentially productive ground for the contemporary debate about a crisis of trust in news organizations.

Successful Self-Interest

Advertisers should care about the plight of for-profit journalism, but not for the sake of altruism. Instead, advertisers should be motivated by their own self-interest to push back against what they’re being sold—the clickbait headlines, incendiary pieces, and partisan chest-thumping that are perpetuated by business models not optimized for long-term vision, and the difficulty publishers have changing what they’re offering as long as they’re still finding ways to recalibrate the machine to bring decent profits in the door.

For-profit newsrooms have continued down these paths in the past few years because advertisers have been buying it, and many advertisers have continued buying it in part because it’s what publishers are hawking. Thus, it is indeed imperative for marketers to be at the table in this conversation about the current state of journalism, if we’re going to break such cycles.

In fact, I’d argue advertisers are currently in the business of frequently propping up broken media business models that aren’t operating in their brands’ self-interest. Changing contemporary advertising practices would be in the service of getting out of supporting bad for-profit journalism practices.

Marketers shouldn’t automatically trust that publishers are acting in the best interest of their own audiences or the long-term viability of their advertising products, since for-profit newsrooms are heavily driven by monthly and quarterly profit goals, and the tactics that can reliably can reach them.

It’s up to brands and their agencies to think carefully about whether the ad units available to them might negatively impact trust in their brands over time, or else how engaging in advertising offerings only hastily strategized by their publishers might diminish the effectiveness of those products over the long term.

Wrestling with Metrics

And that gets us to the need for marketers to recognize the digital publishing industry’s brand of “kayfabe.” In pro wrestling circles, kayfabe refers to all efforts meant to preserve the fiction of the industry—a collective con over the “marks” they sell their performance to. For digital publishers living off venture capital, this is the sort of “investor storytime” Ethan Zuckerman writes about—creating the best story for getting continued investment.

The kayfabe aimed at marketers comes in the form of creating the best possible amalgamation of numbers to emphasize their reach and sell the ad units easiest to monetize. It might include uniques or clicks without getting into specifics about bounce rates. It might include emphasizing video views on social channels while steering clear of video completion rates. It might include packaged traffic numbers that includes ad inventory the brand sells for a network of otherwise unaffiliated publications.

Of course, marketing and communications departments are sometimes complicit in the lies the metrics tell, too. Like the professional wrestling fans who are actually not marks but are instead “in on the con,” ad buyers, agencies, and brand managers are sometimes playing their part to maintain kayfabe as well. It’s easy to accept numbers which—internally—will impress the rest of corporate leadership, shareholders, and others, ensuring that marketing is considered as certain a bet for investment as other corporate functions—no matter how connected to reality they might be.

Business Sense

Responses to Rutenberg’s piece last year pointed out that the ethical duty of marketing professionals lie with making the best investment possible for the organizations whose budgets they oversee. That should involve a healthier skepticism than ever in what’s being sold, and it should also account for a negative calculation in the ROI: the risk that certain ad products/buys might have the effect of slightly eroding the reputation and trust accrued by the brand over time. The efficacy and economy of advertising opportunities on offer sometimes appear appealing only because no room is given in the model for the negative effects they might have.

The unsettling truth is that for-profit digital newsrooms, in many cases, have the same basic business model as partisan commentary sites and fake news publications. And, in that case, journalistic ethics and process just become “cost centers,” because the ad units they sell and the way that they sell them don’t make any use of the premium the publisher’s reputation should afford. In the process, it means they are focusing on business models that are further damaging the trust between publisher and audience.

Marketers who haven’t revisited their approach shouldn’t change their ad-buying practices because of altruism. They should change their practices because what they’re currently doing isn’t sound business.

Sam Ford is a media consultant and research affiliate with MIT Comparative Media Studies/Writing, based in Bowling Green, Ky. He is also a Knight News Innovation Fellow with Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism and an instructor in the Popular Culture Studies Program at Western Kentucky University. Follow him on Twitter @Sam_Ford.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.