Tags containing: "native advertising"

Advertising | Industry-Research | Perspectives

Programmatic native: a nascent and growing category

February 8, 2017 Todd Krizelman, CEO – MediaRadar

For many advertisers, programmatic native feels like the holy grail. It brings the transactional efficiency, audience targeting and scale of programmatic to in-feed native units that match the look and feel of a publisher’s content. Additionally, publishers benefit by simplifying native ad sales, with instant access to demand sources through programmatic exchanges. Programmatic native offers real benefits to both sides – buyers and sellers.

However, with so much promise, what does the market look like today?

To find out, we at MediaRadar, took an in-depth look at what programmatic native advertising spend looked like in 2016. For the report, we analyzed programmatic native adoption over the last 12 months, identifying the number of brands buying programmatic native ads through popular exchanges, like Nativo, TripleLift, Sharethrough, Unruly, and Bidtellect.

Here’s what we found.

More Than 4,000 Advertisers: Last year, almost 4,200 unique advertisers placed programmatic native campaigns across the native exchanges we analyzed.
Adoption Grew 86% by Year’s End: Programmatic native surged throughout the year. In fact, the total monthly brands buying campaigns increased by 86% – from 593 in January to 1,133, by November. In Q1 2016 an average of 726 brands placed campaigns each month and by Q4 2016 the per month average leapt to 1,094 brands. This is meaningful growth over just a 12-month period.

Still, Penetration Remains Low: In 2016, 50,605 advertisers placed online ads on just the top-200 largest publisher websites alone. As percent of that 50,605, fewer than 10% ran on native exchanges. This means that for all the significant growth last year, there is significant headroom for expansion in 2017.

Takeaways:

There has been a lot of attention given to sponsored editorial and programmatic native in the press in the past year. While the programmatic native market is still small, relative to the overall spend in the digital market, it is expanding and at an accelerated pace. Renewal rates and advertiser feedback are positive, mostly.

That’s not to say that challenges don’t exist (The Wall Street Journal tackled these issues recently), but we observe that the market continues to be a legitimately bright spot for publishers. We forecast a positive outlook for it in 2017.

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.

Industry-Research

Is it good business for your native ads to comply with FTC guidelines?

January 18, 2017 DCN

It’s been a little over a year since the FTC published guidelines for native advertising. In just 12 months this has led to a significant shift in how native or sponsored content has been implemented. In our original analysis, MediaRadar discovered that in year 2015 75% of publishers hosted native campaigns without any mention of the content being advertising. With the FTC’s guidelines in place however, that number has dropped substantially. Over January we’ve re-run our analysis. Now just 5% of publishers fail to mark native content at all. This is a significant shift in accountability and transparency.

At the time the regulation was announced, some in the industry was concerned that such thorny legalese would dampen adoption of native advertising. But this has not been the case. At all. Here are some quick stats based upon our most recent analysis of native advertising:

We have found monthly increases in the number of brands placing native, in almost every month. There are 16,000 native advertisers buying ads in the past year, up 73% from 2015.
Programmatic native exchanges have become very good at amplifying native, placing 4,182 native advertisers in calendar year 2016. These are advertisers running on exchanges such as Triple Lift, Nativo, Bidtellect, and Giant Media.
There have been very few fines over publishers or advertisers violating the guidelines. The FTC set the new guidelines and the industry has reacted and internalized the feedback.

It is true that there are still examples of native content that is not complaint with FCT guidelines. Folio covered this as recently as last week. But in the big picture, with our country focused on fake news, there is more emphasis on premium content, and premium transparency, than ever before.

Industry-Research

Three key advertising trends for 2017

December 20, 2016 DCN

The ad ecosystem continues to evolve at a breakneck pace. This velocity can be challenging for publishers who are trying to keep-up with the latest innovations. So, what will 2017 look like? What are the key developments publishers will face?

At MediaRadar, we spoke with our clients and pulled data from our platform to help make sense of it all. With that in mind, here are three critical trends publishers need to consider as we head into the New Year.

1. Native Renewal Rates Are Going Up, and Down
With more than 1,000 sites selling native advertising, the market is maturing. But while native is ubiquitous, this does mean campaign performance is so equally widespread. We see and forecast renewal rates on native to polarize. Some publishers are much better implementing and measuring their impact. Strong performance will lift renewal rates for publishers who are consistently showing their advertisers results.

According to MediaRadar data, average renewal rates for 2016 were 33%, with 20% of advertisers at a less than 20% renewal. However, some publishers, like The Atlantic and QZ, have consistently strong performance that outstrips so many. The top native sellers win renewal rates between 60-80%.

2. Significant Programmatic Expansion in B2B
Last year was the year of programmatic for national consumer publishers. But there was also substantial penetration in programmatic in B2B publishing. Per MediaRadar data, year-over-year, the number of B2B websites selling programmatic more than doubles, from 39% to 82%.

Today, programmatic has created a paradigm shift. Traditional B2B publishers now compete with companies like Demandbase, Madison Logic, LiveIntent and others who sell online ads targeted to B2B audiences. We predict that programmatic will continue to see dramatic growth in B2B with more sophisticated offerings including PMPs, tiered pricing, and fixed time periods to maintain inventory value. B2B publishers will master programmatic in 2017 and be able to sell inventory at a high rate due to super targeted, niche audiences.

3. Ad Blocking, A Diluted Threat
Despite industry fears, ad blocking didn’t take off as expected, nor has it affected ad sales. Yes, many consumers do use ad blocking software. An IAB study found 26% of desktop users as having installed blockers. But we’re not seeing the decline in the number of ads served or total volume of ads purchased.

Ad blocking will continue be more hype (and threat) than it will actually create a ceiling on ad spend. Why? Publishers are making ads more palatable, they are speeding up pages (think Google AMP), and demand from marketers for digital solutions remains robust.

As publishers try to make sense of the year and finalize strategies for the first quarter, these are areas to plan around.

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.

Perspectives | Video

Top 6 trends for publishers in 2017

December 15, 2016 Mark Glaser, Founder and Publisher – MediaShift

It’s been a topsy-turvy year for publishers in 2016, with big pushes into video, native advertising and even VR. But the end of the year saw the rise of Donald Trump, and questions about the power of social media and filter bubbles, along with the upside of a “Trump bump” in paid subscriptions and donations at the New York Times, ProPublica and other places.

With 2016 soon coming to a close, let’s look ahead to how the biggest trends of the past year will influence the digital media business in the year ahead.

1. Addressing fake news and the filter bubble
Fake news and the filter bubble, particularly after BuzzFeed’s explosive story on Macedonian teens reaping profits from pro-Trump news sites, have emerged as the topics du jour for media and technology companies following the 2016 election. With users now increasingly aware that red feeds and blue feeds exist as competing truths on their favorite platforms, all parties involved – from technology behemoths like Facebook, Google and Twitter, to media executives and publishers, to individuals themselves – must bear the burden of addressing this issue as 2017 unfolds.

Facebook and Twitter have both announced measures to help stop the spread of fake news, particularly by limiting advertising from fake news websites on its platforms. Facebook has reportedly filed a patent for a technology that would help users spot and report “objectionable content,” and is working with top news publishers to curate content directly into news feeds, both of which would presumably help curb an infestation of bogus content. And news consumers themselves will need to brush up on digital news literacy if they want to understand where content comes from and who’s behind it.

2. Love/hate relationship with platforms continues
Speaking of ups and downs, publishers have had a tough time coping with the growing power of social platforms, especially Facebook, as they command attention but don’t always play fair. Facebook continues to err in disclosing accurate ad and video measurements, while Twitter confuses analysts and consumers alike by banning, and then reinstating, the account of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer. Their standards will have a wider influence on the industry – particularly when it comes to free speech, hate speech, and the limits and freedoms of platforms to censor content.

What publishers can do in working with these platforms is multifold. First, they must consider whether they want to continue to trust and sustain social media ecosystems (that were built in large part on the appeal of their content), while competing with them for advertising and distribution. And if it is the case that Facebook is not investing in publishers the way they should and Twitter is declining in importance, then perhaps publishers need to invest more in other platforms like Snapchat and Google AMP rather than Facebook’s Instant Articles.

More likely, publishers will need to work together to push platforms like Facebook to work more closely on initiatives that are a win-win for both sides. Making sure analytics are right, ferreting out fake news and developing long-term revenues for Facebook Live would go a long way toward collaborative goals.

3. Premium content demands premium subscriptions and donations
Despite Donald Trump’s war with mainstream media, his election has helped the bottom line for news publishers and media outlets. From ProPublica to the New York Times, The Atlantic to Columbia Journalism Review and the Los Angeles Times – all have reported increased readership and interest from audiences, whether in the form of web traffic, donations or direct subscriptions.

Will this paid content boom last? The Financial Times had a similar “Brexit bump” and has largely kept most of its uptick in paid subscribers, so we will see. But it’s interesting that there’s less emphasis on eyeballs-for-eyeballs’-sake and more interest in paid premium content. Two new digital startups, The Outline (from Joshua Topolsky) and Axios (from Politico founder Jim VandeHei), have pushed quality over quantity, with manifestos against the chase for clicks. VandeHei, in particular, is pushing $10,000 subscriptions at Axios. We’ll see if people continue paying up.

4. Too much video, too many native ads
This year saw so many publishers push harder into video, and push harder toward native ads and branded content. On the video side, publishers like Mashable and BuzzFeed went all-in on video, while startups like NowThis and OZY are basically built for video. And traditional publishers like the New York Times, Time Inc. and the Wall Street Journal have invested deeply in their in-house studios to deliver branded content. Vice Media and BuzzFeed have also said that branded and sponsored content offered a substantial chunk of their 2016 revenues.

And that parallels the push by Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to make big bets on video, including live-streaming, where Facebook paid publishers to produce content. But how much is enough, and when do you get to overkill? We know that advertisers love branded content and video ads, and publishers know that their video is eminently sharable on social media, but is this what consumers really want? When you have a glut, only the best quality can survive. People will gravitate toward quality content, toward timely content, toward content with a personality. That means data and surveys will play an outsize role in which types of branded content or video – or heck, branded video – will make it in the long run.

5. Beyond the cutting edge: Bots, VR and edge tech needs to add to bottom line
Virtual reality was a media darling in 2016, but it’s still a far way off from mass consumption. More than anything, it’s going to take actual demand from the consumer, and widespread adoption, for it to become truly profitable. 2017 may not be the year we’ll see that, but the VR and AR markets are expected to grow in the long run as the hardware and techniques for investing in the tech become cheaper.

Bots, meanwhile, will become a hotter topic in the coming year, especially given Microsoft’s forthcoming Azure cloud service that will help developers build bots more easily. Yet again, consumer attention remains an important consideration. While bots may seem like a convenience, and have caught on in Asian countries, developers are going to have to work hard to convince people of their necessity in order for the tech to truly take off and become profitable.

6. The regulatory climate under Trump for M&A and privacy
An incoming Trump administration has Net neutrality advocates worried that a reversal of federal policy is likely despite Trump’s silence on the issue. His main public comment on Net neutrality, from 2014, is a tweet asserting the FCC’s move to reclassify the internet as a utility was “another top down power grab of the Obama administration.” His appointees to the FCC transition team have all been critical of current Net neutrality rules, so this could lead to yet another battle over the rules.

Although Trump promised that he would fight against the $85.4 billion AT&T/Time Warner deal, which he lambasted as “too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” it seems he may be tiptoeing back on that line. AT&T executives, at least, seem confident the merger will pass regulatory scrutiny after meeting with Trump’s transition team. Whether this suggests more mega-mergers in media and tech likely depends on just how fickle Trump proves to be.

And when it comes to privacy, all indicators suggest 2017 and the following three years will be turbulent times. With more reports of hacking and press freedom under threat, the Signal app – which security researchers say offers the most privacy protection out of all messaging apps – has experienced a 400 percent jump in daily downloads since November 8.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

Six things we now know about native advertising

November 2, 2016 DCN

It has been a few years that native advertising is being actively placed in the market. With the year-end approaching, it’s a good time to take stock of what we now know. At MediaRadar, we’re now not just tracking native ads, but also studying how native is bought & sold, and are coming to a view of what is best practice. Posted below are some of our key findings.

Native, a saturated market? Surprisingly the market is not yet saturated. Over Year 2016 we’ve tracked a median of 610 new advertisers buying native, for the first time ever. This is substantial. And we’re finding native ads across b2b, enthusiast, regional, and science media. Native is no longer for certain large consumer sites.

Renewal rates. To provide an average here would be misleading. In fact what we see is polarized renewal rates. Out of the ~1000 websites that sell native, most have low renewal rates, under 30%. This is going to make scaling up native advertising a significant challenge. In contrast, there are a few dozen firms that are very focused on client success. They enjoy renewal rates above 70%. This includes some of the best performers, including brands like Quartz (QZ.com).

Campaign packaging. We observe that it’s exceedingly rare to see native advertising running stand-alone. It’s much more common that native advertising runs as part of a broader campaign. The most common campaign is to run display for 30 days, then 30 days of both native and display, and then a final month of display.

Duration analysis. Across 16,998 brands that have placed native over the past 2 years, the most common is one month only. It’s surprisingly brief. Just under 20% of brands are running campaigns for six months.

Programmatic vs. Direct. In the past two years we’ve seen the rise of programmatic native – both display and in video. Without question, the product is marketing different than direct native. Programmatic native is display advertising that looks-and-feels like editorial. However, these ads don’t typically link to sponsored editorial. In contrast, direct native does. This is the kind of programming that Buzzfeed, Forbes, and Huffington Post are especially so well known for. Posted below is an overview of the massive growth we’re seeing from some of the leading programmatic native companies. This includes name native exchanges such as Nativo, TripleLift, Sharethrough, Bidtellect, Teads, Unruly, and Giant Media.

Recommendation. Native advertising renewal rates correlate tightly with campaign duration. Those winning six-month deals have the highest average renewal rates, with the lowest renewal rate variance. In surveying those most successful publishers we heard consistent feedback: Require clients to commit to longer term deals. This gives you, the publisher, more time to course-correct, to respond to client needs, adjust creative, adjust marketing support, to absolutely make sure that you’re helping the client meet their campaign objectives. This, more than anything, drives up renewal rates.

Number of programmatic advertisers placing in the year 2016

Industry-Research | Perspectives

The deal with disclosure and the ethics of native advertising

September 6, 2016 DCN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry-Research | Perspectives

Content marketers still struggling, opportunities for publishers abound

June 24, 2016 Theresa Cramer – Independent Journalist

The 2016 State of Content Marketing Survey Summary Report from Ascend2 is out, and it confirms what many of us already know: content marketers are still struggling in a variety of ways.

They are mostly concerned with lead generation (58%) and improving customer engagement (55%). Lack of an effective content strategy (48%) and lack of content creation resources (48%) are the biggest barriers to their success—and most of them are still reporting limited success. Half of them say they are “somewhat successful” and 29% claim to be “somewhat unsuccessful.” Only 16% consider themselves be “very successful.”

If you’ve been following the content marketing world, you’ve probably heard some version of all of this before. It’s easy to wonder why content marketing success still eludes so many. But there is some good news. Most companies (89%) say the effectiveness of their content marketing program is increasing. Another 35% say it is “increasing significantly.”

Low down on the list of barriers to success hides “lack of compelling content ideas” with just 25% of respondents listing it as a concern. The mere fact that it ranks so low on marketers list of concerns is worrisome—and perhaps part of the reason they continue to struggle.

Research reports are apparently most effective when it comes to meeting content marketing goals, and it’s easy to see why. Research reports are often downloaded in exchange for information, which inherently produces the leads marketers are looking for. Unfortunately, research reports are the second hardest (62%) type of content to create, right behind videos/podcasts (64%). Research is labor intensive, and time consuming. And it can also be kind of boring.

Content marketing experts are always prevailing on their audience to tell a story. Connect with your potential clients on an emotional level and you’ve got them! But it’s hard to do that with a survey.

The researchers found that blog posts and videos/podcasts are the second and third most effective types of content. Now, those are storytelling devices! Take, for instance, Frank and the Tower, a short film by REI that tells the story of Franks Sanders, a rock climbing guide who has ascended Devil’s Tower thousands of times over his long career. Sanders is a character in his own right. But for someone like me, who not only recently took up indoor rock climbing, but who also stood at the base of Devil’s Tower as a kid with binoculars in hand, the film really struck a chord. Who knows? Maybe one of the people I saw climbing the tower through my binoculars was Sanders. I think about this video all the time, especially when I’m thinking about which store I’m going to in order to buy more chalk for climbing.

Creating this kind of content is not easy. The production value is top notch, and REI has the kind of subject matter at its disposal that the average brand just doesn’t. That’s why brands need publishers. Videos and podcasts are, in fact, labor intensive. Not only do you need an idea, but you need the storytelling and technical expertise to pull it off. Publishers and their staff have all of those things in spades.

In my book, Inside Content Marketing, I spend the final section trying to convince publishers and content marketers that they need each other and this report only reinforces my belief in the promise of this partnership.

According to The 2016 State of Content Marketing Survey Summary Report, 11% of respondents are outsourcing their content needs entirely. Another 61% are using a combination of outside and in-house resources. Publishers need to make sure they aren’t handing over the content creation business to freelancers and agencies. And if content marketers want to finally break through the wall and join the ranks of the “very successful,” they need to make sure they have the right content—created by the right people—and the means to deliver it to as wide an audience as possible.

With a little team work, publishers can use their content creating expertise to help close the revenue gap they are experiencing in the digital age, and marketers can finally find the success they are looking for.

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 @Cramerstrasser on Twitter.

Innovation | Revenue

Salon’s fearless approach to innovating on editorial, video and ad content

May 17, 2016 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

Founded in 1995, Salon is one of the oldest online publications. But it’s far from “old school” thanks to an aggressive and innovative approach to content creation, “co-creation, and sponsored advertising spearheaded by Cindy Jeffers, who took the helm as Salon Media Group, Inc.’s CEO and CTO in 2012. Jeffers, who was inducted into min Online’s Digital Hall of Fame last May, is often credited leading a turnaround for the business — one that has allowed Salon to experience unprecedented growth in traffic and ‘buzz’.

But the real news is the increase in audience engagement thanks to edgy and exciting content (and the launch of new content sections such as Tech and Sustainability), proactive social media campaigns and sponsored-content advertising programs that harness tech and video for effective and emotive storytelling. Peggy Anne Salz, chief analyst and content strategist at MobileGroove, caught up with Jeffers to discuss how a strategy sharply focused on social and mobile has allowed Salon to cultivate new audiences and ensure the continued growth of its native advertising initiatives.

You are CEO and CTO. How does having these responsibilities shape your mission for your company?

For us at Salon it’s all about driving the national conversation with fearless, strong, independent voices. It’s also about being platform-agnostic so that we can share those voices and the conversation from platform to platform. The fearlessness, the analysis, and the points of view that we express has to happen on any platform that we’re on. So, technologies matter a lot, but the focus is to get the voices out there on the platforms that matter most to our audience. It’s about the fearlessness of what we do and bringing that to every platform.

The technology backbone is the most critical piece of that. Our API allows us to be platform agnostic and spread the content that we build — whether it’s video, articles or social — onto any number of platforms.

You have been credited with the turnaround at Salon.com — but what measures really get the credit for this transformation?

I was brought on a little over four years ago and since then we’ve really been focused on a couple of key areas: First, we’ve broadened our editorial coverage, and we’ve really pushed into social and mobile in order to expand our reach and reach new audiences. Each of these platforms have very different demographics. We also launched video just last summer as a way to broaden out into more visual story telling. On the advertising side, we pivoted in 2012 to really focus on custom integrations and, more recently, storytelling through video.

On the product side, our big focus has been mobile. Right now 60% of our audience is accessing our content using mobile. At first had some catching up to do since we didn’t have a mobile browser experience or offer a mobile app in 2012, but that has changed with the launch if an iPhone app, an Android app and then apps for tablet devices. In April, we launched an app for the Apple Watch, one that was timed to day one of the Apple Watch. The focus has been to mobilize and optimize the main site for a mobile-focused experience.

With one in three consumers watch video on their mobile devices, it’s clear that mobile video is eating the world . You are not only using it to enhance your editorial content; you have inserted video into sponsored-content, working with advertisers using video in their storytelling. What is the attraction of video?

We’ve been really excited about video. We launched video on the site in 2012 with third-party video providers such as AOL On. At first, we wanted to get our feet wet and see how the audience would respond. Since then we’ve seen more uptake and more interest in the third-party videos on the site. Based on this positive outcome we decided last year to make it a priority, so we hired video editors and also established a video platform on the site. It’s been amazing to watch the editorial team explore video and see what Salon can build and become on this new platform.

A big part of this is storytelling, and at Salon the process is very collaborative. In fact, Matthew Sussberg, VP of sales at Salon Media Group, is quoted as saying that “when it is done well, native advertising is in the site’s overall editorial voice so that it sounds authentic.” How is that approach progressing and what’s next?

Visual storytelling in general is very popular with our audience and we want to be telling stories that are accessible to them and meet them where they are. For over 20 years, Salon has been home to a lot of amazing writers, but that doesn’t limit us to one style of content or one platform. It’s why we’ve been pushing out into video and mobile — and why we’re also seeing the majority of our audience is there. Looking at interactive and VR [Virtual Reality] I think that there’s a lot more room to grow our brand. For now, video is one of a set of tools we’re exploring to deepen visual storytelling.

One of reasons for the super-sharp focus on video and mobile is because the vast majority of your audience is already consuming and enjoying content on these platforms. What else can you tell me about your audience?

As I said, we’ve focused the last few years on broadening out the demographic — and this is definitely part of our push into new storytelling techniques, new social platforms and new content verticals. And we have been broadening out the mix on the home page as well. Today we have long-form opinion and analysis, but we also are filing timely content that is capturing what is moving through the news at that moment.

It’s the content that appeals to our broad and growing demographic. Certainly, one consistent characteristic across all of the age groups that we serve is that they’re a highly educated group. Having a very smart audience which presents us with a lot of good challenges. It means the content has to engage and empower our audience — and everything we do has to make that conversation smarter. It also means our advertising has to be a lot smarter than what you might find elsewhere. The advertising needs to meet them [the audience] where they are, and it also needs to have a level of sophistication that will actually pull them in. Finally, our audience also consists of influencers across culture, technology and politics.

And this is also why sponsored-content creation is more like ‘co-creation’. Please elaborate on the process since there have been some notable outcomes — I’m thinking here about the campaign when Salon partnered with fashion brand Cole Haan a few years back for its 85th anniversary and the launch of its “Born in 1928” campaign. It was a multimedia campaign with a very effective and engaging social element…

There are certain campaigns that we build in-house. For this we have a creative team that can build custom videos for advertisers and this is a separate creative team from our editorial staff. We also build interactive content. In the fall we did two interactive pieces with Hulu: one was an interactive advent calendar and the other was a crossword puzzle for Seinfeld. Both of those were interactive pieces that lived on the site we created in-house. We also with Cadillac last year on a series to spotlight creative visionaries across the various creative fields. Another was storytelling and video with MOMA [the Museum of Modern Art] looking at the impact of the Internet of Things on the cultural sector.

So those are some examples where it’s not our editorial team that is creating the content. Instead, it’s a collaboration with a team that really understands our editorial team’s sensibilities and how they relate to the audience. The outcome is content that can live on the site and really match the voice of the site.

You have a highly educated audience and that is what drives your content — not to mention a fearless approach to journalism. But it is also the driver on the ad side of your business, meaning sponsored advertising has to be quite sophisticated. How do you keep the balance between content and content marketing?

Given our demographic and just how smart they are, we are not trying to put anything past them. We are absolutely maintaining a church-state divide here. We make sure to the advertisement label accompanies all of the sponsored content and native advertising content that appears on the site.

That said, we also work closely with advertisers to bring the highest quality content that we can to the site — content that allows us to meet our users’ interest while also meeting the advertiser interest. From our perspective, unless the content is quality content, it’s not going to well anyway, so it’s important to produce content our users appreciate and marketing pieces that can, therefore, also go viral because of that appeal.

And since you’ve been at Salon social is baked into your strategy…

Overall, social is very much a part of what we think of as our ‘other homepage’. We don’t think of Salon as just Salon.com. We think of Salon as existing as a brand on many platforms including social. So, posting to our social media pages is just as important to us as getting our content out onto our homepage. Our editorial team is on their social accounts and very active 24/7 on those social accounts promoting the editorial content. Occasionally we work with advertisers that wants to see some of their content to go through that social feed. As long as the content is something that editorial signs off on, then they do promote it. But, otherwise, we determine other channels that it can go out on.

And then there is video to amplify this impact. How does one set the stage for the other and what results can you share?

We’ve been experimenting with video and with uploading videos directly to Facebook, and our Facebook videos have done really well. Two that stand out because they each counted over 10 million views is a rap video that our editorial team made as a mash-up of Palin’s speech with Trump in January and another was a mash-up style video that they did with Trump and teens based on part of The Big Lebowski. These were the first really big viral videos that we had on Facebook. We definitely see a lot more reach through our videos than we had with our written content, so we’re excited about the potential to bring people back to our platform through viral video.

So, in a way, video is big part of what will allow you — and your content — to rise above the noise?

Yes, absolutely. We see video as a big opportunity and an area for growth. Mark Zuckerberg recently said he’s obsessed with live-streaming. I think that we’re starting to see even the social media platforms that haven’t historically had a big focus on video are shifting and starting to explore it. After all, so much video is consumed on their platforms that they really can’t look away from it. It’s the way that people are consuming content.

Peggy Anne Salz is the Content Marketing Strategist and Chief Analyst of Mobile Groove, a top 50 influential technology site providing custom research to the global mobile industry and consulting to tech startups. She is a frequent contributor to Forbes on the topic of mobile marketing, engagement and apps. Her work also regularly appears in a range of publications from Venture Beat to Harvard Business Review. Peggy is a top 30 Mobile Marketing influencer and a nine-time author based in Europe. Follow her @peggyanne.

Industry-Research

Native advertising and the news media

May 9, 2016 Research Team

An ever-growing number of publishers are offering native advertising as part of their digital advertising mix. By its nature, this sponsored content is designed to mimic the look and feel of the content around it. Michele McLellan undertook a study on native advertising for the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism. The Rise of Native Ads in Digital News Publications examines the native advertising offered by 14 U.S. news media organizations — ranging from prominent publishers such as Forbes and the The New York Times to community newspapers and digital news startups.

The study describes and evaluates the best practices that have emerged for producing native ads and attempts to measure the success (financial and otherwise) of native advertising programs. It also carefully examines how media organizations are dealing with concerns from government regulators that native ads sometimes deceive news audiences into thinking that the ads aren’t ads at all.

Among key findings of the study:

Creation and publication of native advertising has grown significantly in recent years as traditional display advertising comes under increasing pressure on a variety of fronts, including growing adoption of ad blockers.
While native revenue is expected to continue to grow, it accounts for a small fraction of revenue for many news publications. Most of the organizations in the study put it at 5 percent or less of total revenue. (Exceptions overall are young, born-on-the-web publications such as Buzzfeed and Quartz that have focused on native from the outset.)
News publishers in the study generally focus on creating sponsored stories rather than offering another native product – in-feed promotions that are more typically seen on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.
Sponsored content is designed to mimic or blend in with editorial content and it takes as many forms as editorial. Examples range from sophisticated story packages to sponsor-written posts. The publications use a variety of media, including text, interactives, videos and photos, and extend the reach of the content via social media and e-newsletter promotions.
Best practices for creating sponsored content include meeting craft standards that are consistent with editorial content and that is designed to be relevant, useful and/or entertaining to the publication’s readership, and avoiding an overly promotional pitch.
Clear labeling is also a best practice. However, a disconnect exists in labeling the content. While publishers have typically used labels such as “sponsored content” and “promoted post,” studies have found users do not always understand that this signifies paid content. The Federal Trade Commission issued guidelines in December that call for using the word “advertising” in the label.
Costs associated with creating and deploying content across digital and social platforms are higher than those for creating traditional advertising. Larger publications command rates in the five or six figures for sponsored campaigns while smaller organizations command much lower fees.

Perspectives

Ensure that your native ads are FTC compliant

April 26, 2016 DCN

From its introduction only a few years ago, native advertising has generated clicks, captured attention, and raised controversy. Native is everywhere, from Hennessy’s partnership with Vanity Fair for the original film ‘Never Stop. Never Settle’ to branded playlists on Spotify. At MediaRadar we find native ads placed both programmatically and direct. There are more than 760 websites selling native. We found 7,004 advertisers buying native ads since Jan 2015 (1,437 on DCN member websites).

Advertisers are constantly creating new ways to leverage this form of advertising, but there has been significant blurring between advertiser messaging and editorial content.

The FTC, however, has signaled that these days without regulation are coming to an end. On a quiet day on December 22, the FTC released guidelines on how native advertising should be implemented. These rules create strong separation between advertising and editorial.

So, who is impacted by the FTC’s regulation? Well, almost all publishers. Of the hundreds of sites selling native advertising, FTC violations can results in a civil penalty of up to $16,000, per count. Recently, Lord & Taylor was found to violate native ad regulations without disclosing a digital influencer campaign for Instagram.

MediaRadar found that 70% of sites will need to modify their current native advertising in order to adhere to the FTC guidelines.

Here is what you need to know in order to be compliant:

Disclose Advertising. When the promoted or sponsored content mimics a website’s look-and-feel, disclosure is necessary. Readers need to know what content was influenced or paid for by advertisers.
Use Precise Language. The FTC is explicit that words like “presented by” or “promoted by” are not sufficient notice. Instead use words like “Paid by” or “Advertiser.” FTC Recommended Language Accepted Language: “ad,” “advertisement,” “paid advertisement,” or “sponsored advertisement.”
List the Author or Advertiser Logo. Include the advertiser’s logo in all native advertising. If an author credit is included, the advertiser should be shows in place of a person’s name. This reinforces to the reader that this is a paid placement, not regular editorial.
Ad Position Matters. Location of an ad’s acknowledgement should be at the top left corner of a native ad (today, they are commonly identified at the bottom).
Video or Sound. Video and sound ads are more complex—so a disclosure is needed on both the thumbnail and pop-up.

Native offers one of the highest CPM ad units and we observe favorable renewal rates on most sites. While these guidelines will create limits in how native is executed, we do not believe it poses a threat. Some of the largest firms, including the New York Times, have labeled with “Paid Post” from the start. And since the guidelines went into effect, there has been no ebb in the torrent of native ad buying. With more prominent labeling, advertisers can creatively use content to drive increased product awareness or increased sales.

Perspectives

Publishers: Prepare to meet the evolving needs of content advertisers

April 6, 2016 DCN

Creating content for brands has been a windfall for publishers. On the receiving end of advertisers’ investment in content marketing, publishers are even encroaching on ground formerly dominated by agencies. But this could change, so it’s critical publishers start to think differently about content creation, and the bigger impact these content assets can make in meeting the evolving needs of advertisers.

Content creation: too many cooks
The current ecosystem and marketer needs are breeding a growing supply of content creators fighting for a piece of the pie. First, there are holding companies and media agencies acquiring creator businesses, to fold content into their client offerings. You then have publishers like the Times’s T-Brand Studio, Conde Nast’s 23 Stories, Time Inc.’s The Foundry and the Wall Street Journal’s WSJ. Custom Studios. Next are third party creators, including studioD and Visual.ly, the latter being one of several in a field seeing hundreds of millions in venture investment. Finally, brands like Red Bull or GoPro (with the help of UGC) create their content in-house. There are a lot of content cooks in this kitchen.

Given the coming market saturation, publishers that are creating content for advertising and marketing partners must prove unique value and impact to stay relevant to their partners. This means integrating their knowledge, experience with and data about a target audience into content that resonates; as publishers should know their readers best.

Publishers: think beyond your sites
Whether a client comes to you with content in hand or relies on the publisher for content creation, they are seeking an audience. Certainly, a targeted audience is desirable. However, many will also seek scale.

Publishers need to think about the reach and distribution an advertiser will want for their content, and address usage and related rights in their creation arrangements. Having a potential scale discussion up front enables publishers to define these terms and add corresponding fees onto a project: yielding higher top line revenue, and higher profit margin.

Creating publisher-voiced content is a big part of the value publishers can bring to the table, but to deliver increased scale, publishers may need to think beyond their sites. Advertisers will want take the publisher-related content and seek to distribute it more broadly than the publisher’s property alone.

Shutting down a distribution rights conversation will push marketers to seek out other content creators that do not limit their usage, leaving publishers to operate without an important differentiator and run the risk of missing out on renewal business. The market will start to filter out the content creators only able to field boutique opportunities, and whose value has a (low) ceiling.

Extended distribution can open opportunities
Allowing the content that publishers create for brands to live outside their own sites should be a more common expectation that publishers are prepared to accommodate. Publishers should also plan for reach extension solutions that push their content onto other platforms. Bumping up against the limits of their owned and operated scale should not always lead to arbitraged traffic, but instead beg the question: Where can this brand content meet the desired consumers?

Allowing marketers to extend reach and amplify content across other publications at scale keeps revenue in the source publisher’s pocket while making clients happy. Publishers with targeted reach extension offerings will cultivate the publisher-brand relationship by providing transparency on where brand content is published.

Scaling distribution to the desired audience in other contextually relevant environments can also help publishers more easily meet advertiser KPIs. Learnings on how content resonates in multiple environments may then be packaged up into insights for the advertiser to inform content creation and messaging tactics – fortifying the content creation offering with knowledge sharing and making the publisher an indispensable partner.

For publishers, content creation is only an opportunity of which they will want to take full advantage. The content they create is a valuable component of advertisers’ native programs, ultimately supporting the relationship brands hope to build and maintain with their consumers. As an overcrowded market shrinks, however, staying-power depends not just on content quality, and reaching desirable audiences, but reaching those audiences at scale.

Sarah Mandato is the Director of Content Labs at Nativo, where she oversees all brand content populating the native advertising technology platform. Sarah was previously the SVP of Community at VaynerMedia. A graduate of Johns Hopkins University and Notre Dame Law School, she was a member of the New York State Bar, before decamping for the world of high growth new media and tech startups. Her writing on the native advertising space has also been featured in Ad Age, iMedia and studioD’s Content Marketing Spotlight.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue

In-feed ads: just because you can does not mean you should

March 21, 2016 DCN

Quality over quantity is key to preserving the native greenfield opportunity

This year’s Industry Preview highlighted how far “in-feed monetization” has strayed from its “native advertising” origins, and the risks this practice poses to publishers. To the non-discerning eye, these two tactics might seem similar, either because they spawn from the same ad placement, or because in-feed providers exploit subtle nuances within the native advertising category.

Whatever the reason, publishers under pressure to make revenue goals must understand the differences and the long-term consequences of short-term compromises. By embracing and diligently applying a “quality over quantity” approach to what they permit into their editorial feed, publishers will safely navigate through an increasingly volatile digital ecosystem and watchful regulatory environment.

Defining and scaling native advertising versus in-feed monetization

Native Advertising: When marketers use publisher storytelling tools to promote and distribute custom brand content the same way site owners publish editorial. In this vein, native advertising is custom brand content promoted in-feed via “native ad units” and consumed on-site via integrated “content landing pages”. The New York Times supports this definition and further clarifies its perspective on true native here.

In-Feed Monetization: When publishers use native ad units to serve “better looking” banners and rich media experiences, or even memes and animated GIFs. In-feed ads use native slots to unexpectedly punt users off of the publisher site on click or rollover, open a new browser window, launch a lightbox ad over the site, autoplay a brand video or any other [Insert creative here] opportunity. IAB Deep Dive on In-Feed Ad Units covers a lot of these.

Scaling native advertising is about aggregating high quality brand content via the direct sales channel and trusted third party demand providers, and using the native canvas in the way it was always intended. As such, and like other hyper premium products, 100% fill is not a realistic expectation and, given today’s native market, is not possible without introducing severely damaging trade-offs.

In contrast, scaling in-feed monetization chases a wholly different definition of scale: achieve 100% fill by cramming in-feed inventory placements with as much paid ad demand as can be sourced. This is a recklessly aggressive monetization tactic that will pollute, and ultimately devalue and destroy the native opportunity for publishers and marketers. Continued in-feed CTR erosion for publishers, and consistently high bounce rates for marketers are clear evidence to this fact.

Considering today’s digital ecosystem and regulatory environment, plus the steep downside to mismanagement, it does not behoove publishers to favor the short-term, incremental revenue of in-feed-monetization without acknowledging the long-term costs.

Consumer experience, ad blocking and the economics of annoying your users

Digital publishers are in the midst of repairing a very broken relationship with consumers. You know things are bad when the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) issues an apology for a decade of forgetting the user, and allowing the business side to steamroll and create an unusable experience for online content consumers.

With consumers actively ignoring online ads since 2007, and global ad blocker adoption approaching 200MM monthly active users in June 2015, users are clearly exercising control over their online experience as a result of frustration. The importance of reinforcing user trust has never been more critical for media companies, content owners and ad providers. We can’t ignore the numbers, nor can we continue to degrade the digital experience.

Operators tempted by the promise of short-term in-feed revenue should consider this 2014 survey that reveals consumers distrust mismatched ad formats in the feed as much as they distrust banners, and the knock on effect erodes trust in surrounding editorial, or this Microsoft study that concludes user dropout and site abandonment resulting from annoying ads ends up costing publishers more money than they earn. The study urges publishers to consider the more subtle and long-term effects that annoying ads have on user retention and revenue. This sentiment is even more critical when it comes to content, the last piece of real estate on which consumers actually place value and willingly give their attention.

The Federal Trade Commission and risk of deceptive ads

The FTC doesn’t issue a policy statement and business guide without the full intention of enforcing it. No less than 3 months later we’ve seen our first perp walk, a settlement that could end up costing Lord & Taylor $800k (not to mention the damage that deceptive practices do to consumer trust). Safe to say unrestrained in-feed monetization practices easily qualify as a fast follower. So, before publishers contemplate the dangers of OpenRTB and programmatic native monetization, they first have to understand which types of in-feed ads expose them to risk and increase the likelihood of potential government scrutiny.

Quality over quantity as the way forward

Native advertising is a bright light of hope. It brings a return to solution selling for publishers, and unlocks a massively effectively brand storytelling solution for digital marketers. When properly administered, native allows publishers and marketers to authentically tap into the scarce reserve of consumer attention, which in turn drives amazing effectiveness and upholds premium pricing and packaging flexibility. Native is proven to uplift the entire digital ad portfolio and preserve long-term monetization integrity, rewarding marketers with superior engagement and meaningful consumer connection.

It’s imperative that publishers exercise patience as the supply of high quality native demand grows. They must withstand short-term revenue temptation from in-feed opportunities whose ad experience exports consumer trust with every click, exposes publishers to dangerous business risk and legal implication, and hacks away at the foundation of their entire digital business—the editorial feed. The solution is clear: publishers must adopt a quality over quantity strategy to protect authenticity and receptiveness to engage in the feed, preserve the user experience and reinforce trust. In doing so, they safeguard native’s greenfield opportunity and in large part their future.

Chris Rooke is Senior Vice President of Strategy and Operations at Nativo, a native advertising platform for brand advertisers and publishers. A 20 year digital media and ad technology veteran and thought leader, Chris has led significant innovations in digital marketing, consumer engagement, and publisher monetization. Prior to Nativo, Chris served as SVP Global Business Development at true[X], where he built and led teams responsible for programmatic and platform sales, publisher development, demand sales, and client services. And, before his tenure at true[X], Chris served as senior executive at CBS.