Tags containing: "transparency"

We need to solve digital advertising’s quality control problem now

February 23, 2017 Mark Glaser, Founder and Publisher – MediaShift

An explosive investigation in The Times of London found advertising from reputable brands like Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar and the NGO Marie Curie running on YouTube videos promoting extremism and pornographic content. So, by extension, those companies were helping to fund pro-Nazi, ISIS and other terrorist propaganda.

Despite YouTube’s investment in software to weed out such content, its continued existence — coupled with the advertising that appears on it — shines a harsh light on advertising’s poor quality control. And News Corp.’s CEO Robert Thomson released an incisive statement in reaction, saying that the industry’s actions are undermining its stated priorities, and vouching to bring its advertising under its own authority.

It’s clear that attaining actual solutions to this problem requires much more soul-searching within the entire industry, and a change in current operations.

A Looming Problem

In many ways, the recent report in The Times is not that surprising. Publishers and advertisers have found themselves in unwanted territory on the internet before, as we previously wrote in DCN. The attention fake news garnered at the end of last year was a game-changer in that regard, as it spotlighted the money to be made from hyper-partisan sites with misinformation. Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft’s pledge last December to share information, to better eliminate extremist content, was therefore a lauded effort.

But even though Google says it has a “zero tolerance policy for content that incites violence or hatred,” blacklisting is apparently not enough. And ad quality has long been an issue before “fake news” became the term du jour in media and marketing circles. The pervasiveness of fraud and viewability issues has demanded better standards for metrics, and better advertising so that consumers don’t just reach for the ad blocker. Google doubled-down by removing 1.7 billion ads last year that defied its policies — which was more than twice the number of ads it took down in 2015.

But with Facebook and Google together controlling well over half of the digital ad market, that leaves smaller players in a desperate scramble for the scraps, undermining concerns about integrity.

Who’s to Blame?

Which brings us to the question: Is programmatic advertising to blame, or is it a scapegoat for other problems the industry can’t yet address? Marie Curie, for instance, claims it was absolutely unaware its ads were appearing alongside the content of a pro-Nazi group. Sandals Resorts, which had its advertising appear next to an Al-Shabaab video, meanwhile, blamed Google’s mishandling, stating the video hadn’t been categorized as “sensitive.”

The advertisers were quick to express their deep concern and withdraw their advertisements, but the “hands off, we didn’t realize it” response is not the kind of reaction that engenders trust. And that is the bigger concern here. News Corp’s Chief Executive Robert Thomson called this out in a statement. Some of his choice lines deserve highlighting:

“We are in an era in which integrity is priceless, yet digital distributors have long been a platform for the fake, the faux and the fallacious, highlighting an issue which we have long stressed – that they have eroded the integrity of content by undermining its provenance.”

“Ad agencies and their programmatic networks are also at fault because they have sometimes artificially aggregated audiences, and these are then plied with content of dubious provenance – the agencies win, the fabricators of the fake win, and advertisers and society both lose. Affinity and integrity are core elements of a sustainable relationship between advertiser and consumer, and yet affinity and integrity are far too often missing in the modern marketplace.”

If the demand for money and efficiency is eroding the integrity of content — not to mention that of brands and platforms — everyone involved must collaborate to gain that trust back. And that means investing the time, energy and resources in some not so quick-and-easy moves.

Identifying Solutions

One potential solution that puts the advertising industry back into the hands of advertisers is to rely less on programmatic and more on in-house ad networks. News Corp, for instance, is testing its own digital ad network to ensure a “high quality audience for advertisers.” The Scandinavian publisher Schibsted also has its own in-house ad network, and focusing on that has helped decrease ad-page load times while doubling viewability from 40 to 80 percent. Vox too has its own in-house ad platform. And alongside BuzzFeed, Mic and other publishers, it’s expressed an aversion to programmatic. Digital Content Next recently announced the formation of TrustX, a cooperative digital advertising marketplace made up of many DCN member companies, including NewsCorp and Vox.

The reality is that individual ad networks are not yet mainstream by any means. Most advertisers are not big enough or rich enough to opt out of automated advertising, and smaller publishers don’t have the size to build their own network.

What is possible, though, is a more consistent, industry-wide approach to addressing these issues and testing solutions. That means worrying less about the bottom line — at least for now — and taking collective responsibility for this problem. And more human oversight over the entire industry — even over programmatic advertising — is the first big step. Just as Facebook has acknowledged it can’t just rely on an algorithm to stamp out fake news on its platform, marketers know that it can’t rely on automation alone. Doing so only stands to create more problems for an industry already on the edges of consumer trust.

Perspectives

It is high time for digital media to heal itself

June 21, 2016 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

Our business is a mess … and seemingly getting worse by the minute. This is a sad statement but, unfortunately, more true today than it was a year ago or a year before that.

While many have stated their commitment to increased transparency, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. While others have talked about efficiency, we are getting less efficient as an ecosystem by the day. Just about everyone talks about respecting consumer privacy as well as their experience, yet we continue to dig deeper and deeper into consumer’s habits without their permission and offer up a growing cacophony of misguided messaging despite these invasions.

From transparency to understanding
It really does not matter how we got to where we are; the unfortunate fact is that we are here. What matters is the how … and how fast, we can right the ship. I think the key is going to be less about transparency and more about understanding. For me this is a refinement of thinking because I’ve been advocating increased transparency for some time now. And, while transparency is a good thing on the whole, the more important issue in this situation is getting all the key players a better understanding of how the system is currently set up.

The saying goes that complexity breeds margin and to some extent that has proven true here; at least at the gross margin level. The bottom line is another issue, given the crazy estimates that AdTech companies are taking between 40 and 60% of every media dollar (depending on which study you look at).

What’s more efficient?
Crazier still is what is being done in the name of efficiency. Consider third party data targeting, for example: Not only does this practice fail to work but it can lead to massive amounts of fraudulent impressions when done using open ad exchanges, which is really the only way to do it and get any scale.

Marketers looking for magic bullets are continually offered up bait and switch opportunities made palatable only because of the truly great performance of a small fraction of their buys. While other such efforts may achieve tolerable performance, this is hardly worth the byproduct of consumer adoption of ad blockers (in part to avoid the kind of tracking that makes these campaigns possible).

So sure, transparency will help in the sense that consumers will gain an increased understanding of when and where their data is being collected and how it is being used. But at the end of the day, without full understanding of the process by all the participants, it will be very hard to move our industry—and the state of digital advertising—to a better place. The self-interest of the middle is simply too overwhelming.

Learning our lesson
Of late, publishers—the supply side of the equation—have begun to get a better sense of what is happening but real change cannot happen without the marketers, the real demand-side also becoming much more learned about this new medium. (Let’s keep in mind that agencies and their trading desks are supposed to be agents acting on behalf of their clients.) Marketers need to be fully up to speed on what is happening, how it is being done and how it is doing on a granular basis.

The ANA’s recent efforts around this goal are to be lauded. They have worked hard to bring some very unsettling information to light in a highly charged environment. This kind of work is always hard and it takes great courage on many levels. ANA President and CEO Bob Liodice and his team are to be congratulated for what they have done so far and encouraged to keep at it.

As is always the case in free market environments, the folks with the initial dollars are the most important part of the financial ecosystem. I say “financial” because in general, the end-user really holds the most power. But unfortunately, educating end-users will take a lot longer than educating the marketers. Having said this though, one could argue that consumers have already begun to speak loudly with their aforementioned uptake of ad-blockers.

We have a truly amazing platform to work with. Digital media has so much going for it: It is incredibly flexible, it is interactive, it is not limited by form factor, it is multi-media and it should be extremely trackable. Unfortunately, as an industry we have done a lot to limit these assets. The fact that it still works as well as it does is amazing. Just imagine what it will do once we take the shackles off.

So let’s all do what we can to educate, well, everyone about the current state of the ecosystem. It is through this knowledge that the industry will find the right way to live with and deeply respect consumers while using technology and tracking in ways that allow marketers to use their dollars in more and more efficient ways. But beyond efficiency, increased understanding will lead to value being put where it should: With the outlets that generate the most consumer involvement and provide the best environments for messaging rather than a wide and growing group of “platforms” and other third parties that hijack the engagement of the media properties and also the trust of the consumer in the name of efficiency.

Industry-Research | Perspectives

Transparency is a key determent in marketers’ trust of agencies

April 13, 2016 DCN

Greater transparency on rebates and agency business models is critical to the level of trust between advertisers and their media agency in today’s marketplace. In a recent study conducted by ID Comms, nearly nine in 10 (86%) of marketing, media and procurement specialists reported that the current levels of trust that exist between advertisers and their media agencies was no greater than average. Further, 80% of the respondents do not anticipate any change in the level of trust in the coming year. Importantly, just over three-quarters (77%) of respondents reported that a close and trusted relationship between marketer and agency will deliver better stronger performance; it’s something many want to see fixed in the near future.

When advertisers and media agencies were asked specifically which areas of transparency most influence an advertiser’s trust in their media agencies, their top responses were:

How the agency manages rebates/AVBs, 71%
How the agency makes money, 60%
How agency group buying / share deals work, 59%
How the agency trades with media vendors, 58%

ID Comma conducted this survey globally with 65% of respondents based in Europe, 25% in the U.S. and 10% in the rest of world. Interestingly. Interestingly, 67% of U.S. agency respondents ranked higher than their counter parts in Europe with regards to “how the agency trades with media vendors” and “how the agency manages rebates” as the most significant items to determine advertiser trust in their agencies

This study further emphasizes the need for trust and transparency in business practices among advertisers and media agencies. Providing clarity on budgets, media buying practices, data integration and post campaign analysis should build stronger partnerships between advertisers and media agencies.

Perspectives

Consumer matters: trust, transparency and the open web

March 3, 2016 Jason Kint, CEO – DCN

I have no doubt the next year will bring meaningful developments in defense of the open web—the essential platform where publishers are able to distribute and monetize their content directly with consumers. On the open web—one in which information flows freely and gatekeepers are not able to restrict that flow—transparency rules, from sources to source code, and the most valued commodity is trust.

To that end, champions of the open web are now writing and debating rules that will impact the value of publishers’ relationships with their readers and viewers. It’s our role at DCN to ensure that the united voice of the 74 premium publishers in our membership is clearly heard.

Last week, DCN sent an important letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after it recently signaled it’s drafting the privacy rules it promised last year when it issued the Open Internet Order (aka “Net Neutrality”). Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which include both carriers and cable operators, have argued that the rules of the wider web are sufficient for them. Of course, Verizon Wireless famously proved otherwise last year.

DCN, as the voice of premium publishers, has asked the FCC to consider context and consumer expectations in writing these rules. Significantly, it appears that no ISP wants to be identified as holding a privileged position in being able to collect and use data on consumers. I’m not sure how this argument holds water considering the fact that consumers now keep personal, connected devices on 24/7 wherever they go. Consider that your mobile broadband provider can see all the activity on your phone—your web history, app usage, phone calls, friends and even your location history—and then tie that data back to the subscriber data they have about you. Clearly ISPs have a heightened responsibility to provide transparency, choice, and control for consumers.

ISPs have begun to fund research from respected academic and industry thought leaders in an attempt to prove that they are in an inferior position to companies like Facebook and Google in collecting this data. Let’s face it: There are also plenty of concerns about how Facebook, Google (and much of the adtech complex) mine data across the web and mobile as well, and our interest in a higher level of consumer trust is certainly not limited to the ISPs. All parties collecting data out of context of consumer expectations carry responsibility to be transparent and offer real choices to consumers. That said, just because some parts of the marketplace have systemic problems with trust doesn’t mean we should default to the lowest common denominator for ISPs. We should all aspire to do better – publishers as well, who carry the flag of trust as much as any party.

DCN’s focus on data ownership and consumer privacy is not only an effort for securing consumer trust but also an effort to secure the economics that will pay for the trusted content of the future. Location and behavioral data collected by third parties is what currently fuels much of the dysfunctional digital advertising marketplace. You know, the one where Google and Facebook eat half of the dinner while adtech gobbles up much of the marketers’ dessert. This market, unlike any other media, consists mostly of direct response advertising targeting thumb taps, installs, clicks and fleeting actions – not the kind of advertising that engenders consumer trust and funds premium content experiences.

Then, of course, there is the rising specter of ad blockers. The industry has rightly been up in arms over this issue for more than a year. The IAB, which represents ad tech companies, went so far recently as to call ad blockers “an unethical, immoral, mendacious, coven of techie wannabes” with “silly titles and funny walks.” Although it made for an interesting sideshow, this is a serious issue and we need to be clear on what is happening: Google, the single largest recipient and dependency of advertising revenues and by far the largest and most influential member of the IAB, is paying the #1 blocker, Adblock Plus (“ABP”), to have its ads “whitelisted” and thereby likely helping to keep ABP’s lights on.

However, pointing all of the blame at ABP and their sketchy business model only does so much because I’m not so sure that consumers care. If ABP and any other for-profit ad blockers went away tomorrow, there are plenty of non-profit ad blockers that would immediately fill the void. The best thing the leaders of our industry can do is to focus on solving the problem from the consumer’s perspective.

I see countless examples of DCN Member companies taking this approach and testing a wide range of possible solutions to ad blocking, from revamping ad and content experiences to consumer education to streamlining mobile experiences by reducing interference by intermediaries. And this month, I have the opportunity to explore approaches and issues from another vantage point at dozens of meetings with senior leaders of European organizations representing advertisers, agencies and publishers. As always, I’ll be leaning in, particularly focused on seeking consumer-focused insights that help advance the future of trusted content. I expect these insights to include thoughts on Google AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, ad blocking and an issue very much related and important in 2016—data ownership. I’ll keep you posted.

Perspectives | Uncategorized

Lessons Learned from Verizon’s Branded Content Fumble

November 3, 2014 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

Over the past week or so, several good pieces have been published about the Verizon-sponsored technology news site SugarString, each offering some excellent insights for organizations seeking to create their own content-centric site or to create sponsored content distributed elsewhere:

Verizon is launching a tech news site that bans stories on U.S. spying
(The Daily Dot, October 28, 2014)

The Daily Dot article focuses on the inherent dilemma created by a purported “news site” that expressly forbids its reporters “from writing about American spying or net neutrality around the world, two of the biggest issues in tech and politics today.”

Verizon fired back at The Daily Dot saying “SugarString is open to all topics that fit its mission and elevate the conversation around technology.”

Takeaway: Brands venturing into developing their own content sites – particularly news-focused ones – must work doubly hard to convince readers they are providing a fair and transparent view.

Is a news site a news site if it’s published by Verizon?
(Washington Post, October 31, 2014)

Washington Post blogger Nancy Scola takes a close look at the “thoughtful, tech-focused stories that track humanity’s climb toward what’s next.” She finds that, “to date, the site’s articles have been focused on simply affirming the mobile tech lifestyle.”

Scola also wisely raises the issue of labeling the content as branded content, pointing out that if this content appeared on a traditional media outlet, it would be labeled something along the lines of “sponsored advertising.” She also finds the small “Presented by Verizon tags” to be of questionable value in terms of transparency.

Takeaway: Clear labeling is unequivocally a best practice for any branded content, but it doesn’t solve the issues around value and transparency. In addition, given the variety of places content is consumed (social, mobile, etc.), creating labeling that works in any context remains a challenge.

Journalism, Independent and Not
(New York Times, November 2, 2014)

In his The Media Equation Column, David Carr writes that he stumbled across SugarString and found its coverage of privacy somewhat baffling…until he noticed some “teeny type that said ‘This article was written by an author contracted by Verizon.’”

Carr calls out a slew of other branded content sites in a variety of subject areas, some better than others, wisely noting that “publishing looks easy, but is filled with peril.” For Carr, the Verizon foray into brand-underwritten news is a cautionary tale about what we may have to do to fund the creation of content now and in the future.

Takeaway: Creating engaging, credible and trustworthy content, particularly news, is challenging even for mature media companies; brands diving in for the first time should check the water’s depth and err on the cautious side

Undoubtedly, others will continue to pick apart Verizon’s foray into creating its own tech news site to drive awareness and build its brand through content. Certainly, experimentation is important, but transparency and delivering valuable information that users can trust must be at the top of the list for any content initiative.