Changing_landscapes_viewability_mfroggatt-8-7-2015
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•94 views
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Changing_landscapes_viewability_mfroggatt-8-7-2015
Similar to Changing_landscapes_viewability_mfroggatt-8-7-2015 (20)
Changing_landscapes_viewability_mfroggatt-8-7-2015
- 1. Shifting Landscapes Moving from ‘served’ to ‘viewed’ impressions in display Michael Froggatt Senior Research Manager, Criteo
- 2. What does a researcher do in digital advertising? Uses data and trends to guide brands 8/7/2015 2
- 3. The actors in the digital ad ecosystem 8/7/2015 4
- 4. Source: Eric Picard, CEO of Rare Crowds (now with MediaMath, a programmatic exchange network), AdExchanger 10/25/2012 8/7/2015 5
- 5. The unit of measurement: CPM 8/7/2015 5
- 6. 8/7/2015 6 Enter viewability 0.29% But is it a true solution, or just more clutter? When it comes to impressions… Viewed > Served
- 7. New screens, new problems 78/7/2015
- 8. 8 What’s at stake? 8/7/2015 • Billions of dollars worth in display spending • Forecast at $75 billion worldwide in 2015* • The reputation of digital media among consumers • 18% of internet users don’t trust websites about diseases sponsored by Pharma companies** • Advertising’s effectiveness and true impact • As we cut unseen ads from results, the true engagement metrics emerge***
Editor's Notes
- Thank you Rodney for that lovely introduction! And, by the way, congrats on your ride in Wisconsin! Your commitment and dedication is an inspiration.
- The job description really is pretty simple. If I had to boil it down to one sentence, that would be it. Ad tech complicates the landscape, as we’ll see later, and busy professionals in the advertising industry, whether the advertiser themselves, the agency, publisher, or other new or emerging decision maker, needs data and, more importantly, the translation of that data into actionable insights. If I learned anything at eMarketer (besides how to write and copy edit for professionals) it’s that marketers are awash in a sea of data – my job is to boil that sea down to the best and most salient insights.
- This description may seem a little bit elementary to some of you, but bear with me for a second. To keep it simple, lets break the actors in digital advertising into five main groups – four of which are the same as traditional media. Advertisers and brands Agencies Advertising technology companies Publishers Audience or consumers Just like in traditional advertising, an advertisers main goals are to increase awareness of a brand among or influence the purchase decisions of consumers, the audience. In order to reach them, they contract with agencies to engage and buy media placements either direct with publishers (direct sales) or with advertising technology companies. You’re probably aware of direct sales as I imagine that is how Elsevier works with most of it’s agencies and advertisers. Pharma companies are pretty, large, sophisticated organizations with sensitive needs around marketing and customer regulations and as a result do a lot of their buying in house. Ad technology is a very wide category. It can run the gamut from blended service groups within agencies (think Xaxis, a trade desk within agency holding company WPP) and publishers (think Google, AOL, Pointroll from Gannett) to holistic campaign management platforms that try to do it all (Sizmek, Flashtalking) to what we call point solutions that manage single aspects of a campaign (like attribution, data management and yes, viewability/verification).
- This slide is the best description I’ve found on the internet that depicts how money and impressions flow between the advertiser and the audience (and ultimately, money back to the advertiser via purchases). I apologize if it doesn’t really fit the design of the rest of the presentation, but since I stole it, I didn’t want to ‘recreate’ it. I mean, I’m sourcing it! This slide is from Eric Picard in an op-ed for AdExchanger in October 2012, who was then the CEO of Rare Crowds. To give you an impression (haha, not that type of impression though) on despite how much things change they still stay the same, this still holds true. As you might be aware, eMarketer forecasts that $75 billion dollars will be spent worldwide on display advertising by the end of 2015. That number is forecast to reach more than $100 billion by 2017. Where does all of that money go into this system? We know publishers don’t get all of it, because a lot of them are public and I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the NYTimes pulling in that much. That spending gets split up within the ‘ecosystem’ you see here. Basically, an advertiser pays agencies, ad tech and/or publishers (probably all three for large companies like Pharma) to reach the audience with an ad when they’re browsing that publisher’s website. When they outsource this task to agencies, the agencies essentially restart this process, but can often buy in bulk since they may be buying for multiple clients. Everyone in the process takes a cut in the road to the impression, even though at the end of the road is the publisher (you guys) who provide the audience. Elsevier is in a unique position to have a very focused segment of readers, not media with broad, indiscriminate reach like a Buzzfeed or AOL that make their money on pure volume. You know your audience better than anyone, and I’m guessing it’s full of doctors and engineers and students that are affluent but busy, don’t shop often but when they do they spend big. Your main advertisers probably look at them more as a SMB to ‘contract with’ like when doctors contract with pharma companies as ‘reps’. In the B2B space, this is a huge opportunity. Direct sales are great. It’s money in the bank, right? But when you pre-value your audience ahead of time to an advertiser, giving them guaranteed inventory, you’re essentially throwing darts at a number. You know what your targets are, but that audience could be way more valuable to your advertisers and you may not even know it. More on this later.
- In order for all of that money to change hands there had to be a single unit of measurement agreed upon by all parties – the GRP of display advertising. Much like trapeze swingers, there has to be trust between advertisers and publishers that the money is going to exchange hands for the goods (the user’s impressions) in a reliable, replicable way. Enter the cookie and the cost per mille (cost per thousand impressions delivered, or CPM). Ad tech likes to think it’s fancy by using Latin to gum up perfectly acceptable laymen terms. The cookie is essentially a single line of code that is ‘placed’ on a users browser cache by a website that can then be accessed if and when the same browser is used to access the site again. It was developed so that websites didn’t have to store user data themselves, because when the cookie was developed more than 15 years ago, storage was still really expensive. Funny thing is…now websites are scrambling to reverse the effect of the cookie, clamoring for big data and hoarding all of that user information. Now, some of the most valuable companies in the world (the Amazons, Googles and Facebooks of the world) make their money from user data, essentially. I read on Wednesday that Amazon adds the same amount of data every day to Amazon Web Services that it took to run it’s entire website in 2004. The CPM is essentially the price that publisher can charge for a thousand impressions delivered to users, represented by cookies, for their ad units. CPM is triggered when an ad is served. An important point. However, as a legacy technology, cookies have been used and abused. They’re the like the Cinderella to advertising’s evil step-mother, and I don’t think they have a fairy god mother to get them out of it. And as advertisers demand greater transparency and measurement of their digital campaigns, the cookie is on it’s way out for more precise data about users and ‘impressions’.
- With the introduction of display advertising across devices, browsers, applications, platforms…not all of which work with cookies…advertisers are demanding one metric to transact upon that not only accounts for when an ad is served but whether it is seen. Enter the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the AAAA and the MRC with a viewability initiative entitled Making Measurement Make Sense (3MS). A quick refresher on viewability. It’s one part of a transition towards establishing a new baseline to measure digital ads comparable to legacy media like TV, radio, print…etc. They’re trying to switch from transactions (buying and selling of digital ads) based on the ‘served impression’ to a ‘viewed impression’, kind of like a digital version of TV’s GRP. Understanding the distinction between those two is the one thing you need to walk away from this presentation to understand what viewability is and what the industry intends to use it for. The implementation, however, is experiencing varying degrees of success. Why the variance? That part’s not so simple.
- Currently, the IAB and the Media Rating Council (MRC) break out viewability by format – desktop display, video and mobile. There is no agreed upon mobile viewability standard yet, just an advisory. Desktop display: the recommended viewable definition of an ad is at least 50% of an ads pixels on screen for at least 1 second. Desktop video: 50% of the ads pixels in view for a continuous 2-second period. Mobile: The same guidelines exist as above, but no vendors have been accredited by the MRC due to measurement issues. If you hear a vendor say they have a mobile viewability solution, which they might, they most certainly haven’t been vetted by any outside regulatory body. Source: http://www.mediaratingcouncil.org/063014%20Viewable%20Ad%20Impression%20Guideline_Final.pdf
- Oh, you mean besides the billions of dollars being spent on online display advertising? *This year, total digital display advertising spend is forecast to reach $75 billion worldwide, breaking $100 billion as early as 2017 – largely driven by video, programmatic display, social and mobile inventory. Source: eMarketer **Digital advertising doesn’t just impact the bottom line – it impacts consumers attitudes towards digital publishers also. Viewable, relevant and engaging content is in everyone’s favor, from the advertiser to the publisher to the consumer. Source: Makovsky Health and Kelton Research (KR) survey of US Internet Users, Feb 2015 ***Viewability doesn’t just impact who sees the ad, it helps advertisers (and publishers) report on the actual performance of the ad. When we eliminated the share of unseen served impressions from the equation, click-through rates and conversion rates increased nearly 50%. Source: Sizmek, 2012
- Programmatic across all industries, the ability to target and segment and sell those specific audiences to the right advertisers. How do they optimize that inventory? Even with the certified vendors, there are discrepancies. The IAB says for a viewability measurement to be valid 70% of the impressions served must be recorded, meaning that there could possibly be another 30% of impressions that weren’t and the vendor doesn’t know whether they were seen or not. This is where a lot of the confusion comes in. The IAB is trying to please all sides here, giving enough leeway for the advertisers, viewability vendors and publishers to come to an agreement or at least to set a baseline for the buying and selling of viewable ads. It’s a noble venture, but as you might have read in the headlines, agencies and advertisers aren’t having it (GroupM, for example, wants 100% viewable rates on 100% of impressions it pays for although I think this is pretty obviously grandstanding), and publishers are struggling to provide the unquestioned inventory.
- Thanks for listening!!