E marketer overview_of_digital_cp_ms-measures_of_digital_performance_place_pressure_on_pricing

OVERVIEW
OF DIGITAL
CPMsMeasures of Digital Performance
Place Pressure on Pricing
OCTOBER 2013
LaurenT. Fisher
Contributors: Catherine Boyle, Mitchel Winkels
Read this on
eMarketer for iPad

OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL CPMS: MEASURES OF DIGITAL PERFORMANCE PLACE PRESSURE ON PRICING ©2013 EMARKETER INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2
CONTENTS
2 Executive Summary
3 The State of the CPM Model
4 Publishers Look to Offer Performance or Prove
‘Premium’ Status
6 Programmatic Buying and a Performance-Conscious CPM
7 Viewability Vets the True Value of an Impression
9 Upholding a Cross-Platform Cost Structure
10 eMarketer Interviews
10 Related eMarketer Reports
11 Related Links
11 Editorial and Production Contributors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The cost-per-thousand (CPM) impression is the
de facto digital display advertising currency today,
offering brand advertisers a comparable method to
buying traditional brand media. But as brands are
getting better at—and more comfortable with—digital
performance metrics such as cost per acquisition
(CPA) or cost per engagement (CPE), many wonder
whether pricing might not be contingent on both
audience and performance parameters.
In an effort to better understand how performance
measurement and other industry factors are influencing
the current state of the CPM pricing model, eMarketer
interviewed nearly a dozen agency, brand, publisher and
advertising technology industry professionals.
This report highlights some of the ways in which display
advertising pricing is evolving to meet brand advertisers’
changing needs. It explores the current actions of
publishers, the effects of programmatic buying and the
influence of the industrywide move toward a viewable
impression standard to understand how each of these
factors calls for a more performance-conscious CPM.
Though mobile certainly fits within such a
performance-based discussion, its influence on the
display pricing ecosystem is both complex and great.
Though the effects of mobile will not be discussed in this
report, eMarketer would be remiss not to make note of
such a strong influence.
In the long term, the CPM—or some slightly modified
form of it such as the viewable CPM—will remain the
dominant pricing structure, as brands are unlikely to forgo
a pricing structure such as the CPM that makes it easier
to buy digital media across platforms.
KEY QUESTIONS
■■ What is the current state of the CPM model?
■■ How are publishers meeting brands’ desire to
measure both digital audience and performance?
■■ How is programmatic affecting the current CPM
pricing model?
■■ How might the move toward a viewable CPM cost
structure affect CPM prices?
US Indirect* vs. Premium** Online Display Ad CPM,
2010-2017
2010
$0.80
$9.00
2011
$0.90
$9.50
2012
$1.00
$9.90
2013
$1.10
$10.40
2014
$1.20
$10.90
2015
$1.30
$11.50
2016
$1.50
$12.10
2017
$1.60
$12.70
Indirect* Premium**
Note: excludes mobile display ad impressions; *comes in two forms;
for publishers with a sales force, it is the proportion of inventory that they
are unable to sell directly to advertisers and thus liquidate through indirect
channels; for publishers without a sales force, all inventory would typically
be sold through the indirect channel such as an SSP, ad network, ad
exchange or DSP; **is the highest-priced inventory sold directly to
advertisers and is a small proportion of total inventory, such as a prominent
top banner of a homepage
Source: Credit Suisse, "Web 2.012," Feb 21, 2012
164523 www.eMarketer.com

THE STATE OF THE CPM MODEL
For many years, firms—including eMarketer—
have equated formats like banners, rich media,
sponsorships and video with brand advertising,
while search, classifieds and directories, email, lead
generation, and mobile messaging were proxies
for direct-response efforts. But in today’s digital ad
ecosystem, the lines between objective and format
are blurring.
In eMarketer’s September 2013 report, “Key Digital
Trends for Q3 2013: How Omnichannel Is Blurring
Boundaries Everywhere,” we explained how multiple
factors, including the convergence of digital as both a
content and a commerce medium, as well as the rise of
multichannel marketing campaigns, are leading marketers
to benchmark their digital ad campaigns against both
performance- and branding-based objectives—regardless
of format.
February 2013 data from Nielsen and digital brand
advertising measurement firm Vizu supported this
observation. Survey results showed 90% of US brand
marketers preferred to use at least some digital-specific
metrics—be it clicks, views, conversions or sales—to
quantify the value of their online investment.
% of respondents
Metrics* that US Brand Marketers Would Like to Use
to Measure Their Online Ad Spending, Feb 2013
Would prefer to use the exact same metrics and nothing else
9%
Would prefer to use the exact same metrics and additional
metrics specific to the online medium
54%
Would prefer to use some of the same metrics from the offline
medium and some metrics specific to the online medium
26%
Would prefer to rely primarily on metrics specific to the online
medium
10%
Note: numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding; *already used for
offline spending
Source: Nielsen and Vizu, "2013 Online Advertising Performance Outlook"
conducted by CMO Council, April 18, 2013
That’s not to say brands are ignoring traditional measures
of advertising such as brand-lift surveys or impressions,
the latter being a primary measure of audience. What
it reflects, rather, is a desire to understand the value
of digital ad spending beyond simple branding and
audience measures.
“We’ve seen a pretty significant change over the past
couple of years where buyers are becoming more return
on investment- (ROI-) centric,” said Philip Smolin, senior
vice president of market solutions for demand-side
platform (DSP)Turn. “And that’s not to suggest they’re
taking to hardcore, direct-response objectives—they’re
also still very much concerned with brand awareness-type
measures. It’s more that our clients are becoming less
concerned about the CPM price and more concerned
about the value they get from that CPM.”
Anthony Risicato, general manager of video advertising
platform VideoHub, has seen a similar trend. “As the
marketers get more sophisticated, the measurement
gets more sophisticated,” he said. “Now that we
can measure engagement and viewability and rating
points against online video, marketers are starting to
ask what they’re getting out of that buy. And the more
sophisticated marketers are saying, ‘I’m paying X dollar
CPMs, but I’m getting X amount of share shift by a
brand-lift measurement,’ or, ‘I’m getting this amount of
engagement with someone in my ad.’”
Brand advertisers’ pursuit of performance is affecting the
current state of the digital CPM cost structure in several
ways.The first and perhaps most direct effect is the
willingness of premium and other large-scale publishers
to offer both performance- and CPM-based pricing. In
contrast, however, some publishers seek to bolster the
value of CPMs and preserve the cost structure by building
bigger, better and more engaging advertising experiences.
Native advertising is one example.

PUBLISHERS LOOK TO OFFER
PERFORMANCE OR PROVE
‘PREMIUM’ STATUS
Evidence of the blurring lines between objectives
is apparent in that some of the biggest publishing
names today in terms of reach, content and
audience—Facebook,Twitter,YouTube—all offer both
performance- and CPM-based pricing models.
“There’s a lot of confusion right now around whether
or not the CPM is the right business model or if there’s
something better,” said Jeremy Steinberg, senior vice
president of digital ad sales atThe Weather Channel.
“That stems from the fact that there’s a lack of clarity in
the overall direction of the industry, because you have
all of these large forces acting differently. Facebook and
Twitter have their own unique business models. We see
Google with performance-based business models. It’s a
very confusing time in the industry right now.”
The willingness of just three publishers to offer
performance-based pricing in addition to CPMs might
seem a nominal point, but their influence in the display
advertising ecosystem is anything but. eMarketer
estimates net US digital display ad revenues for
Facebook, Google andTwitter will account for more
than 37% of all net US digital display ad revenues—or
$6.53 billion—this year. By 2015, that share will grow to
nearly 48%.
Though many brands may still prefer to buy from these
publishers on a CPM basis, the mere offering of multiple
buying options shows publishers’ acknowledgement of
performance-conscious brands.
“Many publishers are looking to offer added value to their
display buys by offering pricing options—not just a CPM,
but a cost per click, cost per conversion or CPE,” said
Elizabeth Pigg, senior vice president of converged media
strategy at public relations firm Edelman. “Publishers
are being forced to have pricing models besides CPMs
because the buyers aren’t just media agencies anymore.
They are PR firms or ad agencies or brands themselves.
Who is doing the buying is totally changing.”
Pigg said she has seen a growing number of publishers,
such as magazines and other content-rich properties that
offer more native advertising-type display experiences,
willing to take on performance pricing to meet
buyer demands.
But asTurn’s Smolin noted, not all publishers are
kowtowing to pressures for performance-based pricing.
“The problem with pure-performance models like a CPA
is that they put all the risk onto the publisher,” he said.
“There are so many variables about the ‘performance’ of
an ad that are out of the publisher’s control.”
Instead,The Weather Channel’s Steinberg and others
interviewed for this report said they see a number of
publishers seeking to meet brands’ performance needs
by improving advertiser experiences.
“Publishers have been concerned for quite some time
about the pressure on CPM prices, so they’ve had to
innovate new ways to increase demand,” Steinberg
explained. “One of those ways is via native advertising,
where there’s more value and they can charge more of
a premium.”
Though “native advertising” means many things, it
generally applies to ads that are integrated into the
content experience, many of which are display.Twitter’s
PromotedTweets, Facebook’s Sponsored Stories and
even brand-sponsored content, articles or video on media
sites would typically be considered native advertising.
In June 2013, 73% of US publishers surveyed by the
Online Publishers Association (OPA) and strategic
consultancy Radar Research said they offered native
advertising, with another 17% planning to do so in the
coming year.

May 2013 polling by multiscreen video advertising
provider Mixpo found that among US ad agencies that
already used native advertising, nearly three-quarters
(72.2%) had used Facebook Sponsored Stories, and more
than three in five had used either Promoted Videos on
YouTube or PromotedTweets onTwitter—all of which are
bought and sold on either a CPM or performance basis.
% of respondents
Types of Native Ads Used by US Ad Agencies,
May 2013
Facebook Sponsored Stories 72.2%
Promoted Videos on YouTube 68.1%
Search engine marketing 68.1%
Twitter's Promoted Tweets 62.5%
Tumblr's Radar 20.8%
None5.6%
Note: read chart as saying 72.2% of agencies that use native ads used
Facebook Sponsored Stories
Source: Mixpo, "Master Multiscreen Video Advertising," June 10, 2013
“Advertisers are very excited about native advertising
or content marketing opportunities,” said Scott
Neslund, executive vice president of media services at
advertising agency Centro. “They see higher consumer
engagement with these types of customized ads.They
also tend to have higher viewability rates, meaning
above-the-fold placements.”
Though all of these value-adds justify the command
for higher CPMs called for by publishers offering
native advertising opportunities, the greater focus on
engagement might have brands calling for pricing that
follows suit. One such model is CPE, which native ad
providers such asYouTube andTwitter offer. Such a
pricing structure is a direct reflection of the metric the
same OPA and Radar Research study found the
majority of US marketers used to measure native
advertising: engagement.
% of respondents
Most Important Metrics that Marketers Are Using to
Measure the Impact of Their Native Ad Campaigns
According to US Publishers, June 2013
Engagement/time spent
57%
Trafﬁc
43%
Social media sharing
33%
Brand lift
24%
Engagement with the content such as comments
19%
Cost per view/session
10%
Cost per click
10%
Other
5%
Note: n=21; respondents selected their top 2 metrics
Source: Online Publishers Association (OPA) and Radar Research, "Premium
Content Brands Are Native Naturals," July 10, 2013
Though for many, CPE might be a preferred performance
metric, but it is unlikely to become a ubiquitous pricing
model. “The CPE pricing model can be hard because
you need liquidity,” VideoHub’s Risicato said. He noted
that networks such asTremor Video or publishers such
asYouTube, for example, are able to make such a model
work because of their massive amount of inventory, wide
reach and ability to more seamlessly integrate advertiser
content with their own.
Centro’s Neslund also said he didn’t see performance-
based pricing as the future of native advertising: “We’re
seeing a CPM model being attached to native advertising
for now, and I don’t think that will change.”
For more on native advertising, see eMarketer’s May 2013
report, “Native Advertising: An Emerging Consensus for a
New Kind of Ad.”

PROGRAMMATIC BUYING AND A
PERFORMANCE-CONSCIOUS CPM
What was only a couple of years ago a testing ground
for direct-response display ad buyers, real-time
bidding (RTB), or programmatic buying, is now a
staple in the display advertising ecosystem.
eMarketer expects US media buyers to devote
$3.34 billion to programmatic display this year, accounting
for nearly one in five digital display ad dollars. By 2017,
RTB’s share will reach 29.0%.
billions, % change and % of total digital display ad spending
US Real-Time Bidding (RTB) Digital Display Ad Spending,
2012-2017
2012
$1.92
94.8%
13.0%
2013
$3.34
73.9%
19.0%
2014
$4.54
35.8%
22.0%
2015
$5.94
31.0%
25.0%
2016
$7.52
26.5%
28.0%
2017
$8.69
15.5%
29.0%
RTB digital display ad spending
% change % of total digital display ad spending
Note: includes all display formats served to all devices
Source: eMarketer, Aug 2013
Driving a good portion of programmatic ad spending
growth is an expected influx of higher-quality ad inventory,
as more premium publishers erect private ad exchanges,
following the likes of companies such as Forbes,The Wall
Street Journal, Hearst Corporation and Facebook.
Though in the past, branding advertisers have shied away
from programmatic buying for fears of brand safety and
inventory quality, future growth expectations suggest it
is an area that neither can nor should be ignored. In fact,
in its April 2013 “Index Quarterly Report: Issue 2, Q3-Q4
2012,” advertising exchange Casale Media noted 60%
of the top 100 US advertisers had already participated in
programmatic buying across its Index exchange.
Media buyers’ use of programmatic technology and other
RTB-enabled buying tools such as DSPs and agency
trading desks provide them with the option to bid on
display ad inventory using a more performance-based
CPM pricing model: the dynamic CPM.
In simplest terms, the dynamic CPM is a pricing scale
that slides up or down based on specified measures of
performance. For instance, media buyers would specify
a CPA they wish to meet with their display ad campaign
and also specify an acceptable range of CPMs the
system can use to bid on inventory in order to meet that
performance objective.
“When you put that ‘D’ at the beginning of the CPM,
that ‘dynamic,’ what it means is the algorithm within
the DSP is floating that CPM price up or down based on
the predictions of the ROI that they are going to drive.
From a buyer perspective, they’re now able to set those
host impression objectives and buy more based on
performance,”Turn’s Smolin said. “But to the sellers, it’s
still a CPM pricing model.”
Indeed, publishers and other inventory providers using a
sell-side platform still receive payment on a CPM basis,
making such an RTB function a win-win for both media
buyers and publishers—and offering a happy medium
between publishers forcing buyers toward a CPM
pricing model or media buyers backing publishers into a
performance-based agreement.
Agency professionals such as Jared Belsky, executive
vice president of digital advertising firm 360i, have also
noticed an uptick in programmatic buyers using the
dynamic CPM.
“We’re seeing a dynamic CPM to be a lot more common,
using DSPs where clients as well as media buyers are
more focused on the result of the campaign than the
actual CPM,” he explained.
Belsky offered the example of a travel client initially
coming to 360i with a $4 CPM threshold. “We told them
they might want to pay more to get to the right person,
especially in an RTB market,” he said. “We now have
them paying about $8 CPMs, but they don’t care because
they’re seeing the return.”
In the past, concerns for brand safety have sidelined
some media buyers from the ad exchange arena, fearing
for lack of transparency into ad placements and assuming
the majority of impressions are remnant inventory.

But as signs of growth in the RTB arena point to an
increase in premium inventory as more premium
publishers continue to build private exchanges, and
massive publishers such asYahoo! and AOL leverage
RTB to offer advertising “upfronts,” brands’ use of
programmatic seems inescapable.
“It will take two years, but you’re going to see those
private marketplace technologies evolve out so that they
support all of the traditional buying models, including
upfronts, through RTB,” Smolin said.
Though for now some of the more premium sources of
programmatic inventory such as private exchanges only
look to broker fixed-price transactions, it’s not unthinkable
that in the future advertisers might use a dynamic CPM
that hinges on a performance measure of brand lift or
another branding-specific metric, instead of CPA or cost
per conversion.
For more on the influence of RTB and private ad
exchanges, see eMarketer’s November 2012 report,
“Real-Time Bidding: Ad Spending Forecast and Future
Growth Factors.”
VIEWABILITY VETS THE TRUE
VALUE OF AN IMPRESSION
As brands follow their audiences to digital and begin
to invest their ad dollars appropriately, the ability to
both buy and execute advertising across platforms
will become even more critical.
With a CPM, media buyers pay a set price per thousand
impressions. But as data increasingly proves that the
majority of display ad impressions bought and served are
never even seen, many are calling for a corrected CPM
pricing model based on viewability.
Though viewability isn’t technically a performance
measure, it has a major effect on performance and, in
turn, pricing.
“Most big brands buy cross-platform,” said Sherrill
Mane, senior vice president of research, analytics and
measurement at the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB).
“Other media charge CPMs for impressions that are all
viewable. So why would brand advertising in digital be
transacted on a CPM that’s not?”
This question is warranted, as demonstrated by a now
notorious study from comScore that showed less than
half (46%) of US display ad impressions delivered
between May 2012 and February 2013 were considered
in-view, defined as at least 50% of the ad visible for 1
second or more.
More recent data from ad verification provider Integral
Ad Science showed similar numbers and noted that
viewability varies by inventory provider. Ads purchased
from publishers in H1 2013, for example, were more
likely to be viewable compared with ad networks and
exchanges, the latter of which are typically programmatic.
% of total
Digital Display Ads Worldwide that Are In-View*, by
Creative Size and Platform, H1 2013
728x90 300x250 160x600
Direct 58.0% 58.4% 67.0%
Network 40.0% 44.0% 45.3%
Exchanges 37.5% 40.0% 45.3%
Hybrid 37.5% 35.1% 43.0%
Note: *for at least 1 second, includes impressions served to desktops,
laptops, mobile devices and tablets
Source: Integral Ad Science, "Semiannual Review," Sep 11, 2013

“In programmatic especially, you see buyers paying to do
all of this fancy targeting on top of their inventory buys,
but at the end of the day, those ads aren’t even seen,”
said Patricia Neuray, vice president of global sales at ad
safety and verification firmTRUSTe. “Publishers have to
be willing to balance quality and quantity.”
Already, the industry shows signs of willingness. Scott
Symonds, managing director of AKQA Media, a division
of digital advertising agency AKQA, already sees some
publishers pursuing viewability in their pricing structure.
“There are publishers and technologies that are either
making up the difference for nonviewable impressions or
are already testing out pricing models where they only
charge per viewable impression,” he noted.
The benefits of moving toward a viewable impression
model are straightforward, and it’s hard to argue with
the demand that buyers only pay—and publishers only
sell—what can be seen. Even still, some question
whether the current served CPM model can evolve into a
viewable CPM.
“It’s still very early days for viewability,” said NoahTratt,
global vice president of media solutions at travel publisher
Expedia. “We’re still trying to see how the industry
evolves and defines viewability, because different vendors
and different ad agencies provide nuanced perspectives
on what viewability really means.”
Definition aside, another concern raised for moving
toward a cost-per-viewable-impression pricing model
is the potential among networks and publishers to
overinflate their pricing to make up for lost revenues per
ad unit.
“If we knee-jerk force publishers into a viewable-only
environment, we may do ourselves a disservice in jacking
up prices beyond what will lead to a better return,” said
Christine Benson, senior vice president of media strategy
at advertising agency iCrossing. “All of a sudden, the
price publishers will want to sell those ads for will go
up disproportionately to the amount of added benefit an
advertiser might get.”
But professionals likeTurn’s Smolin are optimistic that
as more and more media buyers continue to adopt
measurement tools such as verification or multitouch
attribution models, pricing inflation will be sniffed out and
snuffed out.
“Publishers that have artificially inflated CPMs in their
inventory that aren’t driving good value for advertisers will
find it hard to defend those prices,” he said. “Those prices
will see some significant downward pricing pressure, and
those that do create value in their advertising will see
some positive CPM trends.That’s going to have a positive
impact on publishers that actually have good content,
good audiences and create value for advertisers.They’ve
been undervalued.”
AKQA’s Symonds agreed: “Some of the premium
placements already have high viewability rates, so the
additional tax will be low. Where the tax will be high is on
some of the lower-quality placements—programmatic,
maybe network—where the viewability can be less
than 50%.”
Though such a correction of the current CPM model
might be disruptive, Mane and other industry
professionals agreed it is both warranted and inevitable.
“You’re changing the currency, and you’re changing the
forecasting of inventory, which theoretically changes the
supply,” she said. “But fundamental viewability is the
building block for a marketplace where there is greater
differentiation in the value of display advertising and
the pricing.”

UPHOLDING A CROSS-PLATFORM
COST STRUCTURE
Brands’ desire to benchmark their digital
advertising investment through both traditional
and digital-specific performance measures will only
grow as measurement and technology continue to
advance toward a more seamless cross-platform
advertising experience.
Though digital performance measures such as CPE or
CPA are likely to be used to justify the value of a CPM
price—and are currently offered by some publishers as
a pricing option—it is unlikely for brands to abandon a
standard pricing model such as a CPM.
“When you’re transacting billions of dollars onTV, and you
start moving the money in greater proportion into digital,
you’re not going to take on a different currency,” IAB’s
Mane said. “If display advertising is going to benefit from
having a common currency across platforms, it’ll have to
be the CPM.”
The Weather Channel’s Steinberg agreed, noting that
if there were another pricing model that was to be the
future of display, it would likely have already manifested
in more forward-looking areas, like RTB. “If there was
another business [pricing] model that made sense for
the marketplace, you’d see it already in programmatic,”
he said. “If you really want to scale a marketplace across
a wide variety of participants, the CPM seems like the
common currency.”
Still, publishers and other inventory providers will feel the
effects of a more performance-conscious and value-driven
brand marketer.
“If [publishers] don’t come up with innovative products or
units, they’re going to start to lose the conversation when
commanding premium pricing,” iCrossing’s Benson said.
Both interviews and data have suggested that publishers
and inventory providers seeking to improve their
performance and overall value would be rewarded
for their efforts. Financial services firm Credit Suisse
projected that by 2017, the average CPM for premium
display ad inventory in the US would be $12.70 and that
the average CPM for indirect inventory, which includes
programmatic, would reach $1.60—double what it was
in 2010.
US Online Display Ad CPM, by Inventory Tier, 2010-2017
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Indirect
$0.80
$0.90
$1.00
$1.10
$1.20
$1.30
$1.50
$1.60
Midtier
$3.00
$2.90
$2.90
$2.80
$2.80
$2.70
$2.70
$2.60
Premium
$9.00
$9.50
$9.90
$10.40
$10.90
$11.50
$12.10
$12.70
Average CPM
$1.70
$1.70
$1.80
$1.90
$2.00
$2.20
$2.30
$2.50
Note: excludes mobile display ad impressions; average CPM calculated
using weighted average for online display ad impression share
Source: Credit Suisse, "Web 2.012," Feb 21, 2012
Worth noting is that the firm estimated little growth in
CPM value for midtier inventory, defined as “lower-priced
inventory sold directly to advertisers.” Should industry
initiates such as the viewable CPM pricing model unfold,
one can expect much of the midtier inventory to either
be rendered obsolete or minimize in demand, perhaps
resulting in even lower estimates.
“As we evolve our measurement and evolve how we do
business, I do think there are factors that will help us get
higher CPMs on the digital side for the unique elements
of interactivity that enhance brand building,” Mane said.
“It’s not just an exposure in digital that will count, and
the sellers that are good at showing advertisers how this
activity builds brands will immediately goose up CPMs,
but only if they can prove that.”

EMARKETER INTERVIEWS
Reasons for the Rise in CPM Prices
Scott Neslund
Executive Vice President of Media Services
Centro
Interview conducted on September 5, 2013
AKQA Dissects Digital CPMs: PricingWill Be Based on
Viewability andVerification
Scott Symonds
Managing Director of AKQA Media
AKQA
Jared Belsky
Executive Vice President
360i
John Haskin
Vice President of Global Marketing
Vibrant Media
Sherrill Mane
Senior Vice President, Research, Analytics
and Measurement
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)
Patricia Neuray
Vice President, Global Sales
TRUSTe
Elizabeth Pigg
Senior Vice President, Converged Media Strategy
Edelman
Anthony Risicato
General Manager
VideoHub
Philip Smolin
Senior Vice President of Market Solutions
Turn
Interviews conducted on September 5, 2013 and September 10, 2013
Jeremy Steinberg
Senior Vice President, Digital Ad Sales
The Weather Channel
NoahTratt
Global Vice President, Media Solutions
Expedia
Tony Winders
Senior Vice President, Marketing
GumGum
Interview conducted on August 28, 2013
Christine Benson
Senior Vice President, Media Strategy
iCrossing
RELATED EMARKETER REPORTS
AdVerification:Validating Brand Safety and Ensuring
Quality Impressions
Key DigitalTrends for Q3 2013: How Omnichannel Is
Blurring Boundaries Everywhere
Native Advertising: An Emerging Consensus for a
New Kind of Ad
Real-Time Bidding: Ad Spending Forecast and Future
Growth Factors

RELATED LINKS
360i
AKQA
Centro
Edelman
Expedia
GumGum
iCrossing
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)
TRUSTe
Turn
Vibrant Media
VideoHub
TheWeather Channel
EDITORIAL AND
PRODUCTION CONTRIBUTORS
Cliff Annicelli Senior Editor
Kaitlin Carlin Copy Editor
Joanne DiCamillo Senior Production Artist
Stephanie Gehrsitz Senior Production Artist
Dana Hill Director of Production
Nicole Perrin Associate Editorial Director
Heather Price Copy Editor
Allie Smith Director of Charts

E marketer overview_of_digital_cp_ms-measures_of_digital_performance_place_pressure_on_pricing

E marketer overview_of_digital_cp_ms-measures_of_digital_performance_place_pressure_on_pricing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to E marketer overview_of_digital_cp_ms-measures_of_digital_performance_place_pressure_on_pricing

Similar to E marketer overview_of_digital_cp_ms-measures_of_digital_performance_place_pressure_on_pricing (20)

More from AdCMO

More from AdCMO (20)

E marketer overview_of_digital_cp_ms-measures_of_digital_performance_place_pressure_on_pricing