Questioning Ad Networks

Jason Calacanis tossed a grenade into the burgeoning field of online ad networks in a guest post on Silicon Alley Insider.

The question comes down to Long Tail economics in a mass audience world. How can a small, but strong “niche” site, get paid for its pageviews without assuming the massive cost structure of its own salesforce and ad ops team?

How can a mass site move its unsold remainder inventory without devaluing itself?

The answer is ad networks, but Calacanis writes:

“I’ve never liked the ad network business. They’re a very short term solution and they are very damaging to high-end publishers because they create massive channel conflicts (i.e. many people selling your inventory confusing advertisers), they run horrible ads that people hate (think punch the monkey), and the space is filled with dishonest players (i.e. they promise to not run certain types of ads… but they do).”

Calacanis points to ESPN.com’s decision to drop the network model. And this morning, my colleague Gary Milner points out:
MediaPost Publications – Forbes Joins Ad Network Fray – 03/25/2008

“THE GROWING CROWD OF VERTICAL ad networks got bigger Monday, with Forbes announcing plans to launch a network spanning more than 400 business and financial blogs.Forbes is among the latest media companies trying to squeeze ad dollars from the Internet’s long tail by aggregating niche blogs and Web sites around specific categories and selling targeting advertising across the sites.”

From an advertiser’s point of view, networks are convenient touch points for achieving broad reach with a low “relationship task” — it is unwieldy to negotiate and deal with insertion orders on a site by site basis. Sure, I like dealing directly with the publisher, but it simply isn’t feasible with a tight staff to develop and own relationships with dozens of media properties.

On the other hand (a weasel world I despise), I don’t want to see my brand in the company of Lowermybill’s roof dancers, the punchable monkey, and the other bottom feeders that dominate the display/banner advertising space. There’s a reason one doesn’t find those ads on the higher quality sites, and that’s because those sites have invested in their own sales teams and have the traffic and audience to justify the relationship cost.

GM Shifting 50% Of Ad Spending Online – Silicon Alley Insider

GM Shifting 50% Of Ad Spending Online – Silicon Alley Insider
Think about it. Half the spend goes online.  What percentage of a PC marker’s ad budget should be online?

“Here’s the reason so many Web publishers are optimistic about the future, even if the ad model isn’t clear yet: GM, the nation’s 3rd-largest advertiser, will move half of its ad spending–$3 billion in 2007–online within three years, reports AdAge, citing unnamed GM executives.

GM spent $197 million on online advertising in 2007 according to TNS, a figure that includes gaming, search and interactive appilcations.”

Verge ’08

In NYC today for the Ogilvy Verge conference — a one-day digital discussion for Ogilvy’s partners and clients.

Highlight was a late afternoon panel of John Battelle from Federated Media, John Bell from Ogilvy’s Digital Influence Project, Nick Denton of Gawker and Owen Van Natta of Facebook. No bon mots spring to mind, but the key insight was delivered by Battelle and confirmed by Denton — essentially, the current digital model of impression based media is not going to survive, that some new media model is required and has been lacking for over a decade, and that in the end the mostly likely place it will be found is in Social Media.

Battelle recounted a Dell campaign run in Facebook — seemed semi-interesting, but not earth shattering. Bell called out the move from 101 SMM to 201 and AP level discourse on the finer points. Indeed, moderator Polly LaBarre basically told the crowd of mostly clients that if they haven’t gotten the “transparent, authentic, marketing-is-a-conversation memo” then they were essentially under a rock.

Bell is working with me on a very cool Olympic play I’ll disclose next week. I don’t feel compelled to rush into Facebook anytime soon, and as for Federated — we shall see.

Planning session tomorrow morning, working lunch, then back to the Cape of Cod where it looks, but doesn’t feel, like spring.

Google’s Data Asset

Google’s Data Asset | Union Square Ventures: A New York Venture Capital Fund Focused on Early Stage & Startup Investing

Brad Burnham, partner at Union Square with Fred Wilson, blogs about the impact of Google’s data driven services. In discussions over dinner last week with Dan Gertsacov from GoogleTV, we got onto the topic of data as differentiator in advertising. Brad nails the same point in this post (which is about the impact of marginal data collection on services)

“Each incremental point of data adds value to the ones you all ready have. It is easy to see this in the context of an advertising network. If the ad network knows that a user is female it can show more relevant ads. But, If the ad network knows that female’s age, it can do even better, and data about location, household income, and recent web sites visited all add value to the existing data points, making it possible to show more and more relevant ads. Google’s services all benefit from additional data albeit in different ways.

“So what does all this mean about the market for web services. It means that we all need to begin to think about the degree to which Google’s enormous data asset will allow it to dominate this important sector.” [emphasis mine]

The hot buttons in the last paragraph are “think” and “dominate.” Data driven ad services (or cloud computing) are squarely in the sights of the privacy stewards and the federal government. Anyone who had to answer reader mail in 1995 when a web user freaked out about a cookie being placed on their harddrive knows never to underestimate the public and government’s paranoia about data.

As an advertiser, Google’s data store and processing capability is extremely valuable in transforming next-marketing-dollar allocation. The other networks don’t possess the same analytical and data driven rigor. It could, if I take Brad’s post to the paranoid extreme, be a harbinger of Google’s future focus on persuading the world that a) their data is anonymous and b) safe with Google.

GoogleTV – the 30-second spot ain’t dead yet

Last fall and early this year I’ve been exposed to an interesting beta test at Google involving the insertion of television ads into the Dish satellite network using Google’s auction model and browser interface. The results have been very interesting, but the process carries some ramifications for an entire ecosystem of agencies, media planners, clients and broadcasters.

Let me digress right at the start by confessing a classic interactive bigotry against television as an expensive, dumb (in the sense of being one-way) medium that is dead and gone thanks to Tivo and the DVR revolution. The obituary writer with the biggest impact on my thinking was Joseph Jaffe in his polemical Life After the 30 Second Spot.

“The 30-second spot – at least as it exists today – is either dead, dying, or has outlived its usefulness. Take your pick.”

When he wrote the book (which I strongly recommend as one of the best books about the New Media Avalanche) there was no GoogleTV. What has happened is the television ad, as it existed when Jaffe stuck a fork in its butt, has morphed into something funkier and more complex because of several key changes. Those are:

  1. Buying. Upfronts, that practice of advertisers committing to a series or specific duration of slots is about to gets seriously messed up by Google’s auction model. Media buying is getting very efficient, (or as they say in Boston, “wicked” efficient) thanks to a model that permits a buyer to select a day, time, specific channel, specific show, and bid for the time. The winner doesn’t pay the winning price, but the price of the bid of the second-place loser. It cuts out the traditional media buying agency by putting the client right in the game.
  2. Flexibility: Art cards (I love Madison Avenue jargon) are the messages one inserts into the tail end of an ad to customize it, usually localizing it for the franchise or dealer paying for the slot. Example. Mercedes Benz has its agency produce a really slick commercial showing the new model swerving along the California coastline on A1A. A local dealer, Fred’s Car Barn, pays to run the spot during the nightly news. At the end of the spot, when the Ritalin Announcer speedtalksthroughtheyourmileagemayvary message, up pops the Art Card, saying “Shop At Fred’s Car Barn on the Miracle Mile in Methuen” with a local phone number. Now, thanks to dynamic serving technology from companies like Visible World an advertiser can serve literally hundreds of different art cards, modifying the final call to action to fit the time of day, show, audience, etc.
  3. Metrics: hand grenades share something in common with television metrics: close enough is good enough. In the 90s I was convinced “interactive television” was the next big thing, and before we’d know it we’d be clicking on lamps in sitcoms and ordering them right from the Pottery Barn. Well, I don’t have a Dick Tracy Video Phone Watch either. Television was supposed to get accountable, and fall into line thanks to the ramrod discipline of Advertising 2.0 (search engine marketing, retargeting, behavioral targeting). Guess what? It’s still sloppy, but as I’ll describe later, it’s getting better.

Now what is GoogleTV? Go back a couple years. Google is public, critics are calling it a one-trick pony overly dependent on AdSense, Google’s text advertising model that puts text ads adjacent to relevant content. It’s a good model, and it kicks off an astonishing renaissance in web advertising, but Google needs to diversify. Obviously the company is going look around the media landscape and seek opportunities to extend its auction model. Television, the Moby Dick of Marketing, is a good first target and Google puts its engineers on the task. What emerges is GoogleTV and this is how it works.

GoogleTV only works (today) with Echostar’s Dish satellite network (I’m a DirectTV customer myself). Following an alpha trial in Walnut Creek, California, they went national by co-locating some servers at Echostar’s operation facility in Colorado. Those servers directly address the Dish Network’s ad insertion system and traffic the advertiser’s spots into the slots won through the auction interface. Google purchases, in its own upfront, a chunk of the Dish Network’s local inventory. Ads are divided between national and local “pods.” The network (CBS, AMC, HBO, ETC.) sells a portion of the ad slots to national advertisers, and the local affiliates sell the remainder of the slots to Fred’s Auto Barn and the local jewelers. What doesn’t get sold is filled with public service announcements and internal cross promotions (“…stay tuned for the season premier of Lost in the House…”). Television is like airplanes, it flies, whether or not the seats are filled, and those empty seats, if they can be sold right up to the time the door is closed and the plane pushes back from the jetway is money in the bank that is otherwise lost.

Television, like any medium, doesn’t sell out 100% of its inventory. That’s why ads repeat, lots of internal promos run, this is your brain on drugs …. Google takes the local inventory that doesn’t get reserved in an upfront and makes it available to any advertiser (today mostly big companies, and soon, that mass of medium and small business advertisers who wouldn’t consider running television because the barrier to entry is so high. Larry the Dentist isn’t going to engage with an advertising agency to build a 15-second spot about teeth brightening and then build a set of different art card at the back end. Buying the ad , in the old model, was a voodoo science. Not anymore. Now Dentist Larry, if he has the commercial, can approach television advertising through the same Google web interface he would use to bid for AdSense search terms like “periodontist AND Smallville.”

I just came out of a beta test with Google and I don’t want to share results, but let’s say the cost of this program significantly less than it would have cost if we did it the traditional way. We ran thousands of slots, during prime time (these were not 3 AM infomercial remainder ads), reaching millions of viewers. Google was able to measure, through its analytic integration with Dish’s set-top box infrastructure, that over 90 percent of the ads were viewed to their full 30-second conclusion.

Measurement of the impact of the program on sales at Lenovo.com and our phone system is certainly not as a precise as the discipline we apply to search engine marketing and banner, but it was a lot closer in terms of precision than the old days in television when about the only thing one could hope for was a pre- and post-campaign brand awareness survey. We saw significant (again I won’t go into specifics) increases in traffic to Lenovo.com from specific search terms. One of the two ads was for our most excellent tablet notebook computer (which I type this on). Traffic to Lenovo.com from the keyword “tablet” exploded when the television was running, offering us some correlation with the on air content.

Let me digress in conclusion on what the big picture impact of this is for the world.

  1. Is Google “disintermediating” the traditional advertising agency from traditional media? This is a super touchy topic so let me be blunt and say, IMHO: yes. I can, as a marketer client, buy television, radio, print … everything but guys wearing sandwich boards … through Google’s auction front end. This means a big disturbance in The Force for media planners and buyers, the “rice bowl” of big agencies.
  2. Will clients need to have their own internal media planners? Yes.
  3. Data processing and analytics are the biggest differentiators between Google and the other global interactive ad networks who don’t own a metric capability of their own. In the future we’ll be able to make an even crisper revenue attribution and expense-to-revenue case than we did in the beta.
  4. What becomes of the traditional agency model? It fragments into specialty niches and the traditional agencies become high added value creative production houses. The one thing a client and a network can never do is create compelling content. Period.

The next 24 months are going to see some interesting moves by companies in the tech commerce space towards an integrated on and offline media model presented to them through a unified Google front end. The impact will be greatest down the taper of the long tail – big advertisers are moving too many dollars in bulk to care about nickel and dime economies at the auction level – but when the local ad pod – be it in newspaper, billboards, radio, or tv is integrated with search terms and banners ….

We might finally be realizing some of the sci-fi predictions made about the future of advertising a decade ago.

Fortune has an excellent interview with Irwin Gotlieb, the godfather of media planning software, and CEO of WPP’s GroupM. Here’s his take on Google:

“And then there’s the other elephant in the room: Google (GOOG, Fortune 500). If Gotlieb’s strategy is like renovating a rickety house of media, Google is trying to tear the old relic down. The search engine behemoth talks about partnerships even while launching products like GoogleTV Ads, an online auction system for selling cable ads. Who needs media buyers when you can secure commercial time the same way you buy banner ads?

“Of course, GroupM and Google do work together. GroupM spent more than $300 million last year buying search ads from Google. But that just makes the relationship complicated at best. Google is dropping $3.1 billion to acquire DoubleClick, a pioneer in selling advertisers clickstream information. (In May, WPP spent $649 million to buy 24/7 Real Media, which collects web data in nearly the same way.) Google’s heft can obviate Gotlieb’s advantages. GroupM’s clients pay in part for Gotlieb and Scanzoni to get the best deals and the sexiest ad placements. Such relationships become less important when technology makes the whole process transparent. So Gotlieb is wary. “Google can do something without regard for whether they can actually make money on it,” he says. “That can be very destabilizing to the rest of the business.”


Superbowl Ads

There are doubtlessly a gazillion critiques of last night’s Super Bowl Ads. Not being a TV ad expert, and prone to skipping them with the Tivo, here’s my favorites based on those that demanded a rewind by me and my son.
1. eTrade’s barfing baby and creepy clown. Call me weird, but a baby talking in an adult voice into a web cam who blows lunch and declares the clown in the background to be “creepy” hits me where it counts.

2. The weird sales lead dot com company that uses patently racist stereotypes — Ramesh the Indian sales schlub with seven kids who talks like Gunga Din — and Ring Ding the Chinese Panda. These spots cost $2 million, right? So why would someone use colorforms and furniture outlet animation to fill the slot? I know! The ads are so bad that they pop out from among the slick beer and car spots. This is the Nasonex Bee school of animated ads. Make them so horrible that the viewer is compelled to watch out of sheer disbelief.

And Fox pushing the whole catalogue of ads onto MySpace? It’s a YouTube world, but Rupert has to push his investment. I enter MySpace only at gunpoint.

That’s it. I want an Audi R series. The Patriots got beat fair and square in a great game, but I still think American football is dumb sport and any portents of “history in the making” were just an illusion. The spectacle is what it is all about.

Update: yup, SalesGenie confirms the strategy was to suck.

More Micro-hoo

Sorry, but there’s something about the Micro-hoo stuff that makes me think of two slightly out of breath fat people holding hands and jumping off a bridge together.

This may not be the politically correct thing to say, but mergers never seem to result in a spectacular chemical reaction. M&A may hope for the online equivalent of baking soda and vinegar — a violent and quick expansion with lots of bubbles. I think the result will be what happens when you turn on the blender and what comes out is gray and a little bland.

Neither party actually brings something awesome to the party. This aggregates a big audience (and big audiences are gray blobs). The hidden jewels inside of Yahoo — Flickr, del.icio.us — are still there but aren’t going to justify the $44 billion tag on their own.

Interesting to read that Jerry Yang went scrambling to News Corp. and AT&T looking for counter offers. AT&T? News Corp. I get — said so below. But AT&T?

There is great commotion and uncertainty in the interactive media world today. 2007 was the year of the Great Silent Avalanche, when online advertising won its victory over traditional media but no one really held a party. But right now, everyone is holding their breath, looking at the big consolidation, and on the edges, in the bushes, are those darned little furry mammal creatures ready to rush out and eat the dino’s eggs.

Marketing In A Down Market – Forbes.com

Marketing In A Down Market – Forbes.com
Marc Babej, ex-Forbes writer and current NYC marketing consultant and Forbes.com columnist, writes in his current column on marketing tactics in a recession:

“5. Shift media spending to accountable media. Not because they necessarily perform better, but because investment in them can be justified in terms of return on investment. A heavy bias toward accountable spending is the best way to protect marketing budgets from profit-starved CFOs.”

This would bias spends towards search and email marketing — put a hurt on print which would be irrecoverable for some publications with already shaky balance sheets — and see the rise of auction models against remaindered traditional impressions (GoogleTV rushes to mind). It will be interesting to see how the supply of “accountable” media impressions holds. Right now the conventional wisdom shows a glut, so CPM pressure should be low.

Andy Berndt to Marketers: Experiment Like Google –

Marketers: Experiment Like Google – Advertising Age – Digital

I picked up this from John Battelle — former Ogilvy exec (and advisor to Lenovo), Andy Berndt, explains his role at Google running its Creative Lab:

“If anyone leaves here with just one thing, let it be this: Google is not starting an ad agency.”

update: Peter Kim @ Forrester was at the Sapient event where Berndt spoke.