Trends in Mobile Privacy

Mobile advertising has yet to come into its own, perhaps because advertisers are not yet sure what users will tolerate on a device actually held on the body.  Perhaps it seems more invasive because mobile advertising is capable of collecting information about users’ activities across different apps over time to deliver ads to those users based on those activities. It includes retargeting and tracking conversions,  and it may extend to any collection of information on one property to serve an ad on a different property. The data  collected is not tied to an identifiable individual but is tied to an individual device. And users are aware of being tracked across devices.

Lately, just about everyone is collecting user data for cross- device tracking, and users are not happy. The publisher collects user data from registrations and the use of the publisher’s app or site. Demand  and supply side platforms track users through their SDKs installs on the site, or receive user data from advertisers to calculate retargeting or fees. Advertisers also track user data, as do real time bidding (RTB) platforms, by which a user in a certain inventory is sold to the advertiser making the highest bid.

if this sounds awful to you, imagine how it sounds to the consumer who is being tracked for what is known as interest-based advertising. No wonder consumers opt out, forcing the FTC to make advertisers provide enhanced notice and choice.

In the mobile environment, the Digital Advertising Alliance and IAB Europe have determined to self- regulate. DAA has an opt out app that can be downloaded by consumers. There are also protections in mobile browsers to enable consumer choice. But in the EU  there are special considerations for apps and privacy.

The four key data protection risks in the EU include transparency consent, security,  and limitations on both purpose and amount of data that can be collected from an app. It is up to the consumer to control which data processing functions should be permitted: location data, contacts, credit card and payment data, browsing history.

A  company may use information collected across devices through cross device tracking software for content personalization,  interest based advertising,  fraud prevention and analytics.  In the US, opt outs are device specific but users must be provided with notice and a choice if they browsing activity on one device maybe used to deliver advertising to them on another device. In the EU, regulations are stricter: the privacy directive requires prior consent from the user for “storing for accessing information in the terminal equipment of the user.”

In the US, geolocation data can be collected only after the user is told that the data is being collected, and it may not overwrite consumer preferences. Although general geolocation derived from an IP address is not considered  “information”, it should still be disclosed in a privacy policy.

Snapchat and Path both fell afoul of this policy,  and Snapchat had to settle with the FTC over allegations that its Android app transmitted wifi and cell- based data location information from users mobile devices to its analytics tracking service provider in violation of its own privacy policy.

For that reason, although mobile marketing has many possibilities, it is wiser to leave the user in control of her own device marketing preferences.

 

Google at a Crossroads

It all started when the London Times published an investigative piece a couple of weeks ago about ads from prominent brands appearing on terrorist sites and alongside other types of objectionable content. Of course this has been going on for years, at least since the beginning of programmatic buying, but all of a sudden brand safety leapt to the front of advertisers’ consciousness and they began pulling out of Google sites like YouTube and the Google display network. And these are not minor brands; they’re WalMart, Pepsi, Starbucks, Coke and other powerhouses.

Quite often, these little volcanoes erupt in the digital advertising world and brands make noise about something they don’t like. But then the furor dies down and things go back to “normal.” The Wall Street Journal, however, says this is the beginning of something new for the Google ad business, because marketers have been here too many times before, and they really can’t fall back on the excuse that they don’t know what they’re buying. Behind every marketer who may not understand, there’s an agency that does, and the agencies should know better.

Despite Google’s apologies and promise of new tools, ads were still on hate sites, fake sites created by bots, and pornography last week, which prompted the Journal to put a couple of veteran reporters on this lingering story.  CEOs and CMOs of big companies are now involved, and perhaps because of potential implications of being linked to terrorist sites, Google is going to have to make some changes.

And not just Google alone. When you are going for  scale, it is almost impossible to perfectly police what is being bought. Or so it is said. But the research done by the Journal reporters seemed to point to willful blindness. It does seem incredible that big companies, either the advertisers or Google itself, can’t type in some search terms and find out whether their brand ads are still running on hate sites.

This led reporter Suzanne Vranica to say that no one in the industry is really incentivized to fix problems like these when they occur, because everybody gets paid. The publishers get paid, the holding companies try to push as much inventory through these platforms as possible so they’ll get paid, and the advertisers have the advantage of cheap ads. So throughout programmatic’s history, people on all sides of the supply chain have simply looked the other way at ad fraud.

Encouraging terrorism, however, is a horse of a different color, especially after being seen on fake news sites during the election got them worried. Just after fake news subsided as a concern, the fear of seeing your brand in the headlines for funding terrorism arose for these companies, many of whom are public.

Admittedly, in the back of every advertiser’s mind is the reality that they’re getting what they pay for when they buy cheap ads, but that doesn’t mean they won’t turn on Google and Facebook to save their own reputations. They are coming to realize that they helped build these platforms and they are really the people who pay the bills. The walled gardens are not giving them the data they need, and at the end of the day, that’s the main issue. The advertisers ceded their power, and now they are demanding it back.

 

 

New Law Threatens Privacy

Another marathon political month ends with the US going in the opposite direction regarding consumer data from the EU.  This could end up being confusing to both consumers and advertisers.

The US Senate has passed a bill saying that ISPs can now monetize consumer data in the same way Google and Facebook do. This bill is headed over to the House for a vote. On the face of it, the bill actually equalizes rights, giving ISPs the same rights as platforms. The FCC Chairman who replaced Tom Wheeler has defined this as  part of net neutrality, although that’s not what net neutrality used to be.

““The federal government shouldn’t favor one set of companies over another — and certainly not when it comes to a marketplace as dynamic as the Internet,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen in a joint statement. The two agencies will work together to achieve “a technology-neutral privacy framework for the online world,” they said. “Such a uniform approach is in the best interests of consumers and has a long track record of success.”

Several privacy advocate groups have, of course, come out against the new legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Americans have enjoyed a legal right to privacy from your communications provider under Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act for more than twenty years. When Congress made that law, it had a straightforward vision in how it wanted the dominate communications network (at that time the telephone company) to treat your data, recognizing that you are forced to share personal information in order to utilize the service and did not have workable alternatives.

Now Congress has begun to reverse course by eliminating your communication privacy protections in order to open the door for the cable and telephone industry to aggressively monetize your personal information.

Of course the EFF is an advocacy organization, but privacy groups have become very powerful. And we care about this because anything that makes consumers feel uncertainty about their personal information has a propensity to interfere with the advertising business model most publishers depend on.

We work closely with the Online Trust Association, which also saw this as a potential blow to consumers, and thus to the ad-supported business model, since privacy advocates are now saying ISP stands for “Information Sales for Profit.” As a platform, we neither hold nor track  consumer data, so we’re not directly involved. But we do have a dog in this hunt because we are strong supporters of free internet content that is ad-supported. We work with our partners to make better ads, so there can be fewer ads. We also work with our partners on brand safety in media buying.

We must take pains to maintain the highest ethical and privacy standards so we don’t entice consumers to download more ad blockers. Before this ruling, we had achieved stasis, and were moving on. Let’s do everything we can to keep going in the right direction for both publishers and advertisers, as well as for consumers.

 

 

 

 

Everyone Wants to Be An Agency

If you go to an ad industry conference, you will hear speaker after speaker talk about how the agency model is in jeopardy, and how agencies are doomed by brands who are taking media buying in house, refusing to pay commissions and fees, and building their own DMPs.

So how come everybody but agencies wants to be an agency? It all started with Buzzfeed, which developed one of the first in-house agencies to develop branded content and unique ad formats for its advertisers. Now many of the premium publishers have decided to capture more of their “rightful” ad revenue by creating in-house ad production and ad operations agencies. They also argue that they know what kinds of ads appeal to their particular visitors.

Advertisers have also taken many agency functions in house, believing that they can buy efficiently through programmatic platforms, manage and mine their own data by building their own DMPs, and develop their own branded content.

And last, but not least, there are the large consulting firms, who have been gradually turning themselves into agencies. PWC Interactive says it can advance brands through lead acquisition and retargeting, search and display advertising, performance optimization, and digital program design and management. In other words, outsource your marketing program to us.

KPMG bought Cynergy, and now talks about omni-channel engagement and increasing brand loyalty. And the most far-reaching program, at Deloitte Digital, is the equivalent of a $1.5 billion ad agency. Deloitte Digital has 6000 employees worldwide, and can provide everything from strategy to logistics to agency services. McKinsey has an agency arm, and Accenture also has an interactive agency.

The one place where agencies have a real edge is in their traditional niche: creative. Only agencies know how to hire and manage creatives, and how to develop and present campaigns. These are right brain activities, and the consulting firms are populated by left brain people. The publishers, too, are unfamiliar with creative, although in theory they know how to develop great content.

It’s instructive to watch each of the three contenders — brand, publisher, and consulting firm –vie for the functions that belonged to agencies. We think agencies lost the battled when they decided to base their selling propositions on metrics rather than creativity. The best ads are the ones we remember, and they probably won’t be created by publishers, brands themselves, or consulting firms.

Actually, in the future, they may well be created by consumers.

 

Brand Ads Work

It is not necessary to stalk a tiny audience to get results. Brand advertising, with good creative and a high degree of creative works even better, without offending viewers. We believe publishers should encourage their advertisers to offer better creative, which will then pull people to their sites as less comfortable techniques never will. Publishers need to get in a partnership with their ad partners, agencies need to stress creative, and the ad industry as an entirety ought to move back to brand advertising.

Although this year’s SuperBowl game was indeed worth watching in its own right, several people have commented in our social media feeds that they “teared up” during SuperBowl ads, specifically the Coca Cola ad. When was the last time you heard somebody mention an emotional reaction to an ad?

The NYT summary of the ads revealed how powerful they can be:

• Coca-Cola and Airbnb were seen as making political statements on Sunday with ads that touched on immigration and diversity.

• People were searching Google for ads from Budweiser and 84 Lumber and those starring Justin Timberlake and Justin Bieber.

• Fox and the N.F.L. have been trying to avoid overtly political ads, with Fox deeming one commercial “too controversial” last month for featuring a border wall — but that’s tough to do in today’s environment.

We cannot repeat this often enough. It isn’t advertising per se that people try to block. It’s ads that have no relevance to their lives.

SuperBowl ads are not finely targeted. They are simply targeted to the audience watching the SuperBowl, or even to an audience that doesn’t care much about the game, but cares about the sheer creativity invested in the ads, and will go find them online. The best example of that was the 84 Lumber ad. Who had heard of 84 Lumber before yesterday? And who would run a performance ad for a construction company?

But that’s not what 84 Lumber did. The company had three goals for the ad: One was to generate awareness, the second was to position 84 Lumber as an employer of choice, and the third  was to attract talent  to fill the number of positions 84 Lumber has open over the course of the year, its chairman and CEO said. The ad turned out to be more political after President Trump passed the immigration ban, and its ending had to be altered because Fox wouldn’t run the original, but the altered ad functioned as intended.

Let’s call this a cross-channel promotion, since SuperBowl ads can now be viewed outside the game itself. The ad was viewed 4,000,000 times on YouTube before the game, and the company’s site received 6,000,000 requests in the hour after the ad ran. The site was swamped. The ad accomplished its objectives, because now everybody knows who 84 Lumber is and what it stands for.

ZEDO Launches ZINC Self Service Ad Buying Platform

This week ZINC by ZEDO announced its new ZINC Self Service platform, which allows advertisers and agencies to buy ZINC’s unique advertising. For the advertiser or media buyer who buys on Facebook or Google but who wants to also try something that will stand out more, with the same creative, this self-serve offering will be a real help. Because there is no lengthy process and no contract, the advertisers can even be a small restaurant or a micro-enterprise. This is the first time that the many advertisers that buy on Google and Facebook can also run their existing video or display ads on unique formats that are 100% viewable and really will be seen by users.

ZINC is a better and cost efficient way to build brand on digital because it is 100% viewable and 100% fraud free and only needs existing creative and ZINC innovation in the delivery of the ads.
The new self-service platform makes it easy to buy advertising and pay using a credit card – without wasting time. Once a campaign is set, the buyer receives regular reports of performance. The reports are updated in real time – every fifteen minutes.

The ZINC platform allows buyers to target ads to the IAB contextual categories of publishers. Targeting is determined by the text content of the page on which the user is seeing the ad. The buyer can set a daily budget, or a lifetime budget, and target a specific geography. She can also add a title and description to the ads to give users more context, which attracts the right users to see or click on the ad.  Further precision targeting is offered through choices that include banner or video formats running on mobile or desktop, delivered like native ads to improve the campaign’s performance and provide a higher ROI.

ZINC Self Serve provides the same safeguards to the advertiser’s brand, ensuring ads are always served on 100% bot-free brand safe environments, that we provide to our large clients. We are the first choice of advertisers who are already buying on Facebook, because with little effort they get advertising that really makes them stand out from their competitors.

Are we at Peak Facebook? (Part 1)

Last spring we wrote about Facebook’s plans to develop Messenger into a platform on which it will sell ads. This naturally raises questions about the future for other publishers.  Not to be too much of a Pollyanna about this, we think “this too shall pass.”

Why? Because Facebook exists in a moment in time, just like any other medium. As of now, it appears to have aggregated not only the content of 1.5 billion global individual users, but that of many of the major publishers through its Instant Articles initiative. According to received economic theory, this places all the profits in the hands of the aggregator.

However, look back a scant fifty years ago, and people thought the same about newspapers. All the “news that’s fit to print” was aggregated in the newspaper, so that’s where the ads went, and  with them the profits.

We believe Facebook faces two problems going forward — problems that should give niche publishers some hope.

First, Facebook ads are truly useful in only a small percentage of cases. For performance advertising, it does not work well at all. Advertisers can spend large amounts of money accumulating “likes” without have those convert into sales. Yet Facebook ads, because of their reach, are becoming more expensive. They’re no longer an experiment; they require just the right kind of integrated, cross-channel campaign.

And for business to business, Facebook doesn’t work at all. It’s a platform that begins and ends as a consumer brand and intends to remain that way.

Second, advertising on Facebook is by nature interruptive. When people come to Facebook, they aren’t coming to shop; that’s for Amazon and EBay. They’re coming to catch up with their friends. That makes it very simple for a brand to alienate their customers by reaching out to them at inopportune times, which is why companies like Everlane plan only to use Messenger for customer service. We do not seek advertising on  Facebook, and it is very difficult to make Facebook ads contextual. In the kind of data-driven environment we live in now, where ROI can be measured, small publishers with niche markets will perform better.

And here’s a bonus reason not to go “all in” on Facebook: it is already ten years old. The speed with which technology and consumer tastes change nowadays means we are probably at Peak Facebook, and the next latest and greatest thing, perhaps Medium, perhaps Snapchat, — who really knows? — may gradually siphon off the Facebook audience in the way Facebook has siphoned off audience from Yahoo.

It’s best not to put all your eggs in one basket.

DigiTrust Universal Identity for Consumers is Here

All morning we’ve been listening to a webinar on  TAG, Ad-IDD, Time-based Metrics, and DigiTrust presented by IAB. By far the most interesting new development in the industry to us, is DigiTrust  a new 501c6 that is trying to fix identity and tracking problems for digital ads.

Many publishers have been concerned about the number of third party requests to their sites. They know those requests make the consumer experience poor.

So DigiTrust has come along to standardize the identifiers for consumers. Digitrust is a cloud service that  will offer a DigiTrust ID, and a DigiTrust consent stored in a 1st party cookie accessible by third parties. As a standardized ID for all, with DigiTrust, everybody uses the same ID for the consumer.  It’s just a common language they use with their partners, giving every party proof of consent, which is already necessary in Canada and Europe and may become essential in the US soon.

It eliminates the need for pixel syncs, makes pages load faster, levels the playing field between open web and walled gardens. Publishers need to start with putting a script that sets the identifier, establishes ID and consent, and can be passed through to all their suppliers. This standardized ID makes it possible to eliminate all the other Javascript calls and provides a level of control for the publisher. If you close down Javascript access, you benefit the entire ecosystem.

How it works: the consumer views a site with DigiTrust Javascript on any browser, JS then checks if a token and consent exist, and if not a consent notice is shown to the consumer via a window shade. Any subsequent page navigation is then directed through Digitrust ID. Digitrust stores no data, and empowers NO party with incremental data. It’s just a way to identify consumers once.

DigiTrust is aiming for for 100% consumer notice and consent and all Digitrust platforms and publishers must be part of a self-regulatory program (like TAG).

Publishers pay nothing. Platforms pay. Membership fees are one-time non recurring, with monthly API subscription fees for a decryption key. The more people involved, the more cost is spread among members.

So far, 60+ ad tech platforms have indicated interest,  with 20 already paying the fees. There are also 50+ premium publishers involved. But because of the holidays, deployments are not expected to happen until Q1. For information, contact Jordan @digitru.st Digitrust

Facebook Metrics Show Danger of Buying in Walled Gardens

Nothing says more about the danger of buying only from walled gardens than Facebook’s recent admission that people were not watching as much video on the social network as it had  reported. The average video on Facebook was counted as “viewed” after as little as three seconds, but Facebook didn’t calculate in the number of people who don’t watch video on the site at all.

Facebook apparently made a division error of the kind any normal human could make,

Instead of dividing the total time spent watching a video by the total number of people who watched that video, Facebook’s metric reflected the total time spent watching divided by the number of views the video had generated. With Facebook counting views at three seconds, that meant anyone who had seen just a glimpse of the video was not getting represented in the metric. In fact, Facebook told advertisers that its metric was off by 60 to 80 percent, according to The [Wall Street] Journal.

Advertisers seemed not to care, revealing they they don’t buy on time watched, but on either 10-second views or completed views. In this case. Facebook’s being wrong didn’t seem to cost advertisers money. But they should care, because it turns out 80% of Facebook users don’t watch video at all. Brands looking to shift large budgets from TV to digital video can’t do that safely until the know what their return on investment will be similar. It would be more advantageous if buyers spent more with independent publishers, who are closer to their audiences. Facebook’s audience is simply too large to count properly, and too uncommitted to give good results.

Most independent publishers are forced to accept some kind of third party verification of their views, but Facebook does not use third party vendors; it does its own analytics internally. After this admission, self-attestation will not work anymore for Facebook. It must allow in the same third party vendors, ComScore, Nielsen, or someone else, that the rest of the publishing world uses to tell its story.

For publishers, this inflation of the video watching time is worrisome at best, because most publishers felt they had to pay ball with Facebook and when the platform put its emphasis on video, publishers scrambled to provide video content. But all these publisher resources would be wasted if no one were watching. Because of the way advertisers pay, they can afford to wait and see if their ads work. Content publishers have no such luxury. Once they throw money at an expensive initiative like video, they would like to be sure they’re getting paid.

It will be a while until all this sorts itself out, and we figure out whether mobile video deserves the dollars being pulled out of trusty old TV.

 

We Lead in Outstream for a Reason

S1The biggest complaint in the advertising industry as we drop further into Q4, its busiest season, is the lack of video inventory. Everybody wants to run video ads, because video completion rates are higher than the CTRs on banner ads. Especially on mobile, consumers seem to have more patience with video ads than display ads. However, when they speak about video inventory many brands still mean content on high-trafficked video sites like YouTube on which they can run pre-roll. There is indeed a scarcity of that.

However, pre-roll is not the best way to achieve results with video ads, as many other companies have already discovered. The unfortunately- named “outstream,” video ads on text sites are the best performers.

In this department, ZINC is the market leader, having been the first to market with this format.  We launched what we called inArticle video almost three years ago, before the term outstream even existed, and we also initiated the term “polite” for these ads, because they only came into view only when a reader scrolled down to them, and they were also easy to close or scroll past. As  a result of the precautions we take, our ads are not intrusive.

Not only that, we never have used auto-play sound, another reason we feel comfortable calling these ad formats “polite.”

We constantly win buys away from our competitors (and there aren’t many), because we get higher viewability scores with resulting higher rates for publishers. Even the competitors are asking us how we win so many good buys.

Here’s how: we have a better format, better technology, and a better premium publisher network. We have tested our viewability with third parties, and we’re at 93%. To be a market leader, you not only have to be a technology leader, you also have to be cognizant of consumer attitudes, and you have to run on only premium publishers. That’s us.

Yes, this is a self-serving post. Every once in a while we have to sneak one in, because not enough people know what we do.