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.

 

 

The New Rules for Native Advertising

As a publisher, now do you avoid sullying your brand with the “slew of sewage” most editorial writers think comes with native advertising, and yet keep some of the revenue that flows from native for yourself?  For the Times, known for over a century as “the gray lady,” the reputational damage of going native could have been disastrous, and yet the category has grown so quickly that there’s no way not to participate if it wants to survive.

So the Times jumped awkwardly into native, and now its agency had $35 million in revenue last year, and will create 100 campaigns this year. Yet, the Times does not have the feel or the reputation of Buzzfeed, whose branded content is often offensive to more sophisticated audiences. Its native content is still recognizable as being from the Times.

Here are some good tips that the New York Times has learned from experience that can be applied by other publishers.

1)First, if you establish an in-house creative unit to produce branded content that will run in your publication, give it a separate name: the Times’ unit is called T Brand Studio, and calls itself an agency.

2)Next, begin with an innovative campaign to run in the publication that showcases both the agency’s and the publication’s multimedia capabilities. In the case of the Times, a campaign for Netflix won over some of the wary Times newsroom occupants.

3)Match the quality of the branded content with the quality of the editorial content.

4)Bear in mind that advertisers don’t necessarily need publishers to get reach anymore, but if you have high levels of engagement from your readers, you can sell your advertising for higher prices.  Reach is going out of style in favor of engagement. The Times’ subscription model promotes reader engagement, and that helps the ad sales, too.

5)Do things that Facebook cannot do. Scale and data are Facebook’s purview, but narrow targeting is best at a publication.

6)Programmatic, video, and content-based ads are growth pillars, and display is not. Focus on the areas that grow. Mixed reality could come next.

7)Raise the bar on innovation in accordance with the specific KPI for the brand. What kind of NBDB (Never Been Done Before) campaign, will get the CMO on the cover of AdAge? Those are the kinds of KPIs brands come to an agency with.

8) Raise the bar on quality to match that of your publication.

9) Label it properly so if visitors choose to engage with it they know that they’re engaging with.

10) If a brand asks for creative that can be run elsewhere, you’ve hit the jackpot. You are then a fully-functioning agency, and can be an actual profit center.

 

 

 

IAB: Independent Publishers Can Compete Against Facebook

Randall Rothenberg, CEO of IAB, is getting more and more outspoken in his comments about the state of digital advertising, especially since the ANA’s second report and guidelines were issued. Rothenberg blames most of the industry’s problems on brand marketers who value price over performance.  He says marketers still don’t have the in-house expertise to understand the new landscape, and urges them to get tech savvy right away. His theory is that marketers who are out of step with the new advertising environment have bought or subscribed  to ad tech software that has denigrated the user experience to the point where visitors are using available tools to deal with unwelcome intrusions. The marketing is no longer correctly targeted, and the buys are made for price rather than for true relevance to the consumer.

He also thinks that non-savvy marketers need to quit subscribing to the meme that Facebook and Google have most of the audience and that they are the only “safe” buy.

“One of the reasons you’re seeing a reliance on a handful of players is they’re seeking safe havens. Back in the old days nobody got fired for buying IBM. Now nobody got fired for buying Google and Facebook.”

He also says that marketers are also to blame for ad fraud and lack of ROI because for years they have looked the other way.

“It’s either a willful shirking of their responsibility to understand the work of their vendors and their vendors’ vendors, or it’s a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to offload responsibility in their quest for ever-lower prices.”

Rothenberg feels that individual publishers can compete effectively against Google and Facebook by gaining absolute knowledge of their audiences from the standpoint of both data and content development. While Google and Facebook have large audiences, they have less information about niche audiences, and that’s where independent publishers have an edge. He likens this period in the advertising industry to the time when three networks had all the dollars, just before the cable industry came to power.

We have always insisted that the power of publishers with niche audiences will continue to grow, if they market their sites correctly, using Facebook only as a tool.  The growth of new sites like Thrillist or Mic, run by savvy internet marketers, who have either used Facebook to drive traffic to their own sites, or who have built communities around their audiences, is instructive. And so are the biker sites, pet sites, travel sites where communities of users make great audiences for the right brands.

 

 

 

Reach is More than Just a Number

Once again we find ourselves ahead of the curve. Last year, we realized that the programmatic race to the bottom had indeed hit bottom, and we sensed a flight to quality. Fortunately for ZEDO, we had already developed a private buying platform for media buyers to use when they wanted to reach more than just “eyeballs.” Our private platform starts with our high performance ZINC formats — inView and inArticle –and allows brands to use those units on our premium publisher network.

Last year we also “cleaned house” with our publishers, eliminating anyone whose traffic might be non-human or fraudulent. We now have a completely clean supply chain and privacy policies strong enough to make us members of the Online Trust Association’s Honor Roll for the fourth consecutive year.

Now we are beginning to see marketers come to the realization that they want better targeting, even if it means compromising that old metric “reach.”

Advertisers are starting to understand that context and quality of ad units matter now more than ever. They are also starting to think of the audience as the currency rather than simply counting impressions. The head of digital for a major wireless carrier recently stated, “There are only 5 million people in this country who I can get to switch mobile carriers, so why am I marketing to 275 million?”

The rising popularity of private marketplaces represents a step forward for advertisers who are now able to transact directly with publishers to secure higher-quality inventory, particularly in mobile and video.

Indeed. Why pay to reach people who will never buy your product or service and perhaps run the risk that your haphazard targeting will be the last straw that forces them to block ads?

Premium publishers who use private platforms will also have the edge over social sites like Facebook and Snapchat, who are less transparent about their users than traditional publisher sites. Facebook and Snapchat (the walled gardens) have hundreds of millions of users, but are only slowly opening themselves up to scrutiny by media planners. Up until now, they’ve operated as if what they say about their audiences cannot be challenged, because they have highly desirable audiences in very large numbers. But as brands realize they have more hope of moving merchandise by going deep with the right audiences rather than broad with global audience networks, they will turn away from Facebook and seek their niche audiences.

 

New Opportunities for Digital Publishers

If you sit around listening to some industry insiders whine, you’d think there’s no hope for the digital media business. However, people continue to be attracted to it as a business and as a calling, and if you look at the numbers, many publications aren’t doing badly. Even Gawker, forced into bankruptcy and out of business by Peter Thiel’s lawsuits, says its business was up 7 or 8% this year. Business, said beleaguered Nick Denton, is good. Gawker.com may be gone, but its 6 sister sites are doing fine under Univision. Other niche publications, like Thrillist, are also doing well.

According to Thrillist founder and VC Ben Lerer, who appeared on the Digiday podcast, there are many short term threats facing digital content companies. The keyword here is short term, which is how Lerer looks at ad blocking, the decline of effective display advertising, and the hegemony of Facebook. He swipes those common industry concerns away with a flick of the wrist, preferring to focus on what he calls “the massive change in distribution” that has happened because of online media, which he thinks is already making some people rich even as others suffer.

It’s like the 1980s when cable TV first started, he says. Cable TV allowed finer audience targeting than network TV, and provided gigantic opportunities for content creators who understood the needs of their niche audiences.

“The pipes are different,” he said. “It’s not as clean and easy a story, but it’s similar to where there was a large handful of companies that figured out how to make content for those pipes, there’s now an opportunity to make content for these new distributed pipes. The traditional TV companies, who you’d think would be are fundamentally not built to be the guys who win today because of the sheer infrastructure they’ve built to do something that’s not what they need to do in the future. It’s created an opportunity for a new breed of media company. There’s no question there’s a decline coming to television. Those companies are not built for shrinking.”

Lerer thinks the greatest changes in digital media aren’t coming on the publisher side, but on the agency side, where traditional agencies have built a cost structure based on shooting expensive 30-second spots for TV that will now be replaced by native ads on mobile. Those ads will be made by the publishers themselves, perhaps using their existing editorial staffs or through in-house agencies operating with a Chinese wall.

Lerer is not the only publisher who thinks good content will win the new distribution game, whether on Facebook, Snapchat or a publishers’ own site. Brian Lam, founder of tech review site “The Wirecutter” and former writer for Wired says that media companies without a mission will crash and burn.

Of his proposed expansion into the fashion vertical, Lam says “we’re not going to do it because it’s a business opportunity. We’re going to do it because we think we can be helpful, and there’s also a business opportunity. The business serves what we’re trying to build.”