Will Facebook Groups Hurt Publishers?

Publishers who have struggled to maintain revenues for years against the onslaught of Facebook’s command of the audience  now must face another example of how little the site truly cares about its publisher partners..

We have been saying for a long time that there something wrong with Facebook’s measurements in the light of our own experience. And now the advent of third-party metrics has revealed that some of Facebook’s video ads have as little as 20% viewability, which is only one aspect of the measurement corrections the site has had to make over the past six months.. That’s not  likely to change very soon, because Facebook does not prioritize publishers and never has. Nor, it seems does it prioritize brands, even though they pay the bills..

But Facebook has bigger problems than either publishers or brands. Now that the world has recognized it as a media company,  it has governments coming after it and users accusing it of spreading  fake news. It’s at once a publisher and a platform for publishers.  Like Google, whose motto may be “don’t be evil,” but who has recently been fined by the EU for another kind of evil,  Facebook has gotten too large to be seen favorably by everyone, and its management has to juggle a multitude of conflicting priorities.

To address what it believes is the biggest of those priorities, keeping users engaged and on the platform as much as possible, Facebook has rolled out a new strategy around groups. It is no longer enough in Mark Zuckerberg’s  eyes that the world be merely connected to friends and family, it must also be brought closer together. Taking his cue from some very large groups that formed around interests such as specific diseases or leisure activities, Zuckerberg first began  to talk about the value of groups.

Then in June Facebook held its first community summit and announced a change of mission. From USA Today

After a decade of promoting Facebook as a service that connects small groups of friends and family, Facebook is broadening its focus for the next decade to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”

The new mandate stems from Zuckerberg’s soul searching on how Facebook should evolve to help people pull together in divisive times.

Facebook was supposed to give people a sense of common humanity. Instead critics say Facebook has played a role in increasing polarization with the spread of fake news and reinforcement of filter bubbles during contentious elections in the U.S. and overseas.

This seems to further distance Facebook from its publisher partners as it seeks its own continued growth.  It also begs the question of how advertising will be served to users in groups. Making money has always been a necessary evil for Facebook, which has the attention in an economy based on attention.

Facebook, like any other company, has its own survival imperatives. Most premium publishers we know have already dedicated more resources to Instant Articles than they are getting back in revenue, and some already pulled back.

We would advise publishers to focus on their own audiences with quality content that is highly targeted and served on a well designed site that loads quickly. Depending on Facebook for driving traffic or increasing revenue is, as always, naive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZEDO Makes Online Trust Alliance Honor Roll for 5th Consecutive Year

For the fifth year in a row, ZEDO and its subsidiary ZINC have made the Online Trust Alliance Honor Roll. The Online Trust Alliance (OTA), is an Internet Society initiative with the mission to promote best practices for online trust.  The 2017 Online Trust Audit & Honor Roll –  is the de facto standard for recognizing excellence in online consumer protection, data security and responsible privacy practices.

“Data is the ‘oil’ of the Internet economy. It is fueling innovation, growth and revenue. At the same time, if abused there is a risk of data spills, negatively impacting user expectations and ultimately the Internet at-large,” said OTA Founder and Chairman Emeritus, Craig Spiezle. “The OTA Trust Audit & Honor Roll underscores the urgency to embrace responsible security and privacy practices. Failure risks a long-term impact to the Internet.”

OTA observed the emergence of an alarming three-year trend:  sites either qualify for the Honor Roll or fail the Audit. In other words, sites increasingly either take privacy and security seriously and do well in the Audit, or lag the industry significantly in one or more critical areas.

Although ZEDO is not a consumer-facing site, we participate in the Audit to be sure we’re doing the best we can do for our customers and partners. If you read the press release notes, you will find that if ZEDO were an actual consumer-facing site, it would be among the top 50 in security and privacy protection. Ironically, the banking community scores lowest in best security practices.

 

“Despite ratcheting up the criteria needed to qualify for the 2017 Honor Roll, it was encouraging to see the highest percentage of recipients since OTA began the Trust Audit nine years ago,” said Spiezle. “While OTA congratulates all Honor Roll recipients, many others have a long way to go to ensuring and embracing acceptable security and privacy practices.”

Industry Highlights
From best to worst performing industries:

  • Consumer Services: This industry was again the best performing with 76 percent making the Honor Roll this year. This segment accounted for 26 of the top 50 consumer-facing sites (52 percent).
  • Internet Retailers: Fifty-one percent of the top 500 Internet retailers made the Honor Roll, a significant improvement over last year’s score of 44 percent. This segment accounted for 10 of the top 50 consumer-facing sites (20 percent).
  • News & Media: Forty-eight percent of news and media sites made the Honor Roll this year, the most significant improvement over the previous year across all industries. In 2016, media and news sites were the worst performing sector with only 23 percent making the Honor Roll. This segment accounted for three of the top consumer-facing 50 sites (6 percent).
  • ISPs, Carriers, Hosters & Email Providers: Forty-six percent of companies in this new 2017 category made the Honor Roll. This segment accounted for seven of the top 50 consumer-facing sites (14 percent).
  • Government: Thirty-nine percent of audited U.S. federal government sites made the Honor Roll. This was a significant decrease from 46 percent in 2016. 60 percent received failing grades
  • FDIC 100 Banks: The percent of FDIC 100 banks making the Honor Roll saw the biggest drop in 2017, going from 55 percent in 2016 to 27 percent. This sector had shown consistent, significant improvement in their Honor Roll score up to 2016 before plummeting this year predominantly due to increased breaches, low privacy scores and low levels of email authentication. 65 percent received failing grades.

“OTA’s Audit continues to drive awareness and recognition about the importance of responsible data security and ethical privacy practices,” said Internet Society Chief Internet Technology Officer, Olaf Kolkman. “The increase in sites embracing end-to-end encryption shows it is becoming the norm for site traffic.”
To qualify for Honor Roll status, a website must receive a composite score of 80 percent or better and a score of at least 60 percent in three categories: 1) domain, brand and consumer protection, 2) site security and resiliency and 3) data protection, privacy and transparency. Failing any one category automatically caused a site to fail overall. OTA expanded the 2017 methodology with additional criteria, telemetry and data fidelity addressing today’s security threat and privacy landscape. OTA analyzed websites between mid-April and the end of May 2017. It estimates that it analyzed more than 500 million email headers and approximately 100,000 web pages.

The 2017 report was funded in part by grants from Symantec and Verisign. Data providers included Agari, DigiCert, Disconnect, Distil Networks, Ensighten, High-Tech Bridge, Infoblox, Malwarebytes, Microsoft, Risk Based Security, SecurityScorecard, SiteLock, Qualys SSL Labs, Symantec, ValiMail and Verisign.

 

About OTA:

The Online Trust Alliance (OTA) is a non-profit with the mission to enhance online trust and user empowerment while promoting innovation and the vitality of the Internet. Its goal is to help educate businesses, policy makers and stakeholders while developing and advancing best practices and tools to enhance the protection of users’ security, privacy and identity. OTA supports collaborative public-private partnerships, benchmark reporting, and meaningful self-regulation and data stewardship. Its members and supporters include leaders spanning the public policy, technology, ecommerce, social networking, mobile, email and interactive marketing, financial, service provider, government agency and industry organization sectors.

Context: The Most Important Mobile Ad Attribute

Publishers have had to have a mobile strategy for quite a while now, but in the past year many have realized they have to be mobile first, or even mobile only to meet their customers. This has required a new understanding of context — how to reach those customers, understand them, and offer them services that do not offend.

This requires an understanding of context: what devices and screens their users are on, the patterns of usage, which networks they’re on, what plans they’re on, and more. In human history no other devices has presented such challenges.

For most users, mobile means apps, especially for digital media consumption.

A study by cross-device identity and advertising platform provider Drawbridge found that in just six months, from August to December of 2016, the top 15 ad-supported iOS apps grew 32.5% in monthly unique users to nearly 137 million, while the top 15 ad-supported Android apps grew five percent to 606 million monthly uniques.

In 2016, for the first time, mobile surpassed desktop as a means of consuming digital media, and equally important was the growth in mobile advertising, which also surpassed desktop.

In mobile, context takes many forms. Creators have come to realize that mobile is a new surface, and that they can’t just re-package their old content, TV ads, or display ads. Mobile can tolerate special sized vertical video, swiping in multiple directions, and geolocation. It is far more interactive than the desktop, and therefore open to bigger challenges as well as opportunities.

Publishers must be able to know whether a visitor is viewing their content on the subway, standing in a store, walking, or just waiting to know what kind of ad that person would be willing to see. As Grapeshot points out,

In the mobile sphere, the content being consumed in the moment sends powerful signals as to the context of the person consuming and interacting with it.

Contextual understanding adds a layer beyond what audience data can provide. Knowing what media are being consumed signals a person’s current state of mind, their current preferences, even their level of engagement and degree of attention.

Correctly executed, contextual advertising puts brand messages where consumers will accept and even welcome them. It also protects brands from dreadful adjacencies, such as hate speech, porn, and terrorist propaganda.

A few years ago, a startup then named Proximic tried to sell the idea of brand safety to both advertisers and publishers. It had the capacity to scan over a hundred languages in real time to find brand safe locations for ads. No one seemed to care. The company was sold to ComScore, and is now called Activation, but now Grapeshot has come along,  and using similar machine learning algorithms to target suitable ad placements.  And on mobile, the suitability of placements has become far more important.

For example, since most of consumption activity takes place in apps, it is imperative to understand the context of apps into which messaging can appear safely without either compromising brand safety or interrupting a consumer intent on an experience. Page-level understanding of what’s inside apps is still in its infancy and the industry is still using workarounds developed by verification services like MOAT.

But these are tools for the post-bid environment, and the problem won’t be solved until we find a pre-bid solution.

 

 

Mary Meeker Sets the Agenda

Mary Meeker’s annual Internet Trends Report has been published. The long and short of it is that half the world is now connected to the internet by mobile phone, and while mobile phone sales may be saturated and therefore slowing, mobile phone use online is still growing. Most users still have Android devices, although Apple is growing a bit. In the US, mobile phone users spend an average of three hours a day on their phones.

And with this growth in mobile device use finally comes more advertising dollars, Last year, mobile passed desktop in ad spend. But there’s still a discrepancy between the time spent on mobile devices and the number of ad dollars there — a $16 billion opportunity, says Meeker.

Unfortunately for other publishers, Google and Facebook now have 85% of the global online ad spend, up somewhat from last year.

And so is ad blocking, especially in Asia, where 58% of Indonesians and 28% of Indians (as well as 9% of Chinese) opt out of having data collected on them through advertising. The European GDPR (new privacy regulations) may also cause changes, although ad blocking in Germany is mainly on desktop.

But the biggest change from last year is in the presence of better measurement tools from the big players (Google, Facebook, and Snap), who have been pressured to ad better reporting to their offerings. For Google, product listing ads drive traffic to product pages, while contextual ads drive purchases on Facebook,  and goal-based bidding ads work best on Snap.

In addition, geo-targeted local ads drive foot traffic to retail stores.

Here are the types of ads consumers appear to like most:


Meeker says inefficient ads are rapidly being exposed by data. She says it is now possible to get the right ad to the right consumer at the right time. This may be a little futuristic, but it’s certainly what is coming.

The presentation goes on for a long time (355 slides) through gaming, and through changing user interfaces (mostly voice). She also talks about image recognition and how that will become the most important part of search.

Perhaps most important for publishers, she says on slide 50 that the line between ad, content, store, and transaction is blurring, and that the most successful publishers in the future will also be targeted stores.

We are ready with these new formats, in which you swipe up to buy or tap to book right from the ad on the site. And we know that targeted well, consumers like these ads because they’re useful.  Now is a good time to get in touch with us.

ZEDO: A Safer Way to Buy and Sell Digital Ads

I was talking to a woman on our sales team in the midwest last week, and she said “you know, in the midwest many agencies haven’t even heard of ZEDO and ZINC.” In some ways, that’s not a surprise. We’ve been around since 1999, when we were founded as an ad server for publishers, and our headquarters then was in San Francisco. We later expanded to deliver out-sourced ad operations services, yield optimization services, and pretty much anything a publisher would need to increase revenue. But we’re a solutions development company, not a marketing company.

About three years ago, we started a division called ZINC and brought to market innovative high impact ad formats as the industry changed. We were, if I remember correctly, first to market with an ad called the “Inview Slider,” an ad that only appeared when a visitor was there to see it. we followed that with an equally innovative video format designed to be displayed by publishers with sites that didn’t publish video. The “InArticle” Video was quickly picked up by the industry and re-named “outstream.”

We went on to focus on mobile, developing an entire suite of ad formats that do not anger mobile users and get better results than any of our competitors. Along the way, we moved the company to New York to signal our entry into the advertising side of the digital media ecosystem.

Once in New York, we realized we had access to a new customer: brands and agencies.

Along the way we participated in a range of industry-wide initiatives, and realized that ad fraud and brand safety were becoming paramount in the minds of industry thought leaders, so we jumped ahead once again, developing a completely private, secure, end-to-end solution  — a platform on which our customers can buy innovative formats that are served directly to our premium publisher network without the danger of supply chain corruption.

At the same time, we eliminated several former partners with whom we worked until we realized they weren’t playing the game on the up and up and their networks were fraught with bots and malware. We also severed connections with some non-quality publishers.  And last, we partnered with a company that checks all the URLs to which we serve to make sure we serve ads in a brand safe environment.

All the while, we were heads down continuing to develop new technologies, and ignoring the elaborate marketing plans other companies user to generate transactional sales. We much prefer relationship sales. We’ve just developed our first slide deck in years. We’re coming out to build additional relationships.

You will see more of us now in the media world, because we have begun reaching out in the midwest, New York, and the west coast, doing somewhat more aggressive storytelling about what we have to offer.

 

Facebook’s Day in the Sun May be Over

For publishers, Facebook is no longer the darling it once was.  To be honest, it was never a darling; it was more like a force that had to be reckoned with, as all the publishers who jumped on Instant Articles thought they knew. For them, once Instant Articles launched, it was damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Now, with display advertising largely being replaced by video, Instant Articles isn’t worth the loss of control over their own sites.

The Times is among an elite group of publishers that’s regularly tapped by Facebook to launch new products, and as such, it was one of the first batch of publishers to pilot Instant. But it stopped using Instant Articles after a test last fall that found that links back to the Times’ own site monetized better than Instant Articles, said Kinsey Wilson, evp of product and technology at the Times. People were also more likely to subscribe to the Times if they came directly to the site rather than through Facebook, he said. Thus, for the Times, IA simply isn’t worth it. Even a Facebook-dependent publisher like LittleThings, which depends on Facebook for 80 percent of its visitors, is only pushing 20 percent of its content to IA.

But what’s happening with video? Sites like Bloomberg are launching tech demo offerings that publish video to Facebook live. But like everything else Facebook, Facebook Live arrived with the promise that it would solve monetization problems, but no one knows for sure (yet) how well it works.

Mark Gurman, the expert from 9-5 Mac who got hired away by Bloomberg because he had so many contacts at Apple who fed him rumors, has just started a gadget show that will stream live on FB live. This follows the successful sale of the Wirecutter to the New York Times, and the launch of Circuit Breaker by The Verge. Apparently everyone thinks unboxings, demos, and reviews of gadgets will be the best way to monetize video on Facebook.

We don’t think so. One of the problems with Facebook is that no one goes there to buy things, or even to look at branded content. Rather, they go to connect with other human beings in Facebook Groups, or to respond to invitations to Facebook events. We think that as time goes on and Facebook’s numbers get audited by third parties, we will all learn that Facebook, although it has such amazing scale, does not produce proportional results.

And all of this may be further complicated by new tools Facebook has just released that allow users to suggest that specific articles and sites might be fake news.

We’re pretty sure that the days of sheer scale are numbered, and advertising will go back to more sensible goals — reaching the right potential buyers.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Hearst’s New Central “Operating System” Powers a Digital Company

Whatever happened to the newspaper empire William Randolph Hearst founded in 1887? It has grown out of newspapers almost entirely, and now has 350 different businesses in 150 countries.

According to Troy Young, President of Digital for Hearst, half of the company’s content will be video soon. Young, who joined the company four years ago from Say Media to help build a platform that could guide the legacy print publisher into the 21st century, has not had an easy time trying to align a company focused on siloed magazines and newspapers around a single digital objective. Hearst is actually still moving from its old content creation processes to what it will be — a centralized, platform-driven content factory that rolls out creative assets to whatever brands wish to run it and collects data.

To get from where Hearst was to where it must be for the future, the company had to learn new ways of generating content, new ways of editing, and new ways to interact with its audiences, wherever they happen to be.

Four years in, Hearst has had a 350% increase in its audience, both on and off the site, and its revenue has almost tripled. It has the most brands on Snapchat of any media company, and it makes good use of Instagram.  And while Young does admit that anyone in the digital media business must be “ruthlessly efficient,” he says Hearst’s profitability is the best in the business.

The change started with a unified digital platform called “media OS,” and the centralization of many processes around that core technology. Today Hearst has about 40 services detached from a specific CMS that allow people to edit content, fix photos,  manipulate video, all culminating in a front end with the needs of advertisers in mind. The digital Hearst is like a gigantic content library managing all the company’s digital assets from GIFs to text, to video and all the data associated with that content..

The platform handles data not only from Hearst’s publishing businesses, but also its TV business, and some businesses that Hearst does not even own. That data can be used both by editors and by advertisers. This is where Young thinks the future of the digital media business will be, with platform builders who can server multiple businesses.

That’s different from a fancy-named proprietary CMS, Young says. Hearst’s MediaOS includes advertiser data,  native advertising, data that helps them rank all the content, all the video pieces and all the syndication across brands, and bundles everything up into a package that can be distributed to all Hearst’s end points.

Not only does the new system handle all the back end processes you would expect it to handle, but the company now has a horizontal approach to its newsrooms as well, and reporters collaborate to product content for more than a single Hearst brand. A central news team is on point for breaking news and distributes it out to any editor who plans to cover that piece of news. No editor is obliged to take the content created by the central organization, because the most important part of each business is still its brand, but if they were planning to cover it anyway, why use different resources for each brand?

To us, this seems like a very forward thinking approach to maintaining a unique editorial brand and still being able to capitalize on shared resources. Hearst is a mighty ship, and it has turned in a decidedly different direction over the past four years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mobile Video Monetization Strategies

Everyone in the industry is wondering  when mobile video will begin to be monetized properly (by which we mean in proportion to the time consumers spend watching it).As part of our work on the IAB Digital Video Committee, we attended a meeting  to learn what may be holding the industry back from getting the kind of ad rates for mobile video that it deserves. Three different issues emerged from the meeting: how publishers feel about available video formats (often unsuitable for mobile), the state of cross-device measurement (just getting started),  and the unfamiliarity of TV media buyers with the digital video environment.

You may already know that ZEDO pioneered a format called InArticle, which later was reinvented by Teads as “outstream video.” While this format has been highly successful for us, we know it is not for everyone, and we  heard two publisher panelists (Meredith and Weather Channel ) say that they will never run out stream because they don’t like the user experience on their sites. They talked about 15-second preroll as preferable, although they admit that most advertisers send them 30-second spots. These publishers are pushing back at agencies and brands who try to use existing TV creative, esp. 30-sec spots, on mobile  have pretty good statistics on completion rates, and they feel shorter is better. In fact, one attendee suggested five-second video, just to get the brand’s name in front of the audience without offending it.

Because there is a relative scarcity of pre-roll another format publishers are testing for video is mid-roll, Facebook is rolling these ads out right now to see how well they are accepted.

At ZEDO and ZINC, we are testing our own version of pre-roll, as well as a new format we call “polite Swipe Up.” Our objective with our formats, which achieve high visibility and engagement, is not to antagonize site visitors. In the Digital Video Committee, several publishers complained that group M’s demand that all Ads be 100% viewable means that they waste inventory and annoy viewers by upping the frequency of ads while trying to  achieve those viewability numbers.

The issue of cross-channel metrics also came up in the meeting, because marketers are only beginning to be able to follow consumers from device to device and from home to work. Before investing in digital video, they need more assurance that they are following the same customer from display to video to TV.

And then there is the “people problem.” TV media buyers often don’t buy digital video, or want to pay less for it, because they don’t know how to buy it. This is such an industry-wide problem that IAB is preparing a Digital Video Guide and a curriculum, and will hold workshops and classes to educate media buyers. The guide will be introduced during the Digital New Fronts, and the education programs will begin shortly thereafter.