Whose Digital Identity Consortium will Win?

Companies in programmatic rely on their own cookies or device advertising IDs to anonymously identify audiences. Thus a consumer can receive many identifiers, resulting in data loss through fragmentation. This is how we got to the problem of a flood of data, yet decreased understanding of consumers, less effective targeting, frequency management, optimization, attribution, and a poor consumer experience.
As the digital advertising industry has matured and the criticisms have increased the ad tech portion of the ecosystem has been looking for a single identity solution. However, with the coming of GDPR and all the movement toward transparency and brand safety, this year ups the ante.
Digitrust was the first effort of the industry at a unified identity for consumers. In November, Rubicon wrote:

Cookies have ruled the ad industry since the early days of online browsing and shopping — helping media companies understand who their audiences were and what they were interested in, while making sure advertisers could deliver the most relevant messages. But the growth of programmatic and the mobile explosion have changed the industry dramatically, leading to a growing sense that cookies are no longer enough.

Across the industry, technology companies, advertisers, and publishers are all seeking an alternative to cookies — and there are a variety of solutions vying to be the go-to way we identify users and analyze their behavior moving forward. DigiTrust, the non-profit, independent ID consortium supported by companies like Rubicon Project, Dataxu and OpenX is one such option…

At the time, Rubicon decided to back Digitrust, but in the interim two other options have emerged.

The Trade Desk Cookie Sync

The Trade Desk has opened their cookie sync database to other organizations. The database is stored in their proprietary domain, and is in line with our existing implementation. However, this solution is only helpful to ZEDO if it is adopted by other players, and as yet there is no information on that.

Advertising Id Consortium
The third of these options is the Advertising ID Consortium, which takes a collaborative approach to solving these issues by providing: 
  • An open and standardized pool for cookie and device IDs.
  • The availability of people-based identifiers.
  • An omnichannel identity framework that adheres to privacy, security, and compliance requirements, industry standards, and best practices.

This is a solution similar to The Trade Desk’s, although headed by Liveramp and Appnexus. The problem with it is that everyone is trying to build Cross Domain Targeting Technology, and if this consortium takes off, Liveramp seizes the competitive advantage.

Competition among the major players may prevent any single solution from gaining enough traction to “win.” That would be painful for those of us who would then have to implement three different solutions.

 

Does Advertising Really Need so Much Tracking?

Our old friend Doc Searls is taking another step toward putting readers in charge of their data and taking on the use of too much consumer tracking. In a prototype edition of the reborn Linux Journal, he is going ask readers to indicate what they want in their advertising:

We believe the only cure is code that gives publishers ways to do exactly what readers want, which is not to bare their necks to adtech’s fangs every time they visit a website.

We’re doing that by reversing the way terms of use work. Instead of readers always agreeing to publishers’ terms, publishers will agree to readers’ terms. The first of these will say something like this:

That appeared on a whiteboard one day when we were talking about terms readers proffer to publishers. Let’s call it #DoNotByte. Like others of its kind, #DoNotByte will live at Customer Commons, which will do for personal terms what Creative Commons does for personal copyright.

Publishers and advertisers can both accept that term, because it’s exactly what advertising has always been in the offline world, as well as in the too-few parts of the online world where advertising sponsors publishers without getting too personal with readers.

Notice he is not anti-advertising as a business model. He is for restoring advertising to what it used to be — brand advertising. He refers to data-driven advertising as “junk mail.”

He theorizes that we’ve (publishers) lost a lot here by putting data collection in the driver’s seat:

By now you’re probably wondering how adtech has come to displace real advertising online. As I put it in “Separating Advertising’s Wheat and Chaff”, “Madison Avenue fell asleep, direct response marketing ate its brain, and it woke up as an alien replica of itself.” That happened because Madison Avenue, like the rest of big business, developed a big appetite for “big data”, starting in the late 2000s. (I unpack this history in my EOF column in the November 2015 issue of Linux Journal.)

Madison Avenue also forgot what brands are and how they actually work. After a decade-long trial by a jury that included approximately everybody on Earth with an internet connection, the verdict is in: after a $trillion or more has been spent on adtech, no new brand has been created by adtech; nor has the reputation of an existing brand been enhanced by adtech. Instead adtech does damage to a brand every time it places that brand’s ad next to fake news or on a crappy publisher’s website.

Yes, Doc is a friend of ZEDO.  But he is also a terrific writer, and you owe it to yourself as a publisher or a member of our ecosystem to read what he has to say in Linux Journal.

Building a Brand: For Publishers

All publishers will not survive the latest onslaught of Facebook changes and GDPR compliance. At least not with an advertising model. But should they? The combination of an almost limitless content  supply of sometimes questionable quality, the “Amazon effect” on brands, and the intolerance of consumers for slow-loading pages and interruptive ads will cause a Darwinian contraction among publishers.

The internet saw the rise of almost countless niche publications, each one fighting for ad dollars. That led to a proliferation of targeted ads, which in turn led to the need to collect personally identifiable information. The fact that 65% of companies weren’t ready to comply with GDPR shows how complicated the ecosystem has become.

That number includes brands and publishers. The brands have already taken steps. P&G cut its ad spend last year by $200 million, and said its reach was 10% greater. It will take more steps this year. In related news, WPP lost 15% since last year.

What will happen? Only the fittest will survive.

We think a combination of things will move the ecosystem forward, including the decline of publications who bet the farm on Facebook to get traffic, as Little Things did, the introduction of more transparency in the media buying system, and a diversified revenue stream will keep the best publications in business.

Mixed revenue streams have already begun to keep the largest publications, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post afloat. Some sites (The Information and Stratechery) do well by subscription alone, although the subscription model won’t scale across the entire industry because there are a limited number of sites to which any one human can subscribe.

That’s why after all is said and done, advertising will remain the best way for keeping content free, and those sites who design for the new ad formats recommended by the Coalition for Better Ads and IAB will see less competition for ad dollars and probably higher CPMS. The new site designs will be cleaner, pages will be faster loading, and desired content will be easier to read — all of which should have already happened.

The internet presented a temptation to put too many ads on too many sites, resulting in the digital equivalent of a swap meet and what we are seeing is a natural fallback of the market from excess to normalization. A market with too much merchandise is just as difficult to shop in as one with too little.

This is not very different from what happened to the cryptocurrency space lately as Bitcoin’s price fell from $19,000 to $11,000.

Bitcoin is a good analogy here, both because the regulators are coming both for digital media and for cryptocurrency, and because its price did not fall to nothing, just like advertising won’t go away. What we are seeing in advertising, as in blockchain, is the adoption of new technology inducing a hype cycle, and the market coming off the hype cycle into something more normal.

The quality publishers will still succeed, most supported by advertising. Publishers, just try to keep the flight to quality in mind. We’re here to help.

P&G Acts on its Promise to Clean Up Supply Chain

Well, P&G has done it — exactly as Chief Brand Officer Mark Pritchard promised a year ago it would.  The consumer giant cut the number of agencies it works with from 6000 to 2500 and next year will cut that number in half again. According to Chairman and Chief Executive David Taylor, the company has found and eliminated as much as 20% media waste and still increased its reach 10%. Somebody woke up the hibernating bear and it was hungry for change.

For years some of us in the industry have been simultaneously laughing and crying about waste and fraud in digital advertising. No one seemed to care. But all of a sudden the KPIs for everyone from media buyers to middlemen seem to have changed, and everyone’s serious about cleaning up the waste.

P&G is just one example of changes in the media industry that will come about in the coming years. The hammer has now come down on fraud, wielded by the only people who ever could swing it with enough power, the brands that pay the bills.

Now what’s going to happen next? Taylor already told a Consumer Industry Analyst Group that P&G is taking more of its media buying inside, and it will do that “through private marketplace deals with media companies, and precision media buying fueled by data and digital technology.” So much for waste.

What does this mean for the online publishing ecosystem?

For the ad agencies and trading desks it probably means a round of layoffs and belt tightening as many of them lose a big piece of business. For brands, it means some broad shoulders to stand on as they demand greater transparency and more attention to brand safety.  In other related news, Unilever’s CMO, Keith Weed, threatened at the IAB Annual Leadership Summit that it would pull its advertising from Facebook and Google if the platforms don’t curb hate speech and controversy.

For ZEDO it means increased focus on our core mission, which has always been to help our publisher partners to monetize their inventory more completely and at hight rates. For the past three or four years, we have been operating as a private platform that joins publishers who have premium content with big brands in a secure buying environment. We have made certain that any transaction within our control is transparent, viewable, and brand safe.

It seems like the industry is coming our way.

 

 

Zuckerberg Sucks Air Out of CES for Brands

Any real news out of CES this week was drowned out by either the two-hour power outage that plunged the main hall into darkness or Facebook’s announcement that it was once again tuning its newsfeed to promote meaningful interactions among individuals at the expense of all the publishers who used it as a lifeline after all the brands left their sites to advertise on  FB. The brands, by the way, will also get the shaft.

Part of this seems to be a response to the fake news controversy from the last election. But here’s how Zuckerberg puts it on the site:

“One of our big focus areas for 2018 is to make sure that the time we all spend on Facebook is time well spent.

We built Facebook to help people stay connected and bring us closer together with the people that matter to us. That’s why we’ve always put friends and family at the core of the experience. Research shows that strengthening our relationships improves our well-being and happiness.

But recently we’ve gotten feedback from our community that public content — posts from businesses, brands and media — is crowding out the personal moments that lead us to connect more with each other.

It’s easy to understand how we got here. Video and other public content have exploded on Facebook in the past couple of years. Since there’s more public content than posts from your friends and family, the balance of what’s in News Feed has shifted away from the most important thing Facebook can do — help us connect with each other….

The research shows that when we use social media to connect with people we care about, it can be good for our well-being. We can feel more connected and less lonely, and that correlates with long term measures of happiness and health. On the other hand, passively reading articles or watching videos — even if they’re entertaining or informative — may not be as good.

Based on this, we’re making a major change to how we build Facebook. I’m changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content to helping you have more meaningful social interactions.

We started making jchanges in this direction last year, but it will take months for this new focus to make its way through all our products. The first changes you’ll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups.

As we roll this out, you’ll see less public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media. And the public content you see more will be held to the same standard — it should encourage meaningful interactions between people.

For example, there are many tight-knit communities around TV shows and sports teams. We’ve seen people interact way more around live videos than regular ones. Some news helps start conversations on important issues. But too often today, watching video, reading news or getting a page update is just a passive experience.

Now, I want to be clear: by making these changes, I expect the time people spend on Facebook and some measures of engagement will go down. But I also expect the time you do spend on Facebook will be more valuable. And if we do the right thing, I believe that will be good for our community and our business over the long term too.

Welp. This was more relevant than whether AR or VR will go mainstream first (best guesses are for AR because no glasses) or who will advertise what in our connected homes. We’ve never thought the digital media industry belonged at a gadget show anyway.

Facebook Shifts Again

Facebook has decided, at least in 2018, to deprioritize publishers, leaving those who invested heavily in support for Instant Articles and videos with money that might have been better spent with the feeling that they have once again been betrayed by the social media behemoth.

Wasn’t it just two years ago that Facebook attracted publishers with the promise of faster loading Instant Articles, which were supposed to speed page loads for mobile devices? However, last year it told publishers it was going to prioritize video, and that great sucking sound you heard in the industry was from writers and print content creators going down the drain as every site pivoted to video. Well, as we’ve already written, the pivot to video was of little interest to site visitors, because they care a lot more about content than about format.

Facebook has now suggested that publishers NOT pivot to video, because they’ve found the monetization opportunities are not there. Again, we’ve already written about sites like Buzzfeed or Mic, who actually did pivot to video and are now facing the consequences of lost visitors and low ad revenues.

For the past couple of years, mass market sites have been at the mercy of Facebook’s experimentation. And of course Facebook is constantly experimenting, and is far more resource-rich than any of the publishers. Now that Mark Zuckerberg is in trouble over fake news, he’s much less willing to experiment with Facebook as a source of news. Our guess is that the last election gave him a crash course in the down side of being a media company, and now he’s going to crawl back into his corner and focus on connection individuals.

That doesn’t mean Facebook has become useless for advertisers, of course. It’s the publishers who will bear the brunt of this whiplash. Once again they will have to redesign their sites and give some thought to what might draw and audience to their own sites. That’s called audience development, and it was a mistake to put it in the hands of Facebook in the first place.

Oh, and if you were one of the few Facebook members who used M, its concierge messaging service, that experiment is also over.

The company is shutting down M’s services without even letting it leave the testing phase, where it had operated since 2015. The service once seemed to hold the promise of acting as a digital concierge, helping people book hotels, order food, keep their schedules and perform other tasks.

M’s technology, which was something Facebook used to learn about AI, will still be in the background in Messenger, which Facebook believes will continue to be a platform to develop chatbots for sales and customer service.

Publishers: Please implement Ads.txt

Ads.txt  is IAB’s newest fraud-fighting initiative. It stands for “Authorized Digital Sellers,” and the aim of the initiative is to increase transparency in the way that programmatic advertising is sold to protect buyers from spoofers.

It works by giving verified publishers and distributors an easy way to declare, publicly, the companies that they allow to sell their digital inventory. They do this by preparing and publishing the “/ads.txt” file, creating a public record of Authorized Digital Sellers and helping buyers to quickly identify which sellers are allowed to handle ad inventory for which publishers.

This makes it much harder for scammers to profit from selling fake inventory and gives buyers peace of mind that the ad space they buy is authentic.

By the time you read this post, over 100,000 ads.txt files will have been published. 750 of the comScore 2,000 will have ads.txt files and over 50% of inventory seen by DoubleClick Bid Manager will have come from domains with ads.txt files. Beginning in November, DoubleClick Bid Manager and AdWords stopped buying ads from ad networks / exchanges not declared on Ads.txt.

Google also says that “DoubleClick Ad Exchange and AdSense publishers that use ads.txt are protected against unauthorized inventory being sold in Google auctions.” To do this, Google “crawls daily over 30m domains for ads.txt files.”

The rapid adoption of Ads.txt shows how much of the market is controlled by Google. But this doesn’t make the initiative less valuable. Domain spoofing has been a huge problem on both the supply and demand sides, and we are happy to see this initiative and help our publishers adopt it.

If you’re a publisher, you need to implement the ads.txt text file on your root domain, listing the exchanges that are authorized to sell your inventory and including your seller account ID for each exchange.

Your seller account ID, sometimes called your publisher ID or seller network ID, is the ID that’s linked to your account on an exchange or supply-side platform (SSP). This is important because this part can’t be “spoofed.”

When you take part in programmatic real-time bidding, this ID should be transmitted through the OpenRTB protocol as the publisher ID, along with the Publisher.Domain in the Publisher object. If you’re using a different RTB protocol, it might be called “seller_network_id,” member or seat ID. 

Ads.txt is also important for buyers, who are the ones paying the bills and the ones demanding more transparency. They have been almost literally throwing out money on online exchanges, and finding their brands in places that are destructive or irrelevant. No wonder they’re finally done with all this, and have demanded changes. Especially this year the ANA and the MRC have become loud players in demanding reform, and Mark Prichard of Procter and Gamble, the country’s largest advertisers, has been on a one-man tirade.

As a private platform, we’re individually secure, and as an ad server we have our protections in place.

We are getting there, folks. Digital advertising is too large an industry to be so rife with corruption. We need to clean up, and we will.

 

 

Agencies Merging in the Face of GDPR

One of the ways agencies grow is by buying smaller agencies. In theory, that gives them access to more clients, a fresh creative staff, and a way to create scale to ward off competitors. However, mergers and acquisitions are only as good as their integrations into the mother ship.  According to an article in AdExchanger,

There were 398 acquisitions in 2016 with a total investment of $14 billion.  The Big Six – WPP, Dentsu, Havas, Publicis, IPG and Omnicom – were responsible for 89 acquisitions, at a value of more than $3.3 billion.

Figures through September showed 291 acquisitions this year. And in this game of agency supermarket sweep, many of the targets come from the data, digital and programmatic aisle.

This could prove tragic in the long run. The good news is that at long last agencies seem to understand that digital, data and programmatic are capabilities they need to have. But they are one step behind in the race to the future. As a result of coming new data privacy regulations, such as the European GDPR (Global Data Privacy Regulations), many marketers have data at the forefront of their minds, but for the wrong reasons. They know they are going have difficulty using it the way they did in the past, because now the consumer will be in control of her data.

What the big agencies really should be doing is studying up on those regulations and coming to grips with the limits that will be placed on the use of data in the future. Agencies are usually headed by people who may know the creative side of the house but don’t keep very good tabs on data. There will be an amazing culture clash when the data-driven geeks arrive in the house. There will be equally big problems because programmatic itself is coming under scrutiny for brand safety issues and ad fraud. So far, the geeks and the creatives have been kept separate, in separate companies. If they come together under one roof, that holding company will have to tighten its controls to make sure that the data flowing through its acquisitions is in compliance with the new regulations, or the fines will be significant.

So what the agencies will need now is a new cadre of management familiar with aspects of the business that have been lumped into a separate bucket called “martech.” And they will probably have to beef up their compliance departments as well.

In the rush to integrate acquisitions and learn more about how to manage data, guess what will get short shrift again? True creative, the kind that makes advertising users want to see.

Instream, Outstream We All Like Video Stream

A little more than four years ago, ZEDO had a global product development meeting to come up with ideas for mobile video. At the time, things were just shifting to mobile, and the ad dollars weren’t quite there yet. The customers, however, were spending more and more time on mobile devices, and the future could be clearly predicted by publishers, who were seeing more and more or their traffic come from smart phones and tablets. Our partner, The Economist, had asked us for a way to run video ads on text pages.

The conversation in the room at that meeting quickly moved around to the differences between phones and tablets, and what consumers would “tolerate” on a device they wore on their person all day. Somehow, the phone seemed a radical departure from any other online device because of this intimate connection with its user.

Our product team showed some of us in marketing an ad unit they were calling “In Article video” because it was a large video ad format that could be shown on a text-based site, and it was a complete departure from the only available video ad format at the time, which was pre-roll. There was a shortage of available pre-roll, and marketers were searching for other places to use their existing TV creative.We thought the format was very effective, and would drive user engagement, because at the time users were just beginning their love affair with video on the phone.Mobile video was still something of a novelty.

We decided at that meeting to call our offering “In Article Video,” because it ran in the article, appearing only when the user scrolled down to see it. When we tested it, the viewability of the unit was over 70%.  We knew we had found the answer to filling advertisers’ need for something beyond pre-roll.

In the first year, we sold this format as In Article, but then the industry began to call it outstream, and soon we had at least one copycat who popularized the name “Outstream.” While this made no sense to us as a name, we had no choice but to adopt it.

One of the claims we have always made about Instream/Outstream video formats is that they are a form of “native,” meaning they don’t take the viewer away from the mobile stream of news or articles she is already reading. However, the industry decided to make it difficult for us with that definition as well: native can now also mean branded or sponsored content. Native has come to mean advertorial, and nothing to do with format or feed.

I’ll take a minute to argue here that every time the industry chooses a confusing term for an ad format, it makes that format more difficult to gain adoption. We have had to deal with the confusion around Outstream and then the confusion around the meaning of native, and we believe that has held back the adoption of both ideas.

The good news is that 77% of marketers have not hear of either Outstream or Instream video, so we’ve got a large addressable market to go after next year with our publisher partners.

 

 

Facebook’s Problems Illuminate Dangers of Scale

As if all the new blockchain companies trying to fix digital ad transactions weren’t enough, we will certainly face more scrutiny in the buying and selling of ads since it was revealed that a Russian troll bank connected to the Kremlin propaganda machine bought $100,000 worth of ads on Facebook during the last election. This was admitted by Facebook, which probably means it’s the tip of the iceberg. Underneath is an iceberg that could harm Facebook if the election revelations are looked at as part of  a pattern that includes Facebook’s recent gaffe with data reporting.

That gaffe, reported by CNBC,  was discovered by a Pivotal analyst,

Facebook’s Ads Manager claims a potential reach of 41 million 18- to 24-year olds and 60 million 25- to 34-year olds in the United States, whereas U.S. census data shows that last year there were a total of 31 million people between the ages of 18 and 24, and 45 million in the 25-34 age group, the analyst said.

“While Facebook’s measurement issues won’t necessarily deter advertisers from spending money with Facebook, they will help traditional TV sellers justify existing budget shares and could restrain Facebook’s growth in video ad sales on the margins,” said research analyst Brian Wieser, who maintains a “sell” rating on the stock with a price target of $140 for year-end 2017.

While the incorrect reporting of data is something Facebook itself has to fix, the propaganda problem is more difficult to address.

There is a lot of hand-wringing going on in our government and in our newspapers wondering how the Russian ad buy could have happened. But we in the industry know exactly how it could happen: Facebook Ads Manager. Anyone with a credit card  and a Facebook account can use Ads Manager, and several people making relatively unnoticeable buys of about $10,000 each could easily have the benefit of Facebook’s super-targeting abilities to hit very specific people with very appropriate messages that would resonate enough to cause them to change their behavior patterns or — we wonder — their votes.

Thus, the same specificity that brands love can be perverted by political organizations to manipulate minds.

How should we think about this?

In Europe, the GDPR addresses some, but not all of this by giving consumers more control over their data. However, we haven’t yet seen any expert analysis of how this would apply to Facebook, which is not a conventional publisher. In fact, Facebook has been reluctant to think of itself as a media company at all. In the face of these recent discoveries, that’s one thing we think will have to change. We may see the return of the ugly word “platisher” as we in the industry try to address these concerns.