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.

 

Equifax, Malware, and the UntrustworthySupply Chain

As if Equifax hasn’t lost enough trust from the first hack, last week it had to disclose that it suffered a second breach, which was called by most reporters a second hack. But apparently last week wasn’t a second hack at all, but a different problem. . Ars Technica wrote:

 A key part of Equifax’s website has been redirecting users to malware for an unknown period of time, a security researcher discovered this week. A video posted by independent security analyst Randy Abrams  showed an Equifax webpage redirecting to a fake Adobe Flash download prompt that installs adware. The infected Equifax page, which the company took offline after discovering the problem, is used to access and update one’s credit report, meaning that many people have likely visited it in the weeks since Equifax disclosed a data breach affecting more than 145 million Americans.

But the new incident was not a second hack – Equifax told MC that the malicious redirect came from a vendor’s faulty code. “The issue involves a third-party vendor that Equifax uses to collect website performance data, and that vendor’s code running on an Equifax website was serving malicious content,” a spokeswoman said. “Since we learned of the issue, the vendor’s code was removed from the webpage and we have taken the webpage offline to conduct further analysis.” Equifax appears to use a disreputable third-party ad provider, Iron Source, which is known for facilitating “malvertising,” the process of implanting malware on victims’ machines through the ads they visit.

So a third party vendor did it? Iron Source, which has a reputation for allowing malvertising. Not according to a person from Malwarebytes, a service used to detect malware. This person said it’s incorrect to call this a hack or attribute it to ads. In fact, the third party script was a web analytics component, and not ad code. But the third-party script itself was leveraged to load a domain serving as “ad rotator.”

Apparently, that’s is an issue with 3rd party scripts and any site that was using that particular one was at risk.  The ad rotator delivered very low quality redirects, suggesting that these were not even targeted ads.

While malvertising remains quite common, compromised analytics tags are less so. What could the takeaways be from this incident?

Our biggest takeaway is that you have to know every single step in your supply chain, and every partners must be certified and trusted. There are far too many unknown intermediaries in digital transactions for us to feel comfortable about our visitors’ data, and we have to limit the number of those for safety’s sake.

That’s why we have a private platform where this cannot happen. We have weeded out low quality sites, we have only quality inventory, only high quality partners, and no one else enters the supply chain once we set up a buy. This must be the way the entire industry operates in the future. If we don’t let the bad apples in, they can’t corrupt our supply chain or compromise the data of any of our partners.

 

Publishers Speak Out at Advertising Week

It seems as if the biggest takeaway from Advertising Week is that the Financial Times announced it has been ripped off by ad fraud, even though it doesn’t sell its own video ads programmatically. And it was a big loss.  The fraud happened entirely outside the magazine’s control,  which only served to underline the lack of trust in the supply chain surfacing again this year. Although a couple of new organizations have formed to solve the problem of fraud in the media supply chain, not much appears to have changed.

Here’s what happened:

The Financial Times found display ads against inventory masquerading as FT.com on 10 separate ad exchanges and video ads on 15 exchanges — the publisher doesn’t even sell video ads programmatically — with 300 accounts selling inventory purporting to be the FT’s. The equivalent of a month’s supply of bona fide FT.com video inventory was fraudulently appearing in a single day. The FT estimates the value of the fraudulent inventory to be $1.3 million (£1 million) a month.

This is called domain spoofing, and it’s the main problem of using open exchanges. The Financial Times had to write to the exchanges involved and ask them to remove the fraudulent inventory. Then it had to write to agencies and their clients telling them not to source inventory from anywhere but Google AdX or TrustX, through which FT sells its display.

“The scale of the fraud we found is jaw-dropping,” said Anthony Hitchings, the FT’s digital advertising operations director. “The industry continues to waste marketing budgets on what is essentially organized crime.”

This is why we developed a totally secure private exchange a couple of years ago.  When we handle transactions end to end, we know where every ad is at any given time, and we can also track its response. We have never understood why the industry tolerates wasting marketing budgets as it has in the past, although we hope this is (slowly) changing.

How can we tell it is changing? Agencies holding companies are reporting poor financial results. That’s because brands are now far more careful about entrusting their budgets to trading desks that engage in arbitrage. Who knew that one of the biggest ways agencies made money was by buying media in bulk and not passing on the savings to their clients? We thought that only happened in the world of late night TV and informercial companies.

The other important media announcement out of Advertising Week was the re-branding of Advertising Age Magazine as AdAge, and the promise to guide this industry through a disruption the publisher admits is under way. We’re a bit suspicious of the publisher’s new recognition that

Everything is a brand. Everything is an ad for itself. So our coverage needs to reflect the broader culture beyond the weeds of our industry. We’ll still get into those weeds, but we’ll also explore the flowers. And we’ll do it with a tone that’s inviting, accessible, wry, witty and sharp.

This leads us to believe that Ad Age is going to be less an industry publication than a cultural publication, and we wonder how its core audience, advertising and brand professionals, will respond to that.

 

Native and Mobile Ads Draw High CPMs

The advertising landscape continues to shift. This time the news appears to be good for the publishers. MediaRadar’s newest study on advertising trends in 2016 and Q1 2017, which came out at the beginning of the summer, revealed that high CPM ad placements are on the rise (whew!), especially if they’re mobile or native; niche and enthusiast sites still flourish in print (along with regional titles,) and native ad placements have grown 74% in Q1 year over year.

Native ad formats have grown the most and command the highest CPMs. While many forms of native advertising are still frowned on,  the demand for native has nearly tripled since 2015. That’s partly because native ad formats typically escape ad blockers, but also because consumers don’t mind reading or viewing something that’s truly informational and isn’t interruptive. Native ads are predominantly  brand ads, and the further good news is that digital advertising has finally arrived at a point where it’s not all remnant inventory, performance ads, and low CPMs. This will allow digital advertising to be effective at points nearer the top of the funnel.(If there is still a funnel at all). For now, native seems to outperform more traditional ad units.

As for print advertising, it still hasn’t gone away, although spend did decline 8% year over year. While general interest titles are languishing, niche and regional publications appear to be on the rise. And many advertisers have begun to target smaller volumes of engaged users over sheer reach.

This seems counterintuitive to us, but we’ve observed it ourselves: programmatic buying has declined. In fact it’s down 12%, and we think it’s because media planners are tired of not knowing where their ads are going to be seen. Brand safety is one of the problems, and the other is viewability.  Viewability is the new currency for advertisers and it’s tough to track viewability accurately with programmatic buying. Brands really need to buy programmatically, however, because it’s far less effortful, especially for large buys. We think the market will settle somewhere around programmatic direct, which allows far more control than simple programmatic.

If the current market trends continue, publishers should see increases in revenues, brands should see growing effectiveness of ad spend, and consumers should be less annoyed by formats that offer little else than interruption.