Mediastreet
Tag

advertising

Browsing
In Uncategorized

How to Sell Advertising for Your Podcast

No Comments

By Ella Ames

Want to put or increase ads on your show? Here’s what you should know

The podcast industry is growing quickly, and advertisers are paying attention. Selling advertising is one popular way to monetize a podcast.

Even if you don’t have your own show, you can take advantage of the expanding market by acting as a liaison to facilitate sales between podcasts and advertisers.

Podcasters can sell advertising space on their shows in a few different ways. There are podcast ad networks that act as a marketplace for podcasts and businesses; typically, these services take a cut of the sale.

Shows can also negotiate with brands on their own. Familiarize yourself with similar podcasts and pay attention to the advertisers on their shows. This will give you a good starting point for brands to approach. If your show has a larger following, sometimes advertisers will come to you.

Advertisements are typically sold by CPM, which stands for cost per mille, or cost per 1,000 listeners. Ad buying platform AdvertiseCast lists the going industry average rates for podcast advertising at $18 per 30-second ad CPM and $25 per 60-second ad CPM.1

CPA, which stands for cost per acquisition, is another metric for podcast ad sales. This is results-dependent and calculated based on the number of sales or sign-ups an advertisement creates.

Some advertisers might prefer a mix of the two methods, or want to negotiate a completely different option.

Why Sell Advertising on a Podcast?

Fifty-four percent of podcast consumers say they’re more likely to consider brands they hear advertised on podcasts, as opposed to the 7% who say they’re less likely, according to “The Podcast Consumer 2019,” a report by Edison Research and Triton Digital.2

But when starting a new podcast, focus on building your audience first, rather than pursuing a sponsor right away. Creating a dedicated following will, in turn, attract advertisers. Uploading your podcast on big platforms like Spotify and Apple Podcasts can help to expand your audience. These outlets provide marketing tools and resources, and can increase accessibility for smaller podcasts.

Audience size, usually measured by downloads per episode, is often the biggest draw for advertisers. The demographic of listeners, the type of show, and audience engagement are also taken into consideration.

When deciding what advertisements to feature on your show, make sure your first priority is staying true to your podcast identity. Don’t work with brands that aren’t cohesive with your message. You never want to risk jeopardizing the trust of your audience.

While advertising is a well-known podcast income source, there are numerous other ways to generate revenue in the industry. Money-makers like affiliate marketing, selling branded merchandise, or relying on crowdfunding can all be effective options. We’ll dive more into these other types of income later on.

How to Sell Advertising for Your Podcast

There are two main types of podcast advertising—host-read, or dynamically inserted ads.

For host-read ads, the advertiser will usually provide key talking points, and let the host fill in the rest of the dialogue, so that it doesn’t sound too scripted. Depending on the product, there may be some parts that must be read verbatim, such as a legal disclaimer. If the sponsorship includes an endorsement, the company usually sends the host a product sample to try so that they’re able to speak candidly about their experience.

Host-read ads are “baked-in,” which means that listeners will hear the same ad regardless of where they are, and unless someone edits the original audio, the commercial will always be there.

Dynamically inserted ads are pre-produced commercials that are added to a show from an ad server. Listeners often hear different commercials as advertisers target specific demographics or locations.

Advertisements are usually placed in the beginning (pre-roll), middle (mid-roll), or at the end of an episode (post-roll). Pre- and post-roll placements tend to be cheaper and shorter, lasting about 15-30 seconds. Mid-roll ads typically cost more, and can run as long as a minute. Longer shows might include a couple of mid-roll ad spaces.

Selling advertising on podcasts works best for shows that aren’t already trying to promote their own products or services.

You don’t need to have your own show to take advantage of the advertising opportunities available. You can create a full-time job out of negotiating ad sales between podcasts and sponsors, either working for a marketplace or individually.

Alternatives to Podcast Advertising

There are lots of other ways to make money through podcasting, many of which you can pursue with a smaller audience.

Affiliate Marketing

Many podcasts participate in affiliate marketing programs. When hosts mention a product on their show they provide a unique URL, often giving the audience a discount. When listeners make a purchase using that code, the podcast gets a cut of the sales.

Premium Subscriptions 

In lieu of advertisements, some podcasts prefer to charge listeners to subscribe to the show, or offer their audience access to ad-free content for a premium.

Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding platforms like Patreon give listeners the opportunity to donate in return for perks such as exclusive content or early-episode access.

Merchandise Sales

Podcasts with a dedicated audience also can make extra income through sales of branded merchandise or offering tickets to live shows or events.

Monetizing Expertise

Hosting a podcast is a great way to assert your expertise in a field. Monetize your knowledge through public speaking gigs or create a course. You also can sell your services as a podcast consultant or producer or by helping new podcasters learn the ropes.

How Much Money Can Advertising Make?

While Bloomberg Businessweek reported that several top podcasts making more than $1 million a year, don’t expect to start earning the big bucks right away.3 Most podcasts take a long time to establish an audience base and advertisers.

How much you earn from podcast advertising is based on three main factors—episode CPM, the number of episodes produced each month, and how many episode downloads you’re getting. The website Improve Podcast gives the following formula to calculate your estimated income:

Monthly income = episode CPM x number of episodes per month x number of downloads / 1000.4

Once you start working with advertisers, experiment with selling different-length ads in different places in your show to find the most effective combination for your podcast.

This calculator from AdvertiseCast gives you an estimate of how much advertising income you can expect to make from your podcast.

The Bottom Line

Advertising can be a key revenue source for your podcast. The first step to attracting sponsors is to focus on building your audience. Big platforms like Spotify and Apple Podcasts can be a good place for new shows to find resources and increase accessibility.

Make sure to be realistic with your expectations—growing an audience, gaining their trust, and attracting advertisers takes time and effort. When you’re ready to pursue sponsorships, you can join a marketplace through an ad network, or approach brands independently.

Even if you don’t have your own podcast, you can earn extra income by selling advertisements for other shows, either on your own, or through an agency.

By Ella Ames

Ella Ames is a freelance writer and editor with a focus on personal finance and small business. She has a background in business journalism. Read The Balance’s editorial policies

Sourced from small business

Read More
By
In News

Google and Facebook accused of limiting ad competition with ‘sweetheart’ deal

No Comments

By John Glenday

Google and Facebook colluded to undermine competition in advertising, according to documents uncovered by the New York Times. Obtained during an antitrust lawsuit in Texas, the documents lift the lid on ‘Jedi Blue’ – a cloak and dagger sweetheart deal between two tech giants that monopolize online advertising.

So what’s the deal?

  • Google and Facebook are accused of abusing their market position to strike a backroom deal to further their business interests.
  • The agreement is said to have seen Facebook win more favorable terms when bidding for advertising in return for its support for Google’s Open Bidding platform for selling adverts over header bidding – where advertising space is auctioned across multiple ad exchanges.
  • Google has long agitated against this method of buying advertising, maintaining that it slows down web pages and causes batteries to drain faster, as well as elevating the risk for fraud and billing errors.
  • As a result, Facebook gained more time to bid for adverts and was able to strike direct billing deals with sites hosting the ads. The underhand arrangement is also said to have seen Google furnish its rival with its data to enable Facebook to better target audiences.
  • In a quid pro quo, Facebook consented to bid on a minimum of 90% of ad auctions when it could identify users, with a pledge to spend at least $500m a year.
  • Such terms handed Facebook an unfair advantage over Google’s other advertising partners according to the New York Times, which spoke with six of these to help build its case. This meant Facebook was almost guaranteed to win a consistent number of adverts.
  • Evidence of collusion was first obtained from documents filed as part of an antitrust complaint lodged by the Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, amid suspicion the tech pair were getting too cozy.
  • This relationship even included a clause that committed both companies to ’cooperate and assist’ in the event of any investigation into their business practices.

Why it matters

  • Should apparent collusion be corroborated it would further undermine confidence in digital advertising – particularly if a guaranteed win rate is confirmed.
  • In response to the allegations, Google contends that its agreement has been misrepresented, while Facebook maintains that such deals serve to enhance competition.
  • Irrespective of the truth of the matter, the lack of transparency shown by both parties will do little to instill confidence in competitors or legislators.
  • Addressing the claims directly, Google director of economic policy Adam Cohen wrote: “Our agreement with Facebook Audience Network (FAN) simply enables them (and the advertisers they represent) to participate in Open Bidding.
  • “Of course we want FAN to participate because the whole goal of Open Bidding is to work with a range of ad networks and exchanges to increase demand for publishers’ ad space, which helps those publishers earn more revenue.
  • “AG Paxton inaccurately claims that we manipulate the Open Bidding auction in FAN’s favor. We absolutely don’t. FAN must make the highest bid to win a given impression. If another eligible network or exchange bids higher, they win the auction.
  • “FAN’s participation in Open Bidding doesn’t prevent Facebook from participating in header bidding or any other similar system. In fact, FAN participates in several similar auctions on rival platforms.”
  • Both Google and Facebook have been in the eye of an antitrust storm, with Google fending off multiple lawsuits from the Department of Justice and three dozen states centered on its near-monopoly of search and search advertising, as well non-search advertising.
  • Facebook, meanwhile, has been embroiled in lawsuits filed by the Federal Trade Commission as well as attorney generals from dozens of states that accuse the company of abusing its command of the digital marketplace and engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

By John Glenday

Sourced from The Drum

Read More
By
In News

Social commerce: transforming the online shopping experience

No Comments

By Josh Tilley

Social media has been a key marketing channel since its conception and has increasingly played a role in how people shop. But up until now, shopping behaviour was limited to discovery and consideration, with purchase taking place off-platform on a brand or retailer website.

Today, social platforms look poised to ’close the loop’, meaning users will be able to browse, shop and purchase seamlessly and entirely within one connected social media experience. This development has the potential to fundamentally transform the way we buy online.

Welcome to the future of ‘social commerce’.

To better understand shopper behaviours, attitudes and beliefs in this space, we polled a nationally representative audience of UK shoppers, discovering that nearly two-in-three people would be more likely to purchase from a brand if they could browse and shop entirely within a social media platform.

From this, the evidence is clear: the winners of tomorrow will be the brands that embrace social commerce as a real tool for customer acquisition and retention. For those that fail to act, loss of market share could become a tangible concern. In a social world, learning how to navigate these waters is no longer just a ‘nice to have’.

The rise of social commerce

According to the latest research, social commerce is a market with a remarkable growth trajectory, with analysts projecting it could be worth $600bn in the next seven years.

As we’ve seen in the past year, Covid-19 has accelerated existing trends in shopper behaviour. The latest figures suggest an extra £5.3bn will be spent via e-commerce in the UK alone in 2020 as the fallout from the pandemic has forced more people online than ever before. Early figures suggest this behaviour is set to stay as we emerge from the pandemic.

Although shoppers are flocking online, social commerce is still a fairly nascent market in the UK and US. In fact, studies suggest that only 6% of UK consumers have purchased directly on a social platform, in part due to the lack of in-platform purchasing options in these markets.

In more advanced countries like China, however, social commerce is an integral part of the online shopping experience. Tencent’s WeChat delivered $115bn in social commerce sales in 2019 alone, while Pinduoduo, a group-buying app where friends can purchase together on social media, has grown from an innovative startup to China’s second most valuable online retailer.

As US platforms look to replicate some of this functionality, China provides us with a model of how social will likely evolve for commerce in the west.

Shopper thinking will be crucial to navigate social commerce

Today, brands have more opportunities to interact with people than ever, across an increasing number of digital touchpoints. Digital and social platforms have succeeded at meeting new customer expectations, with values such as convenience, ease of use, customisation and control redefining the shopping experience.

It’s not surprising, then, that social media is uniquely positioned to deliver on these needs. Based on our research, however, social will remain a nuanced and highly intricate channel. Careful consideration of different shopper motivations and barriers, as well as brand experience across the shopper journey, will be key to maximising shoppability across brands’ social media channels.

Consumer behaviour in this channel is anything but homogenous; in fact, our research suggests adoption of social commerce will differ by age. Being able to buy within platform would encourage 75% of 21- to 34-year-olds to purchase with a brand, suggesting that demographic differences will necessitate careful persona planning.

Price also seems to be a determining factor in whether or not someone would purchase on social, with our research suggesting that big-ticket items such as travel and luxury are much less popular than more affordable items.

Different categories also differ in their appeal, with respondents ranking fashion, beauty, wellbeing and grocery as the categories they would most like to shop for on social.

Taken as a whole, these findings are representative of a shift towards social media as a new and growing e-commerce channel, but they also demonstrate a need for smart planning. For brands, understanding where, when and how to activate a social commerce strategy as part of a connected shopper experience will be key as we move into 2021.

Social platforms at different levels of readiness

Another consideration is that the platforms themselves are at different levels of ‘readiness’ when it comes to social commerce.

Instagram, for example, has beta-tested its Checkout feature, which allows users to search and shop directly within the app. The mass rollout of this feature will transform how people shop with brands online, making it more convenient to shop not only directly from a brand’s posts, but from influencer posts too. These platform changes will make the social shopping experience on Instagram feel effortless and seamless – all the way from discovery to purchase.

The rollout of Shops across Facebook, meanwhile, allows brands to create digital storefronts, with links to purchase products either on the retailer’s website or directly within Facebook itself.

Even YouTube and TikTok are experimenting with social commerce. YouTube Shopping allows customers to make purchases directly on-site by browsing through catalogues offered by sellers, while TikTok’s partnership with Shopify allows merchants to create and show shoppable content on the platform.

Even before these functionality considerations, each platform lends itself differently to the shopping experience and users’ openness to brand advertising. Instagram, for example, feels like a natural fit for commerce as its highly visual nature emulates a glossy magazine, where products feel native and premium.

This was validated in our research findings, which showed nearly half of all shoppers (45%) would prefer to shop on Instagram, with Facebook (41%) coming in a close second.

These two platforms appear, at the moment, to be far ahead in terms of delivering on shopper expectations, with YouTube (9%) and TikTok (5%) capturing a much smaller percentage of shopper interest.

The sophisticated targeting options available to brands through Facebook Advertising (which includes Instagram) and Google (YouTube) also present opportunities for personalisation and disruption along the shopper journey.

Moreover, social commerce is a particularly exciting development for brands that sell exclusively through retailers, since it presents an opportunity to provide shoppers with a more personalised experience (in lieu of a true direct-to-consumer offering).

We spoke with Joseph Harper, e-commerce marketing manager at Kellogg Company, who notes: “The way people shop in the future will be totally different – it will be completely interactive and personalised.

“We know that retailers are starting to see themselves as media platforms and media platforms are starting to see themselves as retailers. That, in essence, is the crux of social commerce.”

Creating a connected experience for consumers

For a marketing channel with considerable upside, social commerce looks set to have a significant impact on the way shoppers discover, browse and buy. E-commerce has already lowered the barriers to entry, enabling new digital startups to burst on to the scene while forcing legacy brands to rethink existing strategies.

Social looks set to do the same again, challenging traditional brand and retailer relationships and ways of marketing to consumers.

But for the forward-thinking brand, success will come from more than just taking advantage of new platform innovations. Brands need to build connected experiences across all touchpoints that deliver on the values of a new generation of shoppers.

Whether researching on Amazon, being inspired on Instagram, watching adverts on TV or unpacking an order at home, there’s an ever-expanding ecosystem of places shoppers can engage with brands.

Marketers need to focus on optimising the customer journey and include social commerce as a key touchpoint in this. In doing so, brands can take one step closer to delivering a truly connected omnichannel experience.

Feature Image Credit: Initials advise marketers to better optimise the customer journey using social commerce

By Josh Tilley

Josh Tilley, senior strategist at Initials.

Sourced from The Drum

Read More
By
In News

Global ad spend sees faster-than-expected recovery thanks to e-commerce and video boost

No Comments

By John Glenday

A pronounced pivot toward e-commerce and video has seen global ad spend bottom out quicker than expected, with forecast falls now expected hit the floor with a 7.5% contraction to $587bn in 2020 – as opposed to a 9.1% fall as initially feared.According to Zenith’s Advertising Expenditure Forecasts, the advertising sector is proving to be more resilient than expected and is now expected to bounce back by 5.6% next year to reach $620bn.No mere dead cat bounce the rise is given credence by a surge in connected TV advertising as well as the delayed Summer Olympics and UEFA tournament.

How is global ad spend holding up?

  • Zenith’s metrics show that 2021 growth of 5.6% will be fractionally behind the 5.8% uptick it forecast back in July, falling short of the $634bn spent in 2019.
  • A recovery to pre-crisis spending is not expected until 2022, when a further 5.2% growth will see spending total $652bn.
  • All these forecasts are couched under the proviso that there will be no further black swan events to snuff out the tentative recovery.
  • What factors lie behind the improving outlook?
  • A universal shift in advertising budgets towards digital channels is providing a much-needed source of growth, with global digital ad spend expected to rise 1.4% in 2020, equivalent to a 52% share of total ad spend.
  • An explosion in e-commerce growth is not expected to tail off either, with Zenith confidently predicting that digital will account for 58% of all spend by 2023.
  • Another bright spot lies in connected TV’s as people flock to streaming video-on-demand (SVOD) providers such as Netflix and Disney+, whose reach has expanded by 5% in the US as people switch off from the world outside.
  • While advertisers are locked out of SVOD, ad-funded video on demand has enjoyed the strongest growth of all, jumping 9% to reach 5.5m US households.
  • Commenting on the findings Christian Lee, global managing director at Zenith, said: “Now that it offers mass reach in key markets, it’s the right time for brands to invest in connected TV.
  • ”Brands should use connected TV for both branding and performance, exploiting its high ad recall and full targeting and tracking capabilities to drive awareness and sales conversions at the same time.”

How is e-commerce shaking up ad spend?

  • A revolution in retail is feeding through to unprecedented demand for retailer media which promote products at the point of purchase, akin to in-store displays of old.
  • Crucially retailer media is allocated from commercial rather than marketing budgets, thus expanding ad expenditure as a whole. In all, Zenith anticipates the sector will jump from $35bn spend in 2019 to $51bn in 2020.
  • Ali Nehme, global chief commerce officer at Publicis Groupe, said: “Retail platforms are powering their growth by putting pressure on brand margins. Their focus on bottom out price wars, and enhanced consumer experiences, benefit consumers while brands bear the cost.
  • “In this scenario, brands must flex their power, by selecting retailer partners who offer demonstrable value through transparent data and measurement, as well as the ability to deliver the consumers who will drive much-needed category growth.”
  • A global jump in social media ad spend of 56.4% in the third quarter has also provided a timely boost.

Are there any regional variations in performance?

  • The global picture in the report masks significant regional variations with Asia Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe expected to lead the way in terms of growth, attaining 2019 levels of ad spend as early as 2021.
  • Zenith expects ad spend in both regions to shrink by 6% in 2020 and grow by 7% in 2021.
  • Elsewhere North America is expected to prove more resilient than most, declining by just 5.3% in 2020 courtesy of a spending boost driven by the presidential election.

Feature Image Credit: A pivot toward e-commerce and video has seen global ad spend swiftly fall, according to new forecasts

By John Glenday

Sourced from The Drum

Read More
By
In News

Why are businesses still taking a shot in the dark when launching a new website?

No Comments

By Rich Chapman

Since being in digital I have seen a standard timeline for businesses developing their websites. Make a new one every four or five years to experience an evolutionary leap forwards.

Is this still the right thing to do given the technology and options available to us today?

Basically no, it was never a great option anyway. Building websites, in general, is a difficult task and these days, websites are key revenue drivers for businesses, making it increasingly risky if it goes wrong. I still see cases where organic rankings plummet and conversion rates drop after so much hope has been pinned on a new site launch. It’s an emotional rollercoaster of stress, a sense of achievement on launch day and then panic.

Nowadays there is so much more available to us to mitigate the risk of launching a new website. Yet it is still untapped and companies are reticent to make the additional investment which is a small percentage of the overall cost. We all need to feel we are getting a good deal right so its an element regularly dropped from proposals.

So how do we improve this gambling situation? We need to be able to see into the future and find out how a new site will perform on launch. Good news! We can! Well, sort of…

No, we don’t have a time machine… but we can pre-test a website to see how it performs before exposing it to our entire user base and business to the new unknown. In my experience a lot of stakeholders want to have input on designs and battle for site real estate, this then defines how the new website is designed, from internal opinion alone and HIPPOs. To avoid this trap there are two ways which can give unbiased insight:

User testing

User testing outside of your own web environment can give you a level of feedback and information you simply can’t get from internal stakeholders and outside help. Even as an experienced CRO I can’t tell you for sure which new design is going to be better than your current one. We have to ask user testers what they think.

There are various techniques such as preference tests where user testers will vote for their preferred version, this type of feedback is great at the design stage of a website build.

Another is a click test, this involves finding out what a user would click on first upon landing on the new design. This ensures users are engaging and clicking the call to action most relevant for the business.

One of my favourites is the five second flash test. Users are shown the new version for five seconds and then asked some non-leading open questions: “What does the company do?”, “What would you click on first?”, “Which page element stood out the most?”. The answers from this type of test tell us how scan readers interpret the new design. Businesses can also run this test on the current version and see how the answers compare.

Any of the above can settle design debates and give real information on what users will respond best to. Designs can be updated and retested until 90% of user testers prefer a version. Not so much a shot in the dark now.

A/B testing

The other option is to start testing new designs and website experiences on the live website through A/B testing software. The software enables us to send a percentage of live traffic (usually 50/50) to a new version which is measured against the original. So let’s say designers have followed an internal brief, come up with a new homepage design and some stakeholders like it and some don’t, that’s normal. To find out if the new design really is better (and who is right) it can be tested against the original.

These rounds of testing can be done piece by piece on different layouts, images, fonts, branding, journeys and more. Gradually this gives valuable information on how users respond to the new design and importantly, to change.

Top tip

If you have a large user base and a high amount of returning visitors you can let them know that you will be launching a new website. Send them emails with a launch date combined with a promotion maybe.

One step further is to create a beta site and get feedback from users before the big switch is done. Companies like the BBC and Facebook regularly use this technique. It is a staple in the gaming industry, gamers are invited to use a beta version knowing it might break. Their reward for giving feedback is early access and feeling like a VIP, the game producers get free insight and debugging, win win.

Round up

Adding user testing and a/b testing does make a web build a more lengthy and expensive process. However, from experience, it is worth it. Web site changes can be vanity driven and a “need” to be done at a fast pace leading to errors. Going with a user led approach may be longer but it will help safeguard the business.

It’s also a mindset change, moving from completely changing a site every three to five years to constant tested small changes and evolution. An iterative tested approach removes stress, big lump sum costs and keeps websites up to date.

By Rich Chapman

CRO consultant at Impression.

Sourced from The Drum

Read More
By
In News

What is the future of programmatic media buying?

No Comments

By Mike Nutley

Programmatic media buying is on the verge of a new era built on collaboration.

This was the key thread in the panel session on the future of programmatic run in association with digital advertising technology provider PubMatic at The Drum’s Agencies 4 Growth Festival. Watch the fascinating panel here.

Although advertising as a whole has been battered by the pandemic, the use of programmatic media buying continues to increase. At the beginning of October, IAB Europe published its 2020 Attitudes to Programmatic survey, which showed that the number of advertisers spending more than 41% of their display budget through programmatic channels had increased from 55% in 2019 to 77% in 2020. Similarly, the number spending more than 41% of their video advertising budget programmatically grew from 50% in 2019 to 54% in 2020.

As programmatic grows, the way it’s being managed continues to change. The IAB survey found that the number of advertisers using hybrid models, where brands bring some elements of programmatic buying in-house, supplemented with agency expertise, had doubled since 2019 to almost a third. In-housing of programmatic, meanwhile, fell from 38% of advertisers in 2019 to 20% in 2020.

Speaking on The Drum panel, Richard Kanolik, programmatic lead at Vodafone, put this change down to the growing level of programmatic expertise. Programmatic used to be a “black box” tended by the agency, he said, but now advertisers want more visibility and control of their media buy, and they can hire in the people to deliver that.

But he argued that there’s still a need for agencies to fill in the gaps.

“Advertisers can underestimate what’s required to bring programmatic in house,” he said. “Hence the hybrid model.”

This view was backed up by Chris Camacho, chief performance officer at Mindshare. He pointed out that in-housing involves more than just a deal with a DSP provider.

“You also need to think about the set-up, data, tools and talent,” he said. “It’s not easy, but with the right infrastructure, the right support and the right agency, it can be done. There’s a lot of value to having a guide.”

Lisa Kalyuzhny, senior director, advertising solutions, EMEA at PubMatic agreed that working together is crucial, both across the business and between the business and its agencies.

“It’s about knowing what your strengths are as a brand, and being able to use the people you have on the ground internally as well the agency, and being able to really collaborate. That’s where we’ve seen the most success,” she said.

But brands and agencies working together isn’t the only form of collaboration that’s changing programmatic buying. Kalyuzhny pointed out that the introduction of header bidding revealed to advertisers that they could be using 20 or 30 different partners to buy the same inventory, and they started asking themselves what the benefit was.

“Supply Path Optimisation has become a catchphrase for many different adtech initiatives. At the core, it’s about buyers understanding and optimising supply. To deliver better media buying and selling strategies, the collaborative relationships and understanding of both buyers’ and sellers’ goals are a must have,” she said. “In digital advertising, brands and publishers are ultimately working towards the same goal: creating a transparent programmatic set-up that optimises consumers’ ad experiences and values inventory at a fair price for all.”

Kanolik argued that programmatic’s transparency problems were self-inflicted, the result of an infant industry prioritising technology and innovation at the expense of clarity. But he also said that buy and sell sides know that transparency is crucial to programmatic maturing as a medium, and that awareness is bringing the two sides together.

“For programmatic to evolve into a trusted medium, transparency is key,” he said. “We’re moving towards that, and it will kick off a new era of programmatic advertising.”

To watch the entire panel discussion on the future of programmatic media buying, presented in partnership with PubMatic, click here.

By Mike Nutley

Sourced from The Drum

Read More
By
In News

Inside TV’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Upfront

No Comments

By Brian Steinberg

Depending on who is doing the talking, TV’s 2020 “upfront” market was absolutely horrendous or merely awful.

Advance advertising commitments for the next year of TV could be down as much as 15% to 20%, according to six media executives and ad buyers familiar with parts of the industry’s annual negotiations for commercial support for its next programming cycle. The projected shortfall takes place after a slew of regular TV sponsors were crippled by the coronavirus pandemic, and the TV networks’ ability to showcase original content was severely hurt by scuttled and delayed productions.

More concerning, perhaps: some of the drops in advertising outlays could become permanent, as advertisers scramble to get commercials in front of a viewing public that is turning increasingly to streaming, on-demand video. “Things we thought would happen in 18 months or two years are happening in real time,” says one media buying executive. “What may have been the right path six months ago will have to go out the window.”  That could leave TV fighting harder to keep ad dollars at a time when the medium needs them more than ever.

The nation’s five English-language broadcast networks could have seen the volume of ad commitments they secured for their next cycle of primetime programming fall by at least 9.3% to 14.6%, according to Variety estimates.  It is the first time since 2015 that upfront estimates have sagged. Based on conversations with media buyers and other executives, Variety estimates NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and the CW have secured between $8.2 billion and $9.8 billion for their 2020-2021 primetime schedules, compared with between $9.6 billion and $10.8 billion for primetime in the 2019-2020 season. Last year, upfront volume surged between 5.5% and 7.4% over 2018.

UPFRONT VOLUME

IN PRIMETIME, AMONG FIVE ENGLISH-SPEAKING BROADCAST NETWORKS

2010  $8.1B to $8.7B

2011  $8.8B to $9.3B

2012  $8.8B to $9.3B

2013  $8.6B to $9.2B

2014  $8.17B to $8.94B

2015  $8.02B to $8.69B

2016  $8.41B to $9.25B

2017  $8.78B to $9.62B

2018  $9.1B to $10.06B

2019  $9.6B to $10.8B

2020  $8.2B to $9.8B 

 

Source: Variety estimates

The numbers should be taken as directional indicators, not hard, cold cash. Upfront figures are typically built on fuzzy math and rarely have any correlation to the ad money big media owners like CBS, Walt Disney, NBCUniversal, Fox Corporation and WarnerMedia collect by the end of the year. Advertisers can pull orders at certain moments in the season or “re-express” advertising if specific programming is yanked off the schedule, changing the nature of their commitment to purchase inventory. But they still serve as a sort of guide as to where money is being sent. In recent years, the figures have lent ballast to the theory that the networks can still keep new money flowing despite ratings erosion and viewers moving to streaming options. This year, the numbers indicate tricky trajectory ahead.

As bad as the numbers are, media executives say they expected worse. Movie studios, some retailers, and restaurant chains and travel marketers had little visibility on their future business, and cut spending. Automotive advertising, long a staple of TV advertising, was mixed.  The networks had to rely on insurance companies. pharmaceutical marketers and big consumer packaged goods giants – advertisers whose long association with TV has given them the ability over the years to command more favorable pricing rates year over year.

“The advertisers had aggressive expectations for rollbacks, because they all thought a lot of categories were on the side-lines, that the networks were going to get really nervous because they would not have enough of a base,” says one media executive. But the TV outlets resisted some of that pressure, pushing back against harsh demands until they could talk about the return of sports like the NBA, NHL, golf, and, most importantly, the National Football League.

The upfront showed “a mix of stronger demand than many people have estimated just a few months ago,” said Comcast CEO Brian Roberts at a recent investor conference, noting that the company sees “really good signs for both the third and fourth quarter. “

To be sure, the end results were not as robust as they have been in the recent past. Big TV networks in the last three upfront sessions have been able to snare double-digit percentage increases in the cost of reaching 1,000 viewers, a measure known as a CPM that is central to these annual discussions between U.S. media companies and Madison Avenue. Last year, NBCUniversal sought CPM increases of between 13% and 14% for primetime inventory, while CBS pressed for CPM hikes of between 14% and 16%. ABC sought 14%, Fox called for 12% to 13% and the CW pushed for 14% to 15%.

One year later, the rate increases are much more paltry, with ad buyers suggesting CPM rates rose just 3% to 4% for top inventory, with some media companies consenting to single-digit percentage rollbacks for less-desirable and less popular inventory. The media companies are also said to have offered rollbacks for digital inventory – even though some of it was in high demand from advertisers that were ready to spend.

Walt Disney, ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Fox declined to make executives available for comment.

If broadcast faced headwinds, cable squared off against a hurricane. Some media executives believe the volume of ad commitments at cable networks could be down by 20% or more.

To keep the dollars flowing, the networks had to be flexible. They offered compelling rates on digital inventory to stoke commitments to primetime. They gave sponsors more wiggle room to claw back dollars in case of a business downturn. And they made sure advertisers would be taken care of if certain big events, such as sports matches, never made it to air.

Even so, the upfront was beset by numerous obstacles that have not impeded it in the past. Consider that in May and June, when market haggling usually takes place, few executives knew when sports might return to the field, or when primetime favourites would start to film anew. NBCUniversal’s Olympics broadcast, slated for this past summer and often a massive spur to new ad talks, was postponed. A number of prominent advertisers – including Procter & Gamble and Unilever – called for the industry to shift the upfront to the fall or later in the year. And Nielsen rolled out a new measure of out-of-home viewing for entertainment programming that the networks had to convince some advertisers to accept.

The Madison Avenue manoeuvre to push back upfront talks may have backfired, according to one media buying executive.  Advertisers seeking so-called “calendar-year” deals – agreements that start in 2021 rather than the beginning of new fall TV – found higher costs, says the buyer. “I do think if anybody tried to wait to do calendar deals, they really got hurt.”

Procter undercut its own efforts, not waiting for its calls to shift the upfront to take effect. Instead, the maker of Pampers and Crest did a direct deal with ABC, CBS and NBC, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, rather than working through its agencies. The pact was for broadcast inventory only, these people say, and did not focus on cable. In September, Marc Pritchard, P&G’s chief brand officer, raised eyebrows when he said at an industry conference that “we’ve taken control of when we negotiate and buy TV media. To level the playing field, we negotiate directly with as many as possible.” Most large advertisers rely on one of the ad industry’s big media-buying firms to get such things done.  The consumer-products giant declined to offer any details of its deal with the networks, noting in a statement that “we do not comment with regard to any supplier negotiations given they are proprietary to our business.”

There were still some bright spots. Ad buyers suggest NBCUniversal and Disney fared better than their competitors, buoyed to some degree by interest in on-demand hubs Peacock and Hulu. Ad money moved to streaming video across the board, with buyers looking at ViacomCBS’ Pluto and Fox’s Tubi, and even setting aside dollars for the ad-supported version of WarnerMedia’s HBO Max, which one ad executive expects to see debut in early 2021.

Some advertisers gravitated toward Discovery, which has maintained original unscripted programming at outlets like Food Network while the rollout of new comedies and dramas have slowed. Discovery said the number of clients joining its “Discovery Premiere” offer, which puts clients in a package of 30 of its best-known series, increased during the upfront to 75 from 25.

Many networks are looking to better times. Several held back upfront inventory so it can be sold in TV’s so-called “scatter” market, when inventory is purchased closer to the date it airs and is often sold at a premium. Speaking to investors recently, Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch said the company had probably held back 5% more commercial inventory than usual in hopes of getting better prices for it later in the cycle.

The networks will need that money.

Based on Variety’s estimate of a 10% to 15% cut in volume, NBCUniversal may have seen primetime commitments fall to between $2.68 billion and $2.84 billion, compared with $3.15 billion in 2019. ABC may have seen primetime commitments fall to between $1.66 billion and $2.18 billion, compared with between $1.95 billion and $2.42 billion a year ago. And CBS may have seen primetime commitments fall to between $2.03 billion and $2.51 billion, according to Variety estimates, compared with between $2.39 billion and $2.79 billion in 2019.

The smaller networks were affected as well. Fox may have seen primetime commitments fall to between $1.36 billion and $1.64 billion, according to Variety estimates, compared with between $1.6 billion and $1.82 billion in 2019. And the CW may have seen primetime commitments fall to between $440.8 million and $$597.1 million, according to Variety estimates, compared with between $592.7 million and $663.4 million a year earlier.

The moves wipe out some the volume gains the networks have made since a three-year stretch in the middle of the decade, when the TV companies had to muscle through tougher upfront sessions in the aftermath of a large recession. They have been helped in recent years by advertiser concerns about offensive content on YouTube and other social-media outlets as well as an inability to get independent consumer data from many digital players.

Last year, Madison Avenue rushed to TV as if Tony the Tiger and the Marlboro Man were still in their prime. As more Americans move to stream their TV favorites, media companies seem to have good reason to worry about how closely advertisers will follow them.

By Brian Steinberg

Sourced from Variety

Read More
By
In News

Here’s how Covid-19 has changed media for publishers and consumers

No Comments

By HANAA’ TAMEEZ  

Going into month eight of the coronavirus pandemic, we’re just beginning to understand the long-term impacts that the global event has had on news publishers and how they’re charting a sustainable path forward.

A new report at What’s New In Publishing, “The Publisher’s Guide to Navigating Covid-19,” looks at eight trends that have emerged globally, as well as strategies that publishers have implemented as a result of increased web traffic.

The report’s author, journalism professor Damian Radcliffe at the University of Oregon, notes that it’s difficult to make broad conclusions about Covid-19’s impact. The pandemic has forced some publications to lay off or furlough staff or shut down completely. Others publications, though, have been able to capitalize on increased reader attention and boost subscriptions.

Radcliffe looks at what we know now about the media industry so far, though even more could change in the United States as we inch closer to Election Day and watch President Donald Trump’s recovery from coronavirus. Here are some findings:

Smaller marketing budgets worldwide means advertising-dependent publications will have to pivot if they haven’t already. According to PwC’s Global Entertainment and Media Outlook report for 2020–2024, “global newspaper advertising (print and online) will fall from $49.2 billion in 2019 to $36 billion in 2024, a decline of more than a quarter (27%) over five years…[Alongside this] global circulation and subscriber revenue is expected to fall from $58.7 billion in 2019 to $50.4 billion in 2024,” Press Gazette reported in September.

People are spending a lot more time on their devices, but media consumption has fallen off after an initial surge. Smartphone usage is up 70%, laptop usage 47%, and tablet usage 23%, according to data from the Global Web Index’s Coronavirus Multi-Market study. For DataRePortal, Simon Kemp wrote, “many people say that they expect their new habits to continue after the Covid-19 outbreak passes too. One in five internet users say they expect to continue watching more content on streaming services, and one in seven (15%) say they expect to continue spending more time using social media.” All media, however, from internet surfing to TV watching, has declined since the initial surge in April. That means that news publishers have to get creative about gauging audience interest, and keeping it.

With more new readers, publishers are experimenting more with news products. At the beginning of March, we noticed that publishers were quick to launch coronavirus pop-up newsletters and drop their paywalls on pandemic stories. According to members of WAN-IFRA’s Global Media Trends Panel, more than half of the editorial executives they surveyed had launched new products as a result of the pandemic, Radcliffe writes. “Newsletters are the most common product, with some 55% saying they have launched them, followed by infographics (49%), and videos and live blogs (30%).”

Covid-19 has helped boost subscription numbers for a range of publishers. With advertising revenue down, publishers have leaned into reader revenue and membership programs to fill the gap. More and more publishers are explaining to readers why their journalism should be paid for and they’re doing so on various platforms, including YouTube and Facebook. Some success stories Radcliffe notes are:

  • The New York Times now has more than 6.5 million subscribers (print and digital), adding 669,000 digital subscribers in the second quarter of 2020. In March, nytimes.com had 240 million unique visitors and 2.5 billion pageviews, up from 101 million uniques in January.
  • CNBC’s website hit 1 billion page views for the first time in March 2020, more than doubling traffic from February. Subscriptions to CNBC Pro, a premium product costing $29.99 a month or $299.99 a year, were up 189% since January 2020.
  • Tribune Publishing experienced a 293% increase in new digital subscriptions between March and February 2020. This included an increased conversion rate, from users hitting the paywall, of 109%.

Radcliffe also looks at audience engagement strategies, building loyalty among readers, and the ways that publishers have tried to be more accommodating to advertising. Read the full report here.

By HANAA’ TAMEEZ  

Sourced from NiemanLab

Read More
By
In News

Top 10 Reasons to Use Social Networks for Advertising

No Comments

By Thomas Glare.

Description: Despite the constant traffic in social media, some businesses still think they are better off not using this amazing and largely low-cost resource for advertisement. We have a few reasons why they might want to reconsider that opinion.

Introduction: Social media platforms are everywhere. If you have a smartphone and Wi-Fi, you have access to everyone you know and everyone they know every second of the day. And, while using it to reconnect with old friends is a pretty solid way to utilize such a versatile medium, it can also be a great resource for marketing.

These days, it seems like everyone has social media accounts. From toddlers to grandparents, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have kept us connected, for better or worse, and allowed us to know everything about everyone. It is even possible to win real money by clicking on an ad or doing a social media quiz.

Marketing in the Age of Social Media

In the past, ad traffic was expensive and could only come from television, radio, and newspapers. Promos run maybe once an hour to as little as once a week, and the target audience was only listeners, watchers, or subscribers. And advertisers hoped their target market was tuned at just the right time, but it was essentially a gamble.

These days, social media advertising has almost overtaken all other forms of marketing. As a matter of fact, when a marketing firm lists their services, if the phrase “social media campaign” isn’t mentioned, a lot of businesses will move on. It isn’t the niche market of ten years ago, but a living, breathing animal of its own.

Your Next Marketing Strategy

White pages do work, and emails are still a heavy hitter in the marketing game. But if you want to get the most eyes on your product or service, you can’t beat the endless traffic of the big three. These social media networks have made a killing based on this knowledge. So, why shouldn’t you?

Here’s how:

1.    Ready and Waiting

Your customers are on social media. You want to connect with them. So, like AT&T used to say, “Reach out and touch someone.” They are waiting for you to tell them what you have to offer. Don’t leave them in suspense.

2.    Branding

You aren’t just a business but a brand. And your brand is the face of your company. People recognize big brands because they stand out, and there is something special about them. Get your brand out there and introduce yourself!

3.    Improving Relationships

Online reviews have replaced comment cards, and access to business owners has become commonplace. Using social media to stay connected with your customers is the best way to know whether your business is doing well, and what to do to fix it if something is wrong. Instantly.

4.    A Wider Net

Any social media manager will tell you not to aim at small but launch a large campaign to draw big attention. As far as social media plans go, this is a valid idea. You may inspire new business just because you took a chance on an untapped market for your niche.

5.    Low Money Down

Let’s say you are a casino. Your business is to bring in people with money to spend. But how? Free coupons! You put a free coupon for slots free spins on Twitter, and the traffic flows into your site. And you paid next to nothing for it. Social media marketing is the most cost-effective medium for product promotion.

img alt: social media marketing

6.    Competition

Everyone has a business out in the world that is trying to take your customers and your dollars. And guess what? They already have a website and tons of followers, subscribers, and valued customers. They aren’t taking your business; you are giving it to them by not having a social media strategy.

7.    Loyalty

People like to know who they are buying from. A bad social media brand can kill a business, just because of the owner’s improprieties. But if your customers are aware of your story, and it garners trust and makes you seem like a quality human-being, they instinctively want to support you.

8.    Drawing a Bullseye

While you can throw out a huge campaign that blankets the entirety of social media, you can also target specific people, catering to your most fervent customer base only. It is similar to fishing with a bait that only certain fish like. Sure, you will get some outsider nibbles, but you will hook what you came for.

9.    Up the Ladder

Along with knowledge of SEO, traffic algorithms have a hand in search engine rankings. The more people visit you, the higher you are on the list when customers search for your business. Typically, the average web surfer will pick one of the top five links when looking for just about anything.

10.Reaching and Grasping

Just like the Internet is global, so is social media. And that means you can now advertise all over the world from one or more platforms with ease and speed. Customers in Estonia can buy your product, receive it, and give you feedback in a matter of days, not months like in the past. It has connected the commerce of the world.

Conclusion

Social media management may seem a little odd to those with old school marketing ideas, and that makes sense. So many advertising fads have come and gone, it can be puzzling if getting an account for your business might just end up as a waste of time. But the upshot is that advertising on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are so quick and easy that you’re actually wasting more time trying to come up with reasons not to.  Do you advertise your business on social media? Has it helped your bottom line and customer traffic?

By Thomas Glare

Thomas Glare runs a marketing firm and believes in the power of advertising through social media platforms. He recognizes it as a vital tool in promotional mediums and uses it on a regular basis for his clients to promote his own business interests.

Read More
By
In News

McDonald’s Surprises Parisians By Launching These New Unique-Looking Street Ads

No Comments

By Lukas Garnelis and Robertas Lisickis

When you think food advertising can’t get any better than it is now, someone finds a way to one-up the competition. It does raise the question of whether there is a point in advertising a thing we can’t live without, but I digress.

McDonald’s has come out with an advert—a street billboard—in the streets of Paris that has been drawing people’s attention lately with its unconventional public ad design.

Have you ever gotten so hungry that you’ve had the idea to take a bite out of a billboard?

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

So, McDonald’s—you know, that ginormous fast-food chain whose food people can’t help but crave every once in a while and effectively don’t need to be persuaded to want to eat it—has come out with an ingenious billboard design that has people captivated.

McDonald’s has placed 3 lit street billboards around the city of Paris, France with pictures of two kinds of their signature hamburgers and a carton of french fries. Except they aren’t regular rectangular billboards that many of us are used to, but rather rectangles that someone has taken a literal bite out of.

An ad agency recently took that concept and made it into a McDonnald’s billboard that is literally bitten off

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

The entire design does have a silly vibe to it because the bite mark is just comically out there—who would try to take an over-sized bite out of a billboard picturing food? But, at the same time, it’s very on-point and the strangeness of it all manages to draw the eyes of passersby—exactly what an ad should be doing.

People with a keen eye will also notice that the billboards lack any branding. Besides the carton of french fries being packaged in the obvious red and yellow packaging that McDonald’s offers, there is no mention of it being McDonald’s. For all intents and purposes, this could be an ad for any other fast-food restaurant.

3 “bitten-off” billboards were placed in Paris, France that feature McD’s juicy pics of burgers and fries

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

But a supplementary video showcasing these same billboards clarifies that it is indeed McDonald’s—the classic golden arches appear right after the cartoony frames of the two burgers and french fry logos at the end of the video.

The people behind the billboards are TBWAParis, an advertising agency headquartered in New York City but with a presence all around the world, including Paris. It aims to bring a culture of innovation and to put companies’ brands at the heart of pop culture.

TBWA Paris is the team behind the billboards and they’ve been working with McDonald’s since 1985

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

The agency has been working together with McDonald’s in Paris for a while now—since 1985, actually. Their projects with McD’s include ad campaigns for the Sharing Box, “Being A Good Father,” and “American Summer,” among many others.

Now, this isn’t the first time someone has taken a bite out of a tasty food ad as Ben and Jerry’s also realized the same concept for an ad some time ago. The ad for B&J’s Pint Slices has been seen bitten off in Auckland, New Zealand. The Phantom Labs team are the people behind this one.

Interestingly enough, none of these ads feature any of McDonald’s branding, save for its colors with the fries

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

Image credits: TBWA PARIS

Watch the video advert showcasing the bitten-off McDonald’s billboards found in Paris

Video credits: TBWA PARIS

By Lukas Garnelis and Robertas Lisickis

Sourced from boredpanda

Read More
By
Load More