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.


Sourced from The Drum


With Isba’s study revealing that 15% of digital ad spend is unaccounted for, a statistic from the PwC-produced report that prompted headlines, Damon Reeve, chief executive of The Ozone Project, offers his first-hand insight into what this means for the programmatic sector.

The results from Isba’s Programmatic Supply Chain Transparency Study, carried out by PwC and in association with the AOP, have practically self-penned the industry’s headlines for the past few days.

“Missing billions”, “big holes”, “the unknown delta”, “mind-boggling” – perhaps not the usual words used to describe a positive first step, yet that’s exactly what this report represents. If, as an industry, we want to create a more sustainable, future-proofed environment for digital advertising we must first acknowledge that things aren’t working as they are. These results certainly speak to what many people already know, and reinforces the need for change.

As we look to create a blueprint for that change, it is a great step forward that it has been driven by advertisers and publishers – as the principal architects – alongside their respective trade bodies. Reversing the trend of disintermediation by programmatic tech vendors, and working together to find their voice, albeit of frustration, is one of the best outcomes of this study, and why it must be a first step and not an end in itself.

In the interests of disclosure, The Ozone Project is an advertiser-led business created by publishers and was developed to tackle many of the issues highlighted in this report. We see ourselves as a significant catalyst for the shift towards a more grown-up advertising environment, one less willing to accept the past shortcomings of programmatic.

The answer is not just what to do next, it’s how we do it

As we entered the 2020s I was convinced we would see an adult programmatic self emerge; still with lots of growth and development ahead, but also less wild and irresponsible than the younger child of the 2010s. Given some of the research in this report was produced in Q1 2020, it’s clear there is still much to do before a more mature self emerges. Nine weeks of Covid-19 isolation has given much time to reflect, and it seems how we go about change will be as important as what we change.

Firstly, collaboration must be front and centre. Through their trade bodies, advertisers and publishers have highlighted some of programmatic’s most persistent problems. An astonishing insight from the report is the confusion over whether advertisers and publishers have the right to access the log data for campaigns they are running. The answer to that question should not require consulting a legal department.

The programmatic supply chain should genuinely work in the best interests of publishers and brands. Together they must build on this work to address one of the critical recommendations from the report; standardising terms and conditions for buyers and sellers, while creating consistent data taxonomies and data sharing rules. This first step will help close the somewhat unhelpful gap that has developed between advertisers and publishers within programmatic advertising.

Secondly, while transparency is at the heart of this study, it isn’t something to fix, it is a way to behave. The ‘opacity by design’ approach that has challenged the sector for years represents institutionalised behaviour that will require a concerted effort to correct. Being open, authentic and human in terms and conditions will be deemed important qualities, rather than hiding the ‘unknown delta’ in technical terms and jargon that almost no one understands. Patience has been worn paper-thin amongst advertisers and publishers, and in this new future we will see vendors and partners selected on operating principles as much as technical capabilities.

A starting point for what to do next

The insights and recommendations from the report itself provide a framework for where future focus must be directed.

As already mentioned, standardising terms and conditions through Isba and the AOP is an obvious next step to remove much of the friction and confusion that exists today. It took PwC more than nine months to receive the information for its analysis, with an often ‘round the houses’, confused approach to who could give permission to use the data.

Brand safety has been high on the marketer agenda during these challenging times with a specific focus from Newsworks’ #BackdontBlock campaign. This new analysis should enable further grown-up conversations around brand safety generally, particularly as the study’s advertisers appeared on an average of 40,524 different domains. That’s not a misprint. 40,524 different websites. How many websites do you visit on a regular basis? Even looking beyond the first page of the Comscore top 3,000 yields some very random websites. Only 19% of campaign impressions were delivered on premium publisher domains, with the vast majority appearing on other websites and the unregulated long-tail of the internet. Responsible advertisers will no doubt be asking questions about where their advertising is going, and what exactly it is funding.

Next, the ‘unknown delta’ needs to become known. In an automated world, one would expect any margin for error to be reduced, and therefore any major gap is concerning. While many have offered thoughts as to why – from currency fluctuations to the compound impact of rounding through the supply chain – it’s important to remember that this 15% ‘unknown delta’ appears in the very small proportion of data that could be matched for the purposes of the study. If this reflects the ‘best of the best’ – major advertisers working with the most premium publishers – the 15% delta will be significantly bigger with smaller sites and smaller advertisers that weren’t measurable.

A final point not specifically called out in this report but to me is inferred in every insight and recommendation, is aligning incentives for each participant in the supply chain to the value they provide. And this extends to the agreements brands have with their media agencies. It will be very difficult to move to a trusted grown-up programmatic ecosystem if each actor is trying to game the system, whether through opportunity or necessity. Remove the incentive for opacity and we build an advertising environment that we all want. It’s on advertisers and publishers to build on this study and remove these incentives.

“The market is damn near impenetrable.”

In last week’s Financial Times, the frustration of Phil Smith, Isba’s director-general, regarding the programmatic world couldn’t have been more obvious. Yet with some time to reflect and digest, what is becoming increasingly clear is that this first-of-its-kind collaborative study has already laid great foundations for building a better future for digital advertising.


Sourced from The Drum




Intermarché, the third-largest supermarket chain in France, distributes close to 970 million printed circulars a year.

Beyond requiring beaucoup papier, “a lot of younger people simply don’t read them anymore,” said Anne-Marie Gaultier, Intermarché’s CMO.

And that’s if they even receive them. It’s difficult for Intermarché to know if its flyers are making it into mailboxes, particularly in urban areas with a lot of apartment buildings.

But retail coupon circulars have been a mainstay of the grocery biz for decades. Rather than tossing them in the bin, Intermarché is taking a more digitally minded and data-driven approach.

In October 2019, Intermarché and sister companies Bricomarché and Bricorama, both DIY retailers, signed a multiyear agreement with ARMIS, a Paris-based startup that allows traditional retailers to transform their physical circulars into localized display ads. Stores upload their product feeds through an SaaS platform and specify catchment areas, and ARMIS buys ads programmatically to reach people who live within proximity of certain store locations.

ARMIS is powered by integrations with the Google Ads API, Facebook API and Xandr API and backed by heavy hitters. AppNexus founder Brian O’Kelley and former AppNexus president Michael Rubenstein both participated in the company’s $1 million euro seed round in 2017. ARMIS has raised a total of 7 million euros since it was founded in 2016.

AdExchanger spoke with Intermarché’s CMO, Gaultier.

ANNE-MARIE GAULTIER: Intermarché is part of an independent group of food retailers. All of our stores are owned by franchisees, and we help facilitate the marketing and the buying. We sell all of the big national and international brands, such as Kraft and Coca-Cola, but we also have our own private label products and brands. We have 62 plants where we produce our own products and the largest fleet of fishing boats in France which we use to get fresh fish.

What role have circulars historically played in your marketing mix?

They are a vital way for our retailers to showcase their promotions, discounts and all of the special deals you can get in the store. We release a new circular nearly every week. Sometimes it’s just about the best deals and sometimes there is a theme, such as homewares or decorations during the Christmas season.

On average, how much money do you spend on print circulars?

I can’t go into detail, but I can say it’s an important budget line for us.

Why did you decide to start digitizing your weekly circulars?

Young people in urban centers don’t read them, it’s hard to stand out and we wanted to reduce our carbon footprint. ARMIS was compelling to us because it allows us to find our consumers on the web and be more personalized. If we have a circular for gardening tools, well, not everyone has a garden, so we’d be distributing a lot of circulars for nothing.

We share our loyalty and CRM data with them, which allows us to further personalize. For example, if we have a special circular for women who just had a baby, we can identify the moms and only push that information to that target audience. Circulars can’t make that distinction, it’s just massive distribution.

What sort of effort does this require on your end?

ARMIS ingests the information from our circulars and plugs it into their system, which is easy. But we still need a team to make sure we’re reaching the right target, to track results and to follow the KPIs.

Are you able to collect new data from the digitized circular ads?

We can identify which products appear to be of interest to target groups close to specific stores and which get the most clicks. But it’s still early. We’re at the stage where it’s mainly about trying to get a sense of reach and only beginning to phase out paper circulars in big cities. The second step will be to create more specialized circulars to target specific groups.

Can you attribute foot traffic or sales to the local online ads you’re running?

We’re broadly measuring the effect on stores in exposed areas versus unexposed areas, but soon we’ll be able to use our loyalty program to trace whether this is creating incremental sales.

Do you still print circulars, and why/why not?

We do still print circulars, and I believe there will always be a place for them. We have some customers who aren’t very digital, who rely on circulars, people who live outside of cities. There needs to be a balance in everything we do.


Sourced from adexchanger


Australian publishers Seven West Media, Network 10, SBS, Foxtel Media, Pedestrian Group and Daily Mail have joined forces to launch a programmatic ‘Editorial Video Marketplace’.

The new marketplace, run by Telaria, aims to simplify buyers’ access to this professionally produced premium content with daytime audience reach and scale, as per the official statement.

Luke Smith, head of programmatic sales and audiences at Seven West Media said: “The demand from advertisers has been clear – that there is a need for quality video delivering high viewability and completion rates within brand safe editorial environments at scale.

“It is important that the premium value and impact of editorial video is able to differentiate itself from other forms of short-form like social video. This marketplace, available programmatically, will be a means to make that easily accessible for buyers and advertisers at scale,”

Flaminia Sapori, head of partnerships at media agency Cadreon said: “It’s encouraging to finally start seeing publishers working collaboratively to provide alternative independent options in this space — creating ease of access, and most importantly, a new narrative for editorial video, giving it the credit it deserves, and perhaps start influencing more social budgets being redirected to new premium ecosystems.”

The news comes after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released its final digital platforms inquiry report in July calling on the government to act against the tech giants.

ACCC had raised concerns, at the starting of the year, about the market power of Facebook and Google including the companies impact on Australian businesses, particularly their ability to monetize content, as well as outlined concerns about the extent that consumers data is collected and used by companies to target advertising.

Feature Image Credit:The marketplace aims to simplify buyers’ access to this professionally produced premium content.


Sourced from The Drum


Over the last three years, Lastminute.com has scaled up its programmatic capabilities and found new sources of revenue in letting other advertisers plug into its adtech stack. Now, it wants other brands build their own microsites that will be powered by its adtech.

The group’s media arm Travel People, which services both the sell-side businesses of wider business as well as the buy-side for clients, has developed a content management system (CMS) that other brands can buy into.

The tool was created after it found that 53% of senior marketers and business leaders said they refrained from creating custom website templates because it requires too much technical support.

Dubbed ‘ContentHub’, the feature is aimed at letting e-commerce and travel brands design their own microsites with built in digital advertising, being pitched as an alternative to “clunkier” offerings that require external plug-ins to run programmatic campaigns.

The product has so far only been piloted by Lastminute’s own brands including it’s flagship site. However, the company claims that the cloud-hosted platform is particularly well-suited to advertisers who need to manage multiple brands or languages consistently and at scale.

For instance, if a company like Emirates (which has not been named as a partner by Lastminute.com) wants to create content around things to do in Dubai, the brand could use the CMS to build a page to host that information but it could also emulate the design and copy in several languages in just a few clicks.

The big pitch to brands is that they can then also use Lastminute’s programmatic stack to “‘drag-and-drop” IAB and native ad formats on these content hubs and, in doing do, start to quickly generate publisher revenue for themselves.

Sites built using the tool are also optimised for mobile, SEO and SEM. Video, social feeds and other media can be easily embedded onto pages too.

See the video below for a demonstration of the technology.

So far, Lastminute.com has been trailing the tech on its own site, using the content solution to build branded microsites that highlight travel destinations or host seasonal campaign content. During this experiment, it’s been integrating digital ads and travel deals from its travel social network, Wayn.

The group’s chief commercial officer, media and partnerships, Alessandra Di Lorenzo explained: “We know how important it is for travel or e-commerce companies to have a solid content strategy that supports customer engagement and drives up customer return rates.

“Yet many brands we’ve spoken to face the same challenges as we did when it comes to managing their content and rolling out dynamic, data-driven and ad-optimised microsites at scale.

“That’s why we’ve combined our competencies and experience in media monetisation as well as travel, technology and design to produce a platform that is functional and aesthetically pleasing – but also very competitively priced.”

Lorenzo was tasked with separating the “lookers from the bookers” and monetising the former when she joined the business from eBay in 2015.

Last year, revenues for Lastminute group’s programmatic and media division were up 30% year-on-year, with the company having run some 1500 campaigns from over 300 different advertisers.

While Lorenzo didn’t reveal this year’s target, The Drum understands the business is on track to meet it.



Sourced from THE DRUM


An impressive 90% of marketers would be willing to lay down ‘slightly or ‘significantly’ more investment in programmatic advertising if they could be guaranteed better measurement statistics, according to a new study conducted by Infectious Media.

The difficulties inherent to the measurement problem were brought into sharp relief by the fact that 66% of respondents reported that the issue was either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ challenging with most advertisers still reliant on clicks to verify the success of their campaigns.

This has fueled demands for a root and branch reform of measurement with 53% all advertisers quizzed now actively seeking alternative solutions.

Martin Kelly, Infectious Media chief executive and co-founder, commented: “It’s clear from our study that advertisers are waking up to the fact that the measurement model most have relied on for their programmatic campaigns is broken and digital ad spend is being held back as a result.

“Advertisers are looking to agencies to show greater leadership on how the system can be improved. Unfortunately, most have been content with the easy option of spending advertisers’ money on cheap inventory that meets a given target on clicks, regardless of the risk of fraud or the limited ROI this delivers.”

The issue of data accountability has been brought to the fore in recent months with the ISBAand IPA both seeking to galvanise advertisers into action. One potential solution is the adoption of cross-media measurement with 90% of publishers, brands and agencies in favour.


Sourced from THEDRUM


Google has confirmed to Ad Age that an industry trade body tasked with deciding which “annoying” ad formats web browsers should block largely used its data and research methodology to do so. The trade body, known as the Coalition for Better Ads, last year publicly presented the material in full with Google and 18 company employees’ names removed, describing it as “the Coalition’s research.”

By not crediting the search giant for its research, the Coalition had until now effectively insulated Google from potential new unwanted attention to its influence over the web, which could raise questions of transparency at a critical time for the search giant: The company was hit with a $21 million fine last Thursday after the Competition Commission of India said it abused its dominant position in the online ad search market.

And in August, after Google said its Chrome browser would block ads according to Coalition criteria, European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager said her organization “will follow this new feature and its effects closely.”

After first sourcing its foundational research methodology to unnamed “members,” the Coalition has also confirmed that the work originated at Google. It emphasized that a broad group of members oversees the research and standards it adopts, and that further research has been done by others.

“The Coalition obtained the rights to publish the underlying research methodology from Google and to use it for ongoing research of consumer ad experience preferences in global regions,” the Coalition said in a statement. “This research effort is overseen by the Coalition’s Standards and Research Committee which includes a cross-section of Coalition members.”

Google said in a statement that it conducted research in April 2016 into poor consumer experiences on the web. “In October 2016, the newly formed Coalition for Better Ads asked member companies to share any research that had been conducted,” it said. “Google along with Facebook, Teads, the IAB Tech Lab and Washington Post, submitted their existing research as requested. In late 2017, the Coalition conducted additional research to define which ad experiences online were acceptable and unacceptable. In March 2017, the Coalition announced the initial Better Ads Standards based on this body of research. In addition, the Coalition has a dedicated Standards and Research Committee, which includes both companies and industry trade groups. Google is a member of this committee.”

When asked last week why its name wasn’t on the research on the CBA’s website, a Google spokeswoman said, “The Coalition for Better Ads made the decision as to what to publish and not to publish on their website.”

Chrome will gradually begin enforcing the Coalition standards starting Thursday.

Once enforcement is fully enacted, the browser will block all ads on websites—including those that aren’t “annoying”—should the publication be found in violation of Coalition standards and thresholds. The Coalition will grant publishers that volunteer to participate a period of time to defend themselves or address potential violations before ads are blocked.

Although the Coalition is devising standards for any participating browser to follow, Microsoft is the only other Coalition member that also has a browser. It told Ad Age last week that it has no plans to follow in Chrome’s footsteps. Firefox and Apple are regarded as longshots to join the Coalition, according to several high-level executives familiar with those conversations.

Blocking the blockers

Marketers, ad buyers, publishers and tech companies including Procter & Gamble, GroupM, Facebook, the Washington Post and Google announced the Coalition in September 2016 as a collective effort to undermine consumer demand for ad blockers.

The plan was to eliminate the worst ad experiences for users—like videos that play automatically with the sound on—in order to reduce the siren call of blocking software that lies outside the industry’s control.

“The Coalition’s research identifies the ad experiences in both North America and Europe that ranked lowest across a range of user experience factors, and that are most highly correlated with an increased propensity for consumers to adopt ad blockers,” it said in its initial press release, which did not bring up Google outside a roll call of members in the boilerplate. “These results define initial Better Ads Standards that identify the ad experiences that fall beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.”

Public eye

Google knows many people are wary of its sway over digital media, says Nick Lee, a professor of marketing at Warwick Business School.

“They are very worried about perception when it comes to that kind of stuff—the perception of not just actual power, but that they are starting to control the data around these issues,” Lee says. “And maybe that is something they don’t want to be necessarily known for.”

Industry members say they embrace the fight against intrusive ads and consider Google’s research approach sound. Before sharing its research with the Coalition, Google sought feedback from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, publishers and ad-tech vendors after making them sign non-disclosure agreements, according to people familiar with the process.

When the Coalition asked members to submit any research they had, not just Google but Facebook, The Washington Post, Teads and the IAB Tech Lab complied. Coalition members ultimately chose to start with Google’s work.

“It’s as if they are caught between a rock and a hard place,” Lee says. “No matter how much of a good job they think they are doing, they don’t want the world to think they are controlling everything.”

Rivals in the digital ad ecosystem could cite Google’s influence as a reason to question the Coalition’s standards.

It remains unclear whether regulators would take an interest in the Coalition, says James Speta, a law professor at Northwestern University who specializes in internet policy and telecommunications.

“If it can be shown that Google manipulated the standard setting process, that would be a concern to the Federal Trade Commission,” Speta says. “The underlying issue in cases like these is how transparent is the trade body, and how fair is it? Was everyone able to see what was going on?”

Feature Image Credit: istock


Sourced from AdAge


A case study published by OpenX shows that publishers on its platforms using Exchange Bidding Google‘s answer to header bidding – have seen an average yield increase of 48% in the 12 months since the two started working together.

In June, OpenX announced its status as a Google Exchange Bidding beta partner, but the adtech firm says it’s been partnering with Google since 2016 to “build a more transparent programmatic ecosystem.”

According to OpenX, more than 200 premium publishers are now receiving ads from the firm via Google’s Exchange Bidding, all of which it says have experienced higher revenue. OpenX says that the top 20 publishers experienced an average revenue lift of more than 130%.

“We built Exchange Bidding on a foundation of trust and transparency, allowing us to collaborate openly to create an efficient solution that increases publisher revenue and advertiser opportunity,” said Sam Cox, group product manager at Google’s DoubleClick, in a statement. “We understand that every exchange provides different value to publishers and advertisers and that’s why we’ve partnered with leading exchanges like OpenX, who are technically savvy, have a high bar for integrity, and are able to add value to the ecosystem, to help publishers get the most out of every impression.”

“We are thrilled with the progress we made in our partnership with Google in the past year towards bringing high-impact, high quality programmatic demand to publishers globally. Our partnership allows every demand source to compete fairly within the final DFP auction, representing the first truly unified auction capability the market has ever seen,” added Jason Fairchild, co-founder of OpenX.


Sourced from THEDRUM


After a troubling year for digital advertising the world’s biggest brands are cautiously re-embracing programmatic. Although, they are now turning to attention-based metrics to better ensure brand safety and overall return on investment (ROI).

This was the consensus shared from attendees at The Drum’s recent Programmatic Punch event. Speaking on Thursday (9 November), participants in a panel that explored the growth of programmatic across apps, mobile and video said this shift towards more inventory quality assurances has been prompted in part by Procter & Gamble chief brand officer Marc Pritchard’s keynote speech earlier this year, in which he called for greater transparency in the digital supply chain, which he called “murky at best, fraudulent at worst”.

Now that media buying using programmatic technology accounts for 72% of display advertising spend in the UK, publishers, agencies and big brands are beginning to rethink the tendency to “race to the bottom” when approaching programmatic by simply chasing views or clicks.

What’s more, the walled gardens of the internet each have different standards for what denotes a ‘view’, with Facebook counting a view as three-seconds or more versus YouTube’s 30-seconds.

Facebook said last month that it doesn’t believe there is value in a one-size-fits-all currency when it comes to video viewability, instead preferring to offer advertisers flexibility to trade and buy video in a way that drives value for their business.

While Facebook’s argument is that some clients buy as cheaply as possible where other more luxury clients care about view duration, this only works to further muddy the waters of viewability, according to panel participants.

Which is where attention-based metrics come in. In traditional CPM (cost per thousand) buys, all impressions are valued equally, e.g. an impression that lasts one second on a viewer’s screen is valued the same as an impression that lasts 30 seconds. Attention-based metrics breaks that model down in order to allow advertisers to trade on how long someone watched and was engaged with their ad.

“Completed view doesn’t tell you too much, how many people are paying attention for a second, two seconds? That is the big opportunity moving forward – moving into an attention economy,” said Jon Hook, vice-president EMEA of brands and agencies at AdColony.

“That tech is there so it is up to advertisers to demand that from their partners,” he added.

In line with this, the Financial Times (FT) developed a new cost-per-hour (CPH) metric which is designed to attach value only to impressions lasting more than five seconds whilst the user is engaged with the page and, therefore, to deliver greater brand impact for each dollar of advertising spend.

CPH was informed by research which showed that brand awareness, uplift and association all increase the longer an ad is in view.

While attention-based metrics is not a new concept, adoption rates have been slow. However, Aurelia Noel, global digital partner at Carat, revealed that there is a demand for this fledgling type of trading from “more mature advertisers”, naming Diageo, Mondelez and Heineken as examples of the type of brands who are recognising the difference between viewability and attention.

“At end of the day this year was the year of brand safety and viewability…In video especially, a lot of inventory still cant be tracked, neither by IAS or others. Outside of just changing the way we measure our campaigns, we also need to change the way we plan and manage our campaigns,” Noel added.

Responding to this, Clementina Piazza, programmatic director of Integral Ad Science (IAS), said video is a “very tricky area” to agree on standards, and that in-app is “even trickier”.

“It is about time [we brought] all of those available solutions together and understanding what are the limitations of the available solution and how the interpreting solution can react to those. It is an IAS technology challenge but also a challenge overall with regards to how many environments support it,” Piazza said.

Noel also believes that advertisers are not harnessing ‘moments’ – that is when is the best time to connect with a customer.

“Even when we have the right moments, the creative falls short because we are not taking advantage of creative optimisation, whether in display or video,” she added.


The Drum’s media reporter covering everything from publishing, TV, social media, radio and technology.

All by Jessica

Sourced from THEDRUM

By Tobi Elkin.

A new report by ad-tech provider Blue Venn finds that 72% of marketers consider data analysis more important than social media skills.

The report, “Customer Data: The Monster Under the Bed?,” incorporates research from 200 U.S. and U.K. marketers, with the goal of identifying the attributes most needed to compete in the data-centric marketing landscape.

Key findings include:

–Data management is now considered more vital than social media (65%), Web development (31%), graphic design (23%), and search engine optimization (13%).

–However, 27% of marketers are still handing over the process of data analysis to IT departments.

–The focus on understanding and synthesizing customer data is especially strong at large enterprises, where four out of five marketers consider data analysis to be a “vital” skill.

–Data segmentation and modeling are also considered highly sought-after marketing skills, ranking higher than both Web development and graphic design within the enterprise space.

“In the age of big data, marketers have a better opportunity than ever before to truly understand their customers’ decision-making processes. Unfortunately, as it stands, most marketers simply don’t have the time, the knowledge or the tools necessary to undertake this task in a practical and effective way,” stated Anthony Botibol, marketing director at BlueVenn.


Sourced from MediaPost