Join our list of informed global advertisers seeking to improve the financial stewardship of their marketing investment. Click Here to Subscribe

Marketing MathTM

Category Archives: Marketing

Advertisers: Beware of Shiny New Tech Solutions

10 Nov

Interesting perspective, but the premise that CMOs will “turn their brands into platforms” and “will become obsessed with understanding consumer emotion, measuring it and tapping into it with precision” is one that is unlikely to materialize simply by doubling ad tech expenditures in 2018.

There remain many challenges to be confronted by marketers along the path to enlightenment. Issues including data accuracy, relevancy and quality along with assessing the viability of the myriad of technology solutions looking for problems to solve. If marketers aren’t careful they will end up funding the growth of a new genre of tech toys at the expense of boosting working media and driving brand performance  Read More

Are We Missing the Real Issue with Ad Blockers?

26 Oct

blocker

 

The advertising industry is rightly concerned about the financial impact related to consumers growing use of ad blockers, which can filter out ads before users ever see them. A recent study by OnAudience.com highlights the reasons why:

  • 26% of U.S. consumers now use ad blockers, resulting in lost publisher revenues of $15.8 billion in 2016, up from $11.0 billion in 2015. The U.S. represents approximately $45 billion of the $100 billion global display market.
  • Internationally, the loss of publisher revenue from ad blocking is projected to rise to $42 billion, up from $28 billion in 2016.

In addition, Google has announced that the 2018 version of its Chrome web browser will allow consumers to automatically block “annoying, intrusive” ads, which will accelerate the financial impact of this trend given that Chrome represents approximately 60% of the desktop/mobile/tablet browser market (source: NETMARKETSHARE, September 2017). Google’s motivation, it claims, is that they are simply introducing the Coalition for Better Ads recently announced best practices standards to enhance the consumer’s web browsing experience.

It is no surprise how we got where we are. Advertisers wanted to improve consumer engagement and publishers wanted to drive revenues. This, in turn, led to publishers placing more ads on a web page, including higher paying video units, making ads larger or forcing visitors to somehow interact with these ads to get to the content. This involves video ads that automatically refresh or blast audio automatically or force consumers to wait for :05 to :10 seconds before they can access the content they seek.

In the end, advertisers and publishers have not realized greater levels of engagement, but rather helped to fuel greater levels of consumer irritation and therefore ad blocker usage.

Thus far, the industry has been focused on blocking the ad blockers. It is true that many publishers believe that being exposed to ads is a user’s obligation if they want their content to be free. Others, however, share the consumer’s disdain for obnoxious, intrusive ads, and would like to see them banned from their sites. The problem is that ad blockers tend to block all ads.

So what is the ad industry to do? Busting the use of ad blockers or implementing web browser workarounds would appear to be somewhat short-sighted. Consumers have clearly signaled that they find the level, number, positioning and type of online ads served to them on a regular basis to be discordant with their intended browsing habits. Pursuing a more measured approach on the part of the industry is warranted. As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg intoned:

“Reacting in anger or annoyance will not advance one’s ability to persuade.”

The challenge is clear, finding a mechanism for publishers to fund their content creation at least in part through the use of online advertising. The answer, however, is not so readily apparent.

Let’s face it, by in large, consumers do not want to view online advertising. This can be evidenced by plummeting open and click-through rates, reductions in conversion rates and declines in average viewing times. Advertisers and publishers want “engagement” and sadly, consumers want nothing to do with most of the advertising foisted on them.

Is the answer better creative that informs, educates and entertains in the hope that users will both notice the ads and choose to interact with them? Or is it fewer, less intrusive ads that can take away from a user’s web browsing experience? Or will publishers finally have to solve the “pay to view” content dilemma, which consumers have largely been resistant to thus far?

If consumer engagement is the goal, the answer is likely “Yes” to all of the above.

 

Trust is Causing Issues Across the Advertising Landscape

26 Sep

questionThe Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Council just released a study, which suggests that a lack of trust is causing issues for marketers that reach beyond their relationship with agencies and publishers.

The study, which surveyed 300 senior marketers and which was profiled in Mediapost.com, found that “63% of consumers said they respond more positively to the same ads when they find them in more established and trusted media environments.” Thus the perceived risks to marketers emanating from today’s programmatic media buying and automated digital media are more pervasive than Read More

Will AI Render Media Agencies Obsolete?

11 Sep

artificial_intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already reshaping how advertising is developed, planned and placed. The marketing applications being envisioned and adopted by agencies, consultancies, publishers and advertisers are nothing short of remarkable.

From the onset of “Big Data” it stood to reason that the concept of predictive analysis, the act of mining diverse sets of data to generate recommendations wouldn’t be far behind. Layer on natural language processing, which converts text into structured data, and it is clear to see that “deep learning” is on the verge of revolutionizing the ad industry. As it stands, algorithms are currently optimizing bids for media buying, utilizing custom and syndicated data to match audience desires (or at least experiences) with available inventory.

Effective, efficient, automated methodologies for sorting through vast volumes of data to evaluate and establish patterns that reflect customer behavior for use in segmenting audiences and customizing message construction and delivery holds obvious promise.

So, what does this mean for media agencies? Will they be at the forefront of automation technology? Or will they be swept away by the consultancies and ad tech providers that are already investing here?

If media agencies desire to remain in control as the industry evolves, there are real challenges that they will have to address to remain viable:

  • Re-establish role as “trusted advisor” with the advertiser community. Recent concerns over transparency, unsavory revenue generation practices and a failure to pro-actively safeguard advertisers’ media investments from fraud and from running in inappropriate environments have created serious client/ agency relationship concerns.
  • Attract, train and retain top-level talent to re-staff media planning and buying departments. The focus will need to be on bridging the gap between developing, and applying automation technology and providing high-level consulting support focused on brand growth to their clients. Presently, media agencies are not effectively competing for talent, whether in the context of compensation and or personal and career development options being offered by their non-traditional competitors.
  • Provide a framework for addressing the compensation conundrum. Whether this is in the form of cost-based or performance-based fees tied to project outcomes, commissions or hybrid remuneration systems, tomorrow’s successful media agencies will need to establish clear, compelling compensation systems. These systems will need to reflect value propositions that will differentiate them from an expanded base of competitors, while offsetting (to some extent) non-transparent sources of revenue that many media shops have come to rely on in recent years.

This will not be an easy path for media agencies, particularly for those that are hampered by legacy systems, processes and management perspectives that may limit their ability to more broadly envision and ultimately, assist client organizations addressing their needs and expectations.

Either way, the race is on, as management consulting firms are acquiring various marketing and digital media specialist firms and as media agencies raid the consultancies for personnel to build out their strategic consulting capabilities. The key question will likely be, “Which business model holds the greatest promise, in the eyes of the Chief Marketing Officer, for improving brand performance?

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Growth Projections Raise Concerns for Ad Industry

25 Aug

economyAdvertising agencies are finding that organic growth will be a difficult objective to achieve in the near-term.

One contributing factor comes in the form of marketing spending constraints on the part of advertisers. Why? Organizations are feeling pressure to control costs in the wake of lack luster market conditions that are limiting growth and reducing margins.

The key economic indicator driving advertiser concern is “slow growth” which is impacting many sectors of the economy:

  • GDP growth of 1.2% during the 1st quarter and 2.6% in the 2nd quarter (short of the sustained 3%+ growth rate promised by the White House).
  • U.S. retail sales, excluding auto and gasoline, rose 0.5% in July ’17.
  • Fast-Casual restaurant sales fell more than 3% in the first quarter of 2017.
  • U.S. automotive sales have fallen for seven straight months (Jan. – Jul.).
  • Homebuilder confidence sank, posting HMI’s lowest reading in over 6 mos.

Two CPG giants have announced dramatic moves, which reflect the nature of this challenge. Unilever signaled its intent to reduce the number of agencies on its roster by 50%, while cutting the quantity of ads produced by 30%. Procter & Gamble Co. indicated that it would trim $2 billion in marketing spend over five years as part of an enterprise wide expense reduction initiative.

It is worth noting that there are motivations beyond “cost reduction” driving these decisions by advertisers. Consider fast-food giant McDonald’s, which earlier this year trimmed the number of agencies that it works with from 60 to fewer than a dozen. Their goals included streamlining marketing and improving the consistency of their output… in addition to reducing expenses.

Unfortunately, the impact of slower spending by advertisers is being felt on Wall Street. According to an August, 24 article in the NY Times, WPP which had earlier cut its revenue forecast saw its share price decline by 10.9% in London, with Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group falling 7% and 6.3% respectively in the U.S. and media stocks are generally lower as a sector.

Interestingly, advertisers have made a conscious decision not to fuel marketing spend to counter slowing sales, but to cut spending to protect margins, which is particularly concerning to the ad agency community.

With increased competition from non-traditional players (i.e. management consulting and technology firms) and the continued fall-out from an industry transparency crisis, the lack of confidence on the part of marketers regarding advertising’s ability to drive profitable revenue growth is certainly a worry.

Whether or not this slowdown in organic growth on the part of ad agencies portends a slump, remains to be seen, but at the very least the macro-economic uncertainty will serve to increase industry volatility. Perhaps the industry can find some solace in the words of Yogi Berra the hall of fame catcher and manager of the New York Yankees: “Slump? I ain’t in no slump… I just ain’t hitting.”

 

 

Does Anyone Really Want Advertisers to Solve the Attribution Dilemma?

14 Mar

conspiracyIt has been decades since the concept of Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM), the forerunner to Attribution Modeling, was introduced. The concept was relatively straightforward, marketers would apply statistical analysis to sales and marketing data to quantify the impact that each element of the marketing mix had in driving brand sales and profit. Once the causal relationship had been modeled, marketers would then be able to accurately forecast outcomes and inform resource allocation decisions.

While the concept may have been straightforward, the solution, for most marketers, has been elusive. Why? First and foremost, MMM has some inherent challenges, particularly when it comes to quantifying the impact of longer term brand equity development tactics versus those focused on short-term sales. Secondly, these models have not fared well in accurately assessing the impact of various media types on outcomes to assist in refining allocation decisions.

Fast forward to the late ‘90’s when we experienced an explosion in online media, the birth of e-commerce and the introduction of “Big Data.” The emergence of digital media and the attendant level of data that marketers where now able to gather led to the launch of “Attribution Modeling.” The goal, to assess and quantify what marketing and media touchpoints influenced an advertiser’s target audience, and to what extent, across the purchase funnel in an effort to optimize media spending across the ever expanding gamut of media alternatives.

While there are multiple variations of attribution models to consider, most marketers have relied on single-source attribution models, often using a “last click” approach which assigns responsibility for an outcome to one event. While simple, this flawed approach to attribution modeling gives too much credit to digital media, at the expense of traditional media and other marketing touchpoints.

Sadly, for advertisers that are doing both MMM and Attribution Modeling, it is rare that the feedback from these related, but different approaches synch. Further, there remain audience delivery measurement (i.e. cross-channel measurement), multi-touch attribution challenges that introduce a layer of complexity that drives up the cost of attribution modeling.

That said, since the onset of these two modeling tools being introduced, the industry has dramatically evolved its data gathering capabilities, enhanced CRM and DMP capabilities, conceived of and launched programmatic media buying, where algorithms have replaced media buyers and now we’re seeing the use of artificial intelligence bots, such as Adgorithms’ “Albert” that can plan and place media and create content. Heady stuff to be sure.

This got the cynic in me thinking; “Well if we can master all of this from a technology perspective, surely we should be able to cost efficiently and effectively master attribution modeling.” That led to idle speculation about whether or not the ad industry really wants advertisers to solve the attribution modeling dilemma?

After all, what if John Wanamaker was wrong? What if more than half of his ad spend was wasted? Remember, the marketing and media choices available to him in the 19th century were considerably more limited than those available to advertisers today. Would accurate attribution models eliminate some of the following marketing and media options from consideration?

  • Television
  • Radio
  • Magazine
  • Newspaper
  • OOH
  • Cinema advertising
  • Product placement
  • Direct mail
  • Email
  • Sponsorships
  • Online display
  • Online video
  • Podcasts
  • Paid search
  • Organic search
  • Mobile
  • Social media
  • Native advertising
  • In-store advertising
  • In-store displays
  • On-package advertising
  • Trade promotions
  • Price promotions
  • Couponing
  • Affinity marketing
  • Affiliate marketing
  • Applications
  • Earned media

Crazy. Right? Reminds me of a quote by the American journalist, Gary Weiss:

“One problem with the focus on speculation is that it tends to promote the growth of the great intellectual cancer of our times: conspiracy theories.”

What do you think…

 

Here We Go Again…

05 Jul

mobilityIs the ad industry about to make the same mistake with mobile as it did with digital? Early on in the platform’s development, it would appear so.

On a positive note, according to new figures from eMarketer, mobile ad spending will surpass $100 billion in spending in 2016, accounting for more than 50% of all digital ad expenditures.

However, there are challenges that need to be addressed. Chiefly, there are a lack of uniform viewability and audience measurement standards in place to validate publisher performance. Today, different publishers utilize a variety of different methods for counting impressions. The key point of contention with mobile is whether or not the publisher delivers on ads rendered or fully loaded as opposed to ad calls.

According to the Media Rating Council, which issued their “mobile viewable ad impression measurement guidelines” this past spring “Each valid viewable impression originates from a valid rendered mobile served impression. In no case should viewable impressions exceed render mobile served impressions counted on a campaign.”

When you look at the numbers, the waste factor in mobile advertising is alarming. In a recent article by Allison Schiff on Adexchanger, entitled; “The Buy Side Doesn’t Want Impressions Counted Before They Hatch” mobile ad server, Medialets, suggested that in a review of “2.7 billion impressions across its mobile ad server” that it found that “roughly 20% of ad calls on the mobile web were “wasted,” aka they don’t ever fully render on a device.”

Concerns over ad delivery and measurement issues related to mobile sound all to familiar to the growing pains suffered by advertisers with online display advertising served to desktop devices. Add in the newness and complexity of the segment, and advertisers would be foolish not to be mindful about their investment in this area.

In the near-term, the best path forward for advertisers to take is to enforce an ad rendered versus ad called verification approach, establish minimum viewability thresholds and utilize only MRC accredited vendors that are willing to adhere to industry standards. It should be noted that while the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) established a 70% viewability threshold for measured impressions in 2015 many mobile platforms are “guaranteeing” viewability levels as high as 100%.

When you consider that according to eMarketer, over 31 million U.S. internet users will only go online using a mobile device in 2016, it is clear that the segments potential is high. Let’s hope that the learning curve is not as steep as the adoption path.

 

 

Why Contract Definitions and Demonstrations are Important

01 Feb

contract complianceFor as long as there have been advertisers and agencies, there have been Client-Agency agreements. Contractual instruments, which are often referred to as “terms of divorce.” This is likely because one of their primary roles is to spell out the guidelines governing how each party must conduct themselves and identifying their respective obligations in the event a relationship is terminated.

The fact of the matter is, a contract is much more than that. It is a binding agreement between advertisers and their agencies which should identify the terms and conditions that will govern all facets of the relationship, ranging from how an agency is to be compensated to the level of staffing that an agency will deploy on a client’s behalf, to the scope of work to be undertaken by the agency. An effective contract also asserts both parties expectations for how they will conduct themselves while providing a mutual understanding for how the agency will steward a client’s marketing investment from a performance, financial and legal perspective.

Unfortunately, when it comes to contracts, there are too few “industry standards” within the advertising marketplace, varied definitions for descriptive terms and too often a lack of clarity around what is being represented by certain aspects of the agreement language. These gaps create gray areas which are seldom understood, much less agreed to by both parties. Unchecked, these gaps can be costly, particularly to advertisers that aren’t supported by knowledgeable industry experts and attorneys with solid industry experience.

As contract compliance auditors we have reviewed hundreds of Client-Agency agreements and have sat across the table from advertisers and agencies to help mediate gaps in understanding over even the most basic terms or representations. Examples include the definition of “Gross Media,” the assumption that individuals listed in an agency “Staffing Plan” are full-time employees of the agency (rather than contractors or part-timers) and or whether or not the awarding of work to agency affiliates is allowed, let alone how that activity is to be billed.

Let’s examine the financial impact of one of these items. Hypothetically, an advertiser with a $100 million media budget engages a media buying agency. The agreement indicates that media is to be placed on a net basis and that the agency will be paid a commission of 2% on that activity. This appears to be a relatively straightforward description. So the question is; “How much commission should the agency earn?”

  1. $2,000,000
  2. $2,040,000
  3. $2,353,000

It would not be unusual for a lay legal or procurement advisor assisting an advertiser in drafting or reviewing contract language to assume that the answer was 1) $2,000,000. Their assumption in this instance is that the agency’s commission would be calculated by multiplying the net media spend by the agreed upon commission rate.

On the other hand, a seasoned agency finance executive would advocate that the correct answer is 3) $2,353,000. How did they arrive at this figure, which is $353,000 higher than the prior scenario? By “grossing up” the net media spend by 17.65% and then multiplying that total by the agreed upon commission rate. Why would they do this? The answer would likely be; “that is the standard methodology used in the industry.”

This view has its roots in the golden days of advertising, when agencies delivered “full-service” and earned a 15% commission on their clients’ gross advertising investment. In that era, a biller would have to mark-up a net expenditure by 17.65 % in order to account for the 15% commission rate:

  • 15% divided by (100% – 15%) or 85% = .1765
  • If the net expenditure was $85, the total cost would be calculated by multiplying or “grossing up” the net amount by 1.1765 to arrive at a total cost to the advertiser of $100.
  • On the $100 gross expenditure the agency would earn $15 or 15%.

One might legitimately question why an agency would gross up a net expense by 17.65%? After all, it has been many years since full-service agencies were compensated at that rate. Should not the mark-up amount be specific to the negotiated commission rate? Using this approach for the 2% commission example could suggest that the correct answer to the aforementioned question would be 2) $2,040,000:

  • 2% divided by (100% – 2%) or 98% = .0204
  • $100,000,000 net media “grossed up” would be calculated by multiplying the net amount by 1.0204 to arrive at a gross amount of $102,040,000.
  • The agency’s commission on the grossed up media total would be $2,040,000

So which methodology represents the proper approach for calculating an agency’s commission in this example? Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer. This is a classic case where had a term such as “Commission” or “Gross Amount” included an example of how such formulas were to be applied, it would have clarified the intended agency remuneration, staving off a potentially difficult conversation between client and agency long after the ink on the agreement had dried. We can all learn from the words of the 18th century Scottish philosopher, Thomas Reid:

There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words.

 Interested in a securing a second-opinion regarding the clarity and soundness of your organization’s agency agreements? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal of AARM at ccampeau@aarmusa.com.

The Ad Viewability Debate Rages On

05 Jan

ad viewabilityThere has been much discussion in the wake of the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB) mid-December release of their proposed “standard” for the measurement of digital media delivery in 2015. 

Advertisers, agencies and publishers should celebrate the progress being made and the healthy nature of the dialog now occurring between each of the participating stakeholders in this important sector of the global advertising marketplace. Having said that, the pace of change and the level of investment being made by the three major industry associations whose members have the most at stake has been disappointingly slow. 

By way of background the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) and the IAB formed the Measurement Makes Sense (3MS) task force in 2011 with the goal of “fixing digital measurement.” According to the IAB, the three industry groups have spent $6 million collectively in pursuit of this goal.  

Not to diminish either the effort or the investment, during this same time frame digital spending has increased from $86.6 billion in 2011 to an estimated $142.0 billion in 2014, up 17.2% year-over-year, is forecast to represent 30% of global ad expenditures in 2015 and will likely eclipse TV spending by 2017. Which in this author’s humble opinion supports the observation that the industry has simply not done enough to remedy the limitations that exist when it comes to validating digital media delivery. 

On the surface, many were surprised at the progressive stance taken by the IAB in suggesting that the industry adapt a “70% viewability threshold” for measured impressions in 2015. The question others are asking is, “Progressive relative to what?” The IAB suggested that up until its proposed 2015 transitional guidelines that the “industry standard” was a definition of viewablility issued by the Media Ratings Council (MRC). The MRC’s definition considered a desktop display ad to be viewable if 50% of the ad’s pixels were in view for at least one second and two seconds for desktop video ads.  

It should be noted that the MRC’s definition, which was introduced in the spring of 2014, was never adopted by the advertising industry as a standard to guide publisher/ advertiser negotiations. Thus, it was no surprise when the 4A’s immediately issued an opinion to its membership to reject the IAB’s online viewability guidelines. According to one industry executive, Todd Gordon, EVP of Magna Global, a leading media planning and buying agency, “Running a campaign and paying for 30% of the ads not being viewable isn’t acceptable to us or our clients.” 

In the press release announcing their proposed 2015 guidelines, the IAB trumpeted the “shift from a served impression to a viewable impression” as “yet another step to greater accountability in digital media.” So it was something of a surprise and contradiction to learn that the first of their seven proposed “2015 Transaction Principles” suggested that “all billing continue to be based on the number of served impressions during a campaign.” Additionally, the proposed guidelines segregate served impressions into two categories, measured and non-measured, with the 70% viewability guideline applying only to measured impressions. Understandably, advertisers might view this as something of a disconnect as it relates to the transition to a viewable impression standard. 

We understand that digital campaign viewability measurement is a challenging proposition due to variances in the types of ad units being utilized and the different audience delivery measurement methodologies in use today. However, the IAB’s proposed guidelines continue to place the lion’s share of the financial burden for these shortcomings square on the backs of the advertiser community. Given that the composition of the IAB’s membership is largely made up of publishers, which have benefitted tremendously from the dramatic growth in digital media revenues, we believe that the 4As was right to reject the IAB’s proposed guidelines, with the goal of pushing for a more balanced standard, with more aggressive viewable impression delivery guarantees. 

And while continued dialog between the ANA, 4As and IAB on this topic is encouraging, we know from experience how long and arduous a journey toward an industry “standard” can be. It is for this reason, that we applaud the efforts of those advertisers and their agencies that have taken matters into their own hands and begun to eschew digital ad inventory of questionable value or with limited delivery guarantees. It has been reported that advertisers such as Kraft, for example, have “rejected up to 85%” of the digital ad inventory offered to them.  

Historically, we know that when advertisers self-police their ad investments, audit contract compliance and supplier performance and withhold ad dollars where appropriate, agencies and publishers will begin to take the notion of transformative change as it relates to digital media much more seriously. As Kevin Scholl, Digital Marketing Director at Red Roof Inn aptly stated in a recent Adweek interview on the viewability issue, “If we were buying in spaces with lame guarantees, we had to question continue buying there – or evolve how were buying.” 

Let us know your thoughts on this important issue by emailing Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com.

 

 

Are Advertisers Willing to Forgo Effectiveness for Efficiency?

25 Jun

digital marketing spendIt was with great interest that I read Advertising Age’s article on 2013’s record setting ad spending levels for the “Top 100” advertisers.

Ironically, it wasn’t the total spending level of $108.6 billion, the 4.6% ad spend growth projection for 2014 or the fact that Ad Age’s leading national advertisers “accounted for about two-fifths (42.2%) of all U.S. measured-media spending in 2013” that intrigued me.  What caught my attention was the commentary from senior ad agency executives to various Wall Street analysts about the reasons behind their company’s higher share of spending in the digital media space.

The article quoted a handful of CEOs and CFOs touting their firm’s move to lessen their reliance on traditional media by increasing ad spending on digital media with the goal of realizing greater efficiencies.  Interestingly, there was no reference to improving the effectiveness of their advertising investment.  To be fair, perhaps they believe that spending more of their ad budget dollars in this low-growth environment (ad spending growth is outpacing company revenue growth) on digital will be more effective.

It makes you wonder about the extent to which the leading national advertisers have refined their attribution modeling to reflect the impact of an exposure to their messaging on a cross-platform basis.  Have they solved for the question on everyone’s mind regarding how various delivery channels such as television, print, OOH, online display and particularly owned media, impact consumer awareness, intent and purchasing behavior?  You would think so.  How else, could advertisers justify upping the share of spend on digital to nearly 25% in aggregate on an industry-wide basis?

In the proverbial “good ol’ days” budget allocation decisions were based largely on results attained as opposed to such a heavy emphasis on “what” something cost.  One had to balance effectiveness and efficiency if an advertiser was going to maximize their return-on-marketing-investment (ROMI).

No one argues the inherent benefits associated with digital media today when it comes to dynamic messaging, behavioral targeting and selecting relevant media inventory that is aligned with audience media consumption actions on a real-time basis.  Additionally, most industry participants realize that digital will become a much more viable media forum from an advertising perspective as time goes by.

The challenge with digital media for advertisers is primarily one of confidence.  Confidence in knowing that a high percentage of a dollar directed to a publisher website actually makes it to that site, that its messages have an opportunity to be seen and that the responses being generated to its ads are from target audience members and not bots and that participants in the social sphere are receptive to advertiser interaction.  Absent solid cross-platform audience measurement tools, transparency into the various links in the digital media chain and the ability to accurately gauge response, it may be a risky proposition to spend two out of every five budgeted ad dollars on digital media.

That said, it is clear that the digital “train” has left the proverbial station.  The good news is that advertisers, agencies and publishers are working with their respective industry associations to address some of the issues which need to be dealt with in the context of digital media.  However, history would suggest that an industry wide mandate or set of solutions could be some time coming.

So, what can an individual advertiser do to enhance their control over the digital portion of their ad spend in the near-term?

Perhaps the best place to start is to engage their agency partners in candid conversations to map out the risks and uncertainties in and around digital delivery with the goal of identifying various means to mitigate those risks.  Tighter controls, improved performance monitoring, more timely and thorough campaign post-buy analysis and more rigorous financial stewardship processes between advertisers and their agencies and third-party vendors can certainly play a role in this area.

Industry practitioners certainly understand the role of experimentation and the need to stay abreast of change within the media landscape.  As such, the potential benefits of digital media in all of its forms, merits attention.  However, when a media channel accounts for 40%+ of industry ad spend it is clear that we’ve moved beyond the “experimentation” stage.

It is right to applaud the pioneering spirit which advertisers have exhibited in so rapidly evolving their media mix to integrate digital into the fold.  Given that total digital media spending was $19.9 billion in 2009 (source: Jupiter Research) and in five short years later eMarketer is forecasting that 2014 global digital media spending will eclipse $137.5 billion, it is clear that advertisers are blazing new trails.

Merriam-Webster defines the term pioneer as; “a person who helps create or develop new ideas, methods, etc.”  The marketing definition of pioneer, however, has often been described as: “a person with an arrow in their back.”  The moral of the story?  Proceed with caution and a complete understanding of the risks/rewards inherent with aggressively moving into what is still an emerging media… at least from a performance validation perspective.

Interested in learning more about safeguarding your digital media investment?  Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management, LLC at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a complimentary consultation on the topic.

 

Follow Blog

RSS Feed

OR

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Featured Posts

Sign-up for a complimentary “Mitigating Market Risk” Consultation.

sketch_auditJoin our community of global advertisers who seek marketing investment transparency and improved stewardship.

Click Here to Subscribe