Don’t Believe The Lies About Digital Media

By Eric Picard (Originally published on AdExchanger Monday, December 1st, 2014)

For years, there has been a series of bad memes spreading throughout our industry. Some of the big ones have caused a huge amount of misunderstanding in our space.

Here’s my favorite: “There is infinite supply of ad inventory. With this overabundance of supply, the cost of inventory will be driven to zero.”

This way of thinking caused the publisher side of the industry to fear and block adoption of programmatic buying and selling until the last year or two, when it was proved to be false.

A simple truth: All ad impressions (in a nonfraudulent world) are created by a person seeing an ad. I estimate that there are 5 trillion monthly digital ad impressions in North America. If we divide this against roughly 300 million active Internet users in North America, assuming they spend on average five hours a day consuming content on the Internet, that breaks down to approximately 100 ads per hour.

So we as an industry have 100 chances an hour, or about 500 chances per day, to reach each person in North America with a digital ad. Of the 300 million people we can reach, advertisers only care about a sliver of the total audience.

Once you break down the audience to the desired number of people to reach, with the relevant targeting, the question becomes: Of the 500 daily opportunities, how many times do you want to reach that group of people? It comes down to several factors: what mechanisms you, as a buyer, can use to identify them and deliver an ad to them, the format of the ad and how effective you believe your opportunity to reach them will be.

So, no – the number of impressions is not infinite. And if we believe that some percentage of the ads in that 5 trillion monthly statistic are fake, meaning fraudulent or simply not viewable, then the number of chances to reach consumers could be much smaller, from 100 to as low as 50 ad opportunities per hour.

Suddenly the lie is turned on its head and it becomes more about maximizing the opportunity with your target audience. And for those opportunities, the cost is definitely not heading toward zero.

Not True: Ad Inventory Can Be Defined By The Publisher And Divided Into Pools Of Undifferentiated Impressions

Ad inventory is made up of a group of individual, unique ad impressions. Every impression has hundreds of points of data surrounding it. The problem with this belief is that it assumes limitations that don’t exist. Publishers define inventory in broad, relatively undifferentiated buckets, which are the lowest common denominator from a complex media plan sent with a fairly detailed RFP by the buyer.

For instance, buying a million impressions of “soccer moms” from a publisher creates a very limited view of that inventory. The range of income, interests, product ownership or geography is broad for the individuals behind those impressions. And some “soccer moms” may be worth more than others depending on an advertiser’s campaign goals.

In a world where inventory is publisher-defined, this lowest common denominator approach was the only way to operate a scale media business. But that’s no longer the case. Buy-side decisioning allows the buyer to define the inventory – and that inventory definition by nature can be more complex than ever.

So what is an impression? Ultimately an impression is a human being engaging in a monetizable experience via a computer or digital device, in a certain modality. By modality, we mean that they’re either passively consuming content (such as watching a video), actively consuming content (reading an article or email), actively participating in an interruptible interactive experience (playing a game with breaks between levels) or actively participating in a non-interruptible interactive experience (writing an email or engaged in a video chat).

All the data about the person behind the impression is captured in first-party (buy side and sell side) and third-party data platforms. And all the data about the content being consumed, and the user’s modality, belongs to the publisher. It is by matching both types of data that we can truly unlock the value of inventory. The more open and transparent we make things, the more value we unlock. By giving buyers access to the unfettered truth of inventory and the ability to peruse and pay for their desired inventory, price ultimately tends to go up, not down. The old world of limited, siloed and blocked data is responsible for this lie.

As we’ve opened up inventory sources and unlocked access to audience and modality data, the market responded by equalizing prices. As a result, publishers can make just as much money from programmatic channels as direct sales. Publishers that are allowing demand from programmatic sources to compete directly with guaranteed inventory are becoming pleasantly surprised with the results. Publishers that started early on this path are gaining some significant advantages that could be sustainable over the long haul.

Not True: Publishers Don’t Let Buy-Side Systems Access Inventory Because Of Potential Data Leakage

This is an old misconception. Back around 2005, some publishers invested in technology to enable creation of “publisher first-party” audience targeting data. They tracked individual audience members’ activity on the publishers’ sites and put these content consumption behaviors into behavioral targeting segments. They could then sell these segments as inventory definitions, rather than just selling locations.

This was very useful when publishers had small pools of valuable inventory that would sell out, such as auto-related inventory that would sell out months in advance. So publishers tracked users who read articles in the “auto content” bucket and created a segment called “auto intenders” so they could sell ads targeted to those users when they were browsing other pages of the publisher’s content. If they charged $15 CPMs for auto content ads, they would sell behaviorally targeted “auto intenders” for $10. They’d deliver those ads on pages that were probably selling for $5 CPMs, more than doubling the yield on those impressions.

The problem is that only the largest publishers with big user bases that consumed lots of their content could assemble enough valuable behavioral data. The small window into a person’s web-surfing behavior that any one publisher had access to was not enough to really create sustainable value. However, that data was created, sold and valued by the market, although it was less valuable to buyers because it originated from user activity on just one publisher, rather than data pooled across publishers.

Right around that time, the first behavioral ad networks, typified by Blue Lithium, figured out that they could supercharge their behavioral targeting segmentation by buying guaranteed targeted buys from publishers and stealing segmentation data from the publishers. They maximized reach by keeping the frequency cap as low as the publisher would allow, then dropped their own cookies on those users and added the publisher’s targeting definition to their own.

For instance, say a buy of “auto intenders” from Yahoo had a frequency cap that was set to one. If the ad network bought 1 million impressions for a $10 CPM, they would add 1 million unique users to their own cookie pool of “auto intenders” for just $10,000. They could then find those same users on cheaper sites, and eventually buy the inventory over ad exchanges for less than $1 but sell it for $8, allowing them to arbitrage the market. Since these networks could turn small expensive direct buys into feeders of their behavioral targeting pools, and then extend those buys to cheap inventory sources, publishers obviously became very concerned about this “data leakage.”

Most publishers, other than the very largest, stopped investing in their own first-party behavioral data technologies, leading to the creation of the lie that publishers are deathly afraid of data leakage. But what people missed is that most publishers simply gave up fighting this battle. Instead they partnered with third-party data providers that paid publishers for the rights to collect behavioral data.

They would then push the behavioral segments back into the publisher’s ad server so they could sell the data as part of their direct buys. The data leakage problem led to the creation of the third-party data marketplace and the tracking of users across publishers, which marketers find more valuable.

The real value that publishers can provide is not in turning the behavior of their audiences into targeting data. Instead publishers can give buy-side decisioning systems access to data about the content being consumed (category-level data) and what users are doing on those pages (modality data). They can also enable the buyer to bring their own first-party data, which is far more valuable for buyers than anything the publisher could assemble.

Everybody wins when publishers open up competition between decisions made by a demand-side or buy-side ad platform and direct buys booked through their sales force. When given the opportunity, buyers are willing to pay similar or higher rates for access to this inventory, compared to what they’d pay for publisher-packaged inventory that only offers publisher-based ad decisions. The two methods competing with one another increases the value of the inventory and maximizes the yield for each impression. It’s a “win-win” or a non-zero-sum game – a good thing for everyone.

MediaMath Acquires Rare Crowds And Its Founder, Eric Picard

By Zach Rodgers (Originally published on AdExchanger, November 10th, 2014)

MediaMath has snapped up Rare Crowds, a small, 2-year-old startup founded by ad tech trailblazer Eric Picard, AdExchanger has learned.

Under the all-stock transaction, Picard will join MediaMath as VP of strategic partnerships as the media-buying platform builds out products around private marketplaces and “automated guaranteed” inventory (i.e., direct site buys).

The deal has the markings of an acqui-hire. Picard, whose title at MediaMath will be VP of strategic partnerships, is the only exec from Rare Crowds’ small team going over to MediaMath. Co-founder and CTO Scott Tomlin will consult with MediaMath through the transfer of Rare Crowds’ technology.

A well-known figure in the ad tech space, Picard founded Bluestreak, an early ad server and rich media platform. Later he was an architect of Microsoft’s ad platform strategy, and he also held a senior product role at TRAFFIQ before that company exited ad tech and repositioned as an agency.

His responsibilities at MediaMath will include oversight of the company’s relationship with Akamai, from which it acquired Advertising Decision Sciences – along with its pixel-free ad targeting technology – in January 2013.

“MediaMath is making an investment in moving beyond real-time bidding, and taking RTB technologies really far forward into other parts of the ecosystem,” Picard told AdExchanger. “The company is investing in the rest of the media plan that is not currently accessible.”

Rare Crowds was initially focused on helping publishers better package their inventory in a programmatic selling environment, but in the last year pivoted to the buy side.

Here’s how Picard described the Rare Crowds value proposition in an AdExchanger interview two years ago:

“The whole industry has been very focused on prediction. We have to predict how much inventory we are going to have so we can sell it in advance, when you are talking about premium inventory. In RTB, all of the systems that have been developed really allow you to target much better and do not have to worry about prediction.

We’re finding this hypertargeted inventory that has more than four attributes, that’s what we define as a ‘rare crowd,’ all the way out to 12 or 15 or 20 attributes. If it exists, we’ll find it.”

Rare Crowds was backed by angel investors including Hulu’s SVP for ad sales, Peter Naylor, Interactive Advertising Bureau founder Rich LeFurgy and Mediasmith CEO Dave Smith.

The Digital Advertising Industry Needs An Open Ecosystem

By Eric Picard (Originally published on AdExchanger Tuesday, November 4th, 2014)

Thanks to amazing new offerings from Facebook, Google, Amazon and others on deeply connected identity and tracking solutions, we are seeing two major developments. For the first time, connected identities across entire populations are available for targeting, tracking, reporting and analytics. But these identity pools exist within walled gardens, siloed to just one provider.

From a tactical and strategic point of view, I completely understand why companies create these walled-garden identity solutions. And to some extent, they will open their walls – metaphorically allowing outside vendors and partners to enter through checkpoints, accompanied by security and wearing clearly labeled badges. Nobody can fault a company like Facebook or Google for being careful about allowing entrée to their walled gardens. The potential for a PR backlash is significant, and that could cause the overall value of their offering to decline. So yes – it’s good to be cautious.

But it does create a significant issue for every publisher outside the top five or so because their first-party data pool is limited to the activity on their own site or apps. They don’t get access to cross-site activity, nor do they have a way to compete with the efforts of the biggest players on their own. It will be hard for publishers – even the large ones – to resist the momentum that will build to plug into these walled gardens, forcing publishers to effectively commoditize themselves in exchange for access to identity, targeting and analytics data.

I’ve long been a proponent of open approaches in the ad-tech space, including open source, open architecture or open APIs. I also am a big fan of well-considered and coordinated industry or consortium efforts. I believe that efforts like OpenRTB, which is pushing for an open API standard for real-time bidding, will be key to helping the industry grow.

Open efforts like this help ensure that the biggest players don’t create huge competitive moats like we saw with paid search, where Google AdWords’ creative, functionality and APIs became the effective industry standard. As a result, any time Google makes any change, all other paid search players must immediately copy Google because of its massive dominance in this area.

Even the biggest players should support these open initiatives because regardless of any disproportionate boost one or two players may get, we’re in a massive growth phase and an open approach has proven a better way to expand industries and sectors. Building significant traction is easier with scale – and by pooling scale, the whole space has the opportunity to accelerate growth.

That said, it’s highly unlikely that Google and Facebook will take a completely open approach on their key initiatives. For one, they have enough scale to catalyze efforts and markets on their own. But more importantly, it’s not in their self-interest to be open. Remaining closed gives them opportunity to maintain control and position in the market while marginalizing smaller players in the ecosystem.

I predict that we will see more industry consortiums created around areas like identity, directly in response to the very large walled gardens that are being built now. It’s really the only way that everyone else in the industry can protect against commodification and ensure a level playing field.

Programmatic: A Rising Tide

By Eric Picard (Originally published in AdExchanger October 1, 2014)

While we’ve been sitting in the progressively warmer water of the “programmatic kettle” without noticing the heat, the world has changed. The incremental changes have been small, but they have been happening constantly and quickly. Taken together, these changes are significant.

The term programmatic has gone mainstream in the last year – at least in the ad industry. Chances are, if you mention to anyone in our space that you work in programmatic, you won’t have to explain what that means anymore. This is true even if you’re talking to a typically “out of touch” executive, because every major company in our space is not only engaging in programmatic, it’s a significant portion of their spending or revenue. They’re likely either hiring or have just hired an executive to manage it, and may have already had turnover in their executive roles in programmatic.

Publishers are finally facing the reality that this isn’t a fad and they’re not treating it like a bad thing anymore. They’re not only selling “just some” of their inventory on programmatic and they don’t just see it as a source of revenue from remnant inventory.

Most major publishers have moved toward selling premium inventory over a programmatic channel. They’ve either sold inventory over a private exchange, adopted a programmatic direct vendor to offer premium inventory over an API, adopted a vendor to help with yield that incorporates programmatic (like Maxifier or YieldEx) or they’ve just rolled the dice and allowed Google’s Dynamic Allocation algorithms to let the exchange compete with sales on premium inventory – and from what I’m hearing, they probably had great success with it.

I’m hearing people talk about programmatic in ways that are very mature. There’s discussion of programmatic channels instead of channel, and there’s discussion of programmatic outside of the context of the concept of “channel.” There’s an understanding blooming among both buyers and sellers that taking a view of their media processes through a programmatic lens opens up bold new opportunities.

Publishers are investing in programmatic heavily – and it is getting deeply ingrained in their business processes. Previously publishers thought of their inventory in a pretty simple way: sponsorships, tonnage and remnant. Today they think about inventory and channel relationships very differently:

  • Direct relationship: old-fashioned sales
  • Programmatic direct: publisher-packaged inventory offered over API or through a self-service tool
  • Private exchange: DSP buyers can buy inventory with a “first look” ahead of it getting passed to the open exchange – and possibly ahead of other partner relationships
  • Vertical network: direct relationship with a vertical network that either buys direct or through a private exchange
  • SSP: Some publishers have a partnership with an SSP that divvies up inventory between ad networks and various ad exchanges
  • Open exchange: Some publishers skip the SSP and remnant wholesale deals to old-school ad networks, and drop it directly into the exchange

Agencies are moving programmatic into the mainstream. The trading desks started out as small dedicated businesses, and are either growing radically and becoming more than just centers of excellence, or they’re being primed for integration across the whole agency model. Expect to see very significant changes in every major media agency over the next few years – this is coming, and fast. Expect the changes to be about efficiency and driven as much by their client’s requests as finally accepting that the trading desk model, where the agency arbitrages their own clients, is nearing the end of its life span.

Agencies are investing in technology, not just to “bid on the exchanges” but to (finally) automate media buying. And the programmatic umbrella is being used as a catch-all for these conversations – whether it means investing in buying infrastructure that automates the RFP process or automates bidding. And the vendors servicing agencies are bridging from the guaranteed space into the programmatic space, and the programmatic vendors are bridging into the guaranteed space. This might be the most fun I’ve had in a decade when it comes to ad tech.

Marketers are eyeing the programmatic world as they put digital marketing through the same process we saw every other major business initiative go through: the “IT-ification” of marketing. CTOs and CMOs are actually deeply collaborating. They sense an opportunity to get investment in marketing infrastructure and bring their first-party data to bear on the marketing business at large.

Ad tech vendors clearly sense this opportunity. Every vendor I’ve talked with in the last six months is gearing up for a major initiative focused on the marketer directly. Not that they are trying to bypass the agency just to “go around them” – which was the old-school unhealthy dynamic many ad tech vendors have attempted since digital marketing started. Rather, they are hearing from the marketers directly – and often are being brought into the conversation by the media agencies, which are acting as agents of the marketer at their client’s request.

This trend deserves another paragraph. Marketers are looking to integrate ad technology into their enterprise IT technologies. They want to unlock the power of their first-party data, but can’t let it outside the firewall (more metaphorically than in reality). They won’t allow the raw data to sit in the hands of their agency partners, but this isn’t about “marketers taking digital marketing in-house.” They aren’t disintermediating the media agencies – they’re just pulling the technology relationships in-house and then providing their media agencies with access to the integrated tools from outside.

The significance of this is lost on many in the market – many analysts think it means bad things for the holding companies – but clearly that isn’t the case. This may be the best news in years for the holding companies. Their clients are making significant and permanent investments in digital marketing. And their need for assistance is going up – not down.

Here’s the biggest insight I’ve had in the last six months: Programmatic media is just as labor-intensive as direct media. The work is different and much more technical (and also more insightful, honestly, as there’s a lot more data generated), but there’s more of it – all the time. And it’s growing. Media agencies aren’t going anywhere; they’re busier than ever. Marketers need the help. Publishers have whole new ways to increase yield and revenue over these channels. And ad tech vendors are consolidating and investing significantly in their technology.

Programmatic is a rising tide lifting all boats in our space.

How To Use RTB For Targeted Reach Instead Of Retargeting

By Eric Picard (Originally published on AdExchanger)

I was recently told by an executive in a position to know that 70 to 80% of revenue in the RTB space comes from retargeting. I found that stunning because it basically tells us that the RTB space is incredibly immature. If the vast majority of revenue in the space is retargeting, then nearly all the spending comes from ecommerce companies.

That means we have huge upside in this space because ecommerce companies certainly don’t make up anything near the majority of advertising spending.

Nearly 90% of advertising spend “all-up” is done on a targeted reach basis. In other words, the advertiser has come up with an ideal marketing persona (or series of marketing personas – many brands have five to 10 defined marketing personas) and their media plan is designed to reach people matching that persona. Using old-school methods, such as Nielsen or comScore, they find publishers with audiences matching their marketing personas, and that’s where they’ll buy impressions.

The problem is that this is extremely inaccurate, and wastes budget by spreading it across the whole audience that visits this publisher. On one hand, it’s wasteful because it pushes the message on audiences that don’t match campaign goals. On the other hand, it’s OK if there’s some “waste” in media spending because there’s value in getting the message in front of slight target mismatches.

Case in point: I don’t have cable at home. We watch Hulu, Amazon Prime and Netflix when we consume TV content. But recently, while traveling, I saw a few hours of TV in my hotel each night. I was shocked by the vast number of pharmaceutical ads on broadcast television – especially on the news (which I hardly watch anymore).

Most ads related to conditions I’m not facing today – so in a sense those ads were wasted. But should I ever contract one of those conditions, I’ll likely remember those products exist. Or should one of my close friends or loved ones get stricken with those conditions, I’ll recall that a medication exists and engage in conversation with them.

So yes – this broadcast brand strategy certainly does have some value. As I’ve said before: There’s value in the fact that I know Dodge Ram owners are “RAM Tough.”

On the other hand, we can be much more precise now than in the past — if you can find the data. And if you believe in the methodology that created the data, there are ways to more precisely reach your target personas and target audiences of all flavors.

Find The Right Tools

Using demand-side platforms and social media marketing tools, including the self-service tools within Facebook, it’s now possible to find your target audience in a variety of ways. You can be very narrow or very broad. You can control exactly which sites on which you’ll reach that audience, or you can simply specify on which sites you don’t want to reach your audience.

For brands that are very particular about running ads only on approved content, there is the white list – a specific list of domains matching against publishers that you specifically approve to run ads on. This does limit scale, but there’s no limit on the size of the white list you can create.  And there are vendors like Trust Metrics that you can use to build a custom white list for you, which both hones the targeting to sites that match your brand safety metrics and massively reduces fraud.

Or if you want, you can use private marketplaces to execute buys only on the sites you specifically negotiate with for access to their audiences over RTB. This has a lot of value for pharma and marketers that are extremely sensitive to running ads on sites that match their brand values.

If you want to specify a tightly targeted user base, one that is so targeted that it limits the audience size to only a few thousand users, you can do that using tools like Facebook’s advertising that lets you specify many different elements and tells you how limited the size of your audience is.

Or there are tools like Optim.al, which hones the audience and offers ways to expand or contract it. Or tools that let you find audiences similar to your targeting with less targeting but greater impression volume. (Disclosure: My company Rare Crowds does this.) Or you could use MediaMath’s built-in features to automatically find the right audience that performs best for your campaigns.

Nearly every company playing in the RTB space has functionality designed to meet the needs of advertisers that want to reach specific audiences, not just retarget people who visited your website or who are existing customers. There is the potential to reach people you haven’t reached before, find new customers and prospect for them.

The biggest growth sector for RTB this year is clearly going to be brand advertisers and those that use RTB for targeted reach — just like 90% of all media spending.

The Difference Between Programmatic RTB And Direct

By Eric Picard (Originally published on AdExchanger)

I had the great fortune to moderate a panel called “Programmatic Guaranteed” at AdExchanger’s recent Programmatic.io conference in San Francisco. The prep conversations for this panel, the conversation on stage and the conversations with audience members afterward were very compelling.

Clearly the market wants to figure this out, and the promise of programmatic means different things to different people. This is a complex space that needs more information and definition, which we’ll do today.

As an industry we have two primary “stacks” of technology that drive advertising between the buyer, seller and consumer. One is what I’ll call the “direct” stack, and the other is the real-time bidding (RTB) stack.

Direct Advertising Stack

The “direct” software stack in play supports publishers. This is the first-party ad sever, the publisher’s inventory management system. Examples include DoubleClick for Publishers, Open Ad Stream and Freewheel.

This publisher system enables publishers to manage their advertising businesses – in particular, this is designed around the need to put ads on pages, monitor revenue and manage sales. But one of the primary uses of these systems is for publishers to package their inventory. One of the core uses of this entire technology stack is to find inventory that is available for sale, and package it in order to sell it to advertisers.

The direct stack is a set of tools and technologies for packaging inventory for sale to buyers. Packages are assembled either in advance, or in response to a buyer’s request for proposal and media plan.

The Programmatic Direct Stack

Over the last few years, a variety of companies have launched in the programmatic direct space, which aims to connect the publisher’s direct systems to buyers’ systems – either the traditional or the programmatic tools. Examples here include YieldEx, iSocket, Shiny Ads, Bionic Ads and AdSlot.

The problem with this stack, from the buyer’s perspective, is that the programmatic direct world is an extension of the direct platforms. They are designed to package inventory according to the ways in which publishers want to sell inventory. They aren’t designed to allow the buyer to manage against their own goals. The contract terms for inventory are defined by the publisher, and executed according to a publisher-centric view of the world.

The benefit that buyers get from the direct stacks are that the inventory can be reserved — in other words, the publishers and buyers can agree in advance on not only the price of the inventory, but the volume and budget that the buyer is signing up to spend. And the publisher is willing to guarantee the buy, meaning that if they under-deliver, they will give the buyer a “make-good” on the inventory that was not delivered.

Programmatic RTB Advertising Stack

The RTB software stack is focused primarily from the point of view of the buyer. There are supply side platforms (SSPs) like Rubicon and Pubmatic that are publisher facing, but like their demand-side partners (DSPs), their focus is on enabling the buyer to find inventory according to their definitions, rather than packaging inventory up on the publisher side.

The systems in the RTB world are very flexible and don’t require packaging in advance.  The only problem with this is the inability of these systems to easily offer a guarantee on the buy. There are some mechanisms that can be used, such as the Deal ID standard, which allows a buy-side system to be assigned to a specific ID in the sell-side system. But typically these are supported more by the SSP, and not within the direct stack of software.

There is an immense amount of investment in the ability to forecast and ultimately to sign reserved or even guaranteed deals in the programmatic RTB software stack, but we’re still a ways from this. We may find ourselves supported here in the next year or two – but matching these systems together has proven challenging – and recreating the ability to forecast and give make-goods in the RTB stack has been nearly impossible.

The ‘Holy Grail’

There is another path that some technology companies are exploring, which is the ability to push the advertiser’s demand goals directly into the publisher’s direct ad server. In this model, the buy-side system allows the buyer to specify their goals, and then through integration with the publisher’s direct ad server, can create line items matching the advertiser’s goals. But this is a new approach that has not been fully productized yet in the market. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

Enterprise Adoption Of Ad Tech Will Supercharge The Market

By Eric Picard (Originally published on AdExchanger 11/5/2013)

The appetite for ad technology is just beginning to appeal to new markets in new ways. Expect to see significant growth in the sector over the next five years as marketers and large publishers invest significantly in technology at a scale we’ve never seen.

The context for this shift: Ad technology is moving from a marketing or sales and operations expense to an enterprise-level IT investment. We’re now seeing very significant interest in this space by CIOs and CTOs at major corporations – beyond what we’ve seen in the past, which mainly came from the “digital native” companies, such as Google, eBay, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft. Now this is becoming much more mainstream.

Historically, digital media was a very small percentage of advertising spending for large advertisers, and a small percentage of revenue for large, traditional media publishers.  But in the last two years, we have passed the tipping point. Let’s handle the two areas separately – starting with the marketer.

Marketers

First, let’s call the marketer by a slightly different name: the enterprise.

Large corporations, or enterprises, have invested massive amounts of money in IT over the last 30 years. Every major function within the enterprise has been through this treatment – from HR to supply chain, finance, procurement and sales to internally driven traditional direct marketing (the intersection of CRM and direct-marketing channels, such as mailing lists and even email marketing).

The great outlier here has been the lack of investment in advertising, which mainly has been driven by the fact that advertising is managed for the most part by agencies. Most marketing departments have allowed their media agency partners to take on the onus of sorting out how to effectively and efficiently spend their marketing budgets. And up until the past few years, digital marketing was a small percentage of spending for most major marketers.

Since there really hasn’t been much value in investing in advertising technology at the enterprise level for marketers on the traditional side, there was little driving change here. But as the percentage of the marketing budget on digital advertising has grown, and as the value of corporate data to digital advertising has grown, a significant shift in thinking has taken place.

Now we’ve got a way, through the RTB infrastructure – and, ultimately, through all infrastructure in the space – to apply the petabytes of corporate data that these companies own to drive digital advertising right down to the impression level. And we have mature infrastructures, bidders, delivery systems, third-party data and data pipelines,and mature technology vendors that can act on all this. None of this existed five years ago at scale.

Publishers

Just as the large marketers are enterprises, so are the large media companies that own the various online and offline publications that create advertising opportunities.

Until the last few years, the very largest of the traditional publishing conglomerates were still not paying much attention to digital media since it was a tiny fraction of overall revenue. But over the last few years there has been a significant shift as executives finally realized that despite the lack of revenue from digital as a channel, from a distribution standpoint, digital media is experiencing explosive growth. And ultimately all the traditional distribution channels – from print to television to radio – are all being subsumed into the digital channel.

You need to look no further than the people who have been hired into the major media companies in the last few years with titles like VP of revenue platforms, GM of programmatic and trading, director of programmatic advertising and VP of yield operations. These senior positions didn’t exist at these companies two years ago, and generally were areas reserved within the digital natives.

The fact that we’re seeing new focus on digital media, with both senior roles and significant investments in people and technology, means that we’re likely to see additional significant investment by these media enterprises over the next few years. I expect to see the shift happen here quickly since the consulting companies upon which they and most enterprises rely to lead these initiatives already have media and entertainment practices.

Suddenly major advertisers and publishers – who are all major enterprises – are looking at the opportunity to apply their significant IT expertise to marketing in a new way. So let’s talk about the way that IT evolved in other channels historically to try to understand what’s about to happen here.

The Evolution Of IT

A major corporation will typically hire large consulting firms with a vertical practice in the area they want to modernize. Note that the biggest consulting firms – we’ll use IBM and Accenture as examples here – have developed vertical practices around nearly every department, large initiative or focus area within an enterprise. Also note that wherever these consulting firms step in to build a practice, they assemble a recommended “stack” of technologies that can be integrated together and create a customized solution for the enterprise. One interesting thing: In nearly every case, there are significant open-source software components that are used within these “stacks” of technology.

When we look carefully at where they’ve developed practices that smell anything like marketing, they’re typically assembled around big data and analytics. There are obvious synergies between all the other vertical practices they’ve created and the intersection of using big data to inform marketing decisions with analytics, based on detailed analysis of other corporate data. So this isn’t a surprise. It also isn’t shocking that there are many major open-source software initiatives around big data, ranging from staples such as Hadoop to startups like MongoDB.

But nowhere in the digital advertising landscape do we see major open source initiatives. Instead we see the massively complex Lumascape ecosystem map, with hundreds of companies in it.

So when we look at the shift to enterprise IT for digital marketing, there are plenty of companies to plug into a “stack” of technologies and build a practice around. But there is very little in the way of open source, and no clear way to actually bind together all the vendors into a cohesive stack that can be used in a repeatable and scalable fashion.

We are seeing some significant consulting firms come into existence in this space, including Unbound Company and 614 Group. I’m certain we’ll see the big players enter the fray as they sniff out opportunity.

Who Will Win The Digital Media War?

By Eric Picard (originally published in AdExchanger October 17th, 2013)

Lately I’ve had many conversations about the digital advertising market and how it’s evolving.

The most-asked question: “Who will win the battle over digital advertising – Google, Facebook or Twitter?”

I’ve also recently been asked about other companies, such as LinkedIn and Adobe, and how well they’re positioned to beat “whomever.” And by “whomever,” everyone almost always means Google. But more often lately, I’m hearing about Facebook, too.

So, who’s going to win?

Well, it’s not so simple. I take a very different view of the market. I don’t believe there will ever be one winner in this space. Even from an ad-technology perspective, I don’t think all roads point to Google owning it all – although there’s little question that they dominate. And from a publisher perspective, Google is dominant in paid search but not in other areas.

I can hear your brain spinning right now. You’re thinking, “Wait – did you say Google is a publisher?”

Yes, I did. Google has leveraged a massive market share in paid search, and grown into other forms of advertising as well. But for some reason, people in our space don’t seem to think of Google as a publisher.

Google happens to be the biggest publisher of search – but, somehow, calling Google a search engine seems to mask for many people that Google is a publisher. They also are a publisher of maps with Google Maps. They publish video via YouTube. And they publish all sorts of other content related to the results of various vertical searches, including restaurant reviews and travel information.

Google’s also a technology company, and yet – amid all the excitement about various office applications, self-driving cars, balloon-based Wi-Fi and all the other efforts – they are primarily a publisher, one that makes almost all of its money from the sale of advertising. Even their massive DoubleClick business is in many ways really about building opportunities for more ad revenue flowing through their ad exchange and back to Google, tied to a percentage of media spending.

But even though they can almost legally be considered a monopoly, they are not the only publisher in search. Microsoft certainly hasn’t given up there. And beyond the two major publishers of search, there’s an entire ecosystem around paid search that Google can’t and won’t own. That opens up other opportunities.

A Range Of Opportunities – For Many Players

I see the market as a series of opportunities. Even if Google continues to be the dominant player across all forms of digital advertising, from a publisher or an ad-technology perspective, I don’t think that matters from a market perspective because the publisher space is far too fragmented for any one publisher to gain control. Any one publisher may dominate in one area, but won’t be a complete monopoly – not even in search. It’s even much less likely in other forms of media.

So when people talk about who’s going to “win” in advertising, I think it’s more complex than one winner and many losers. There are many opportunities to win here. And many of these markets are more than big enough for the “second-place” player to have a very big business indeed. In many cases, there will be a large number of big businesses in various verticals. Television is a great example of a market where there are many big players and no one player that has significantly dominated the market, at least not in the way we think of Google dominating search.

So what are the other areas we should be paying attention to? These areas could be very large – potentially as large as paid search – but at least as large as display ads or radio.

1. Consumer-Facing Social Media

Publishers: Obviously Facebook will dominate here. This means Twitter has the backup position in this market. Facebook is too far ahead for Twitter to come close any time soon. I think that Google+ is an outlier and could blow up at some point if Google keeps at it and really invests heavily, maybe in advertising Google+ rather than trying to gain share more organically.

Technology: There are tons of players, but nobody is dominant yet. And every major player wants to be the big gun here. I expect that, eventually, Google, Adobe and Salesforce will dominate, either through organic growth or acquisition. There are a lot of smaller players who could rise quickly depending on how innovative they prove and how good they are at executing.

Secondary Marketplaces: I think AppNexus will win. Others will play.

2. B2B Social Media

Publishers: Clearly, this belongs to LinkedIn. Google+, Facebook and Twitter will also play here, but it’s uncertain how much market penetration they’ll achieve. I’d guess that Twitter has a good opportunity to be bigger here than in the consumer space as a secondary player.

Technology: Again – too early to know. I like Rallyverse quite a lot, although they’re playing in several places here.

Secondary Marketplaces: Too early to be certain.

3.  Video / TV over IP

Publishers: Obviously Hulu is a standout. You can’t ignore YouTube, either. Netflix and Amazon are very focused, and Microsoft’s Xbox is super interesting. But video and television content over the Internet is very fragmented, and I don’t see one strong winner.

Technology: Freewheel seems to be getting tons of traction (quietly, too).

Secondary Marketplaces: Clearly Google’s got a good foothold because of its anchor-tenant relationship with YouTube. Tremor had a great IPO, and there are many players like TubeMogul, YuMe and Brightroll – but this space looks to be about as fragmented as the television ecosystem, or even display ads. Part of the reason is just that there’s a lot of demand and money floating out there looking to be spent on video advertising.

4. Mobile

Publishers: Mobile is not a media type. Well, sorta. But it’s not a media type that so far is significantly differentiated as one. I suppose you could point at Apple and Google (as leaders?) for their app and content marketplaces.

Technology: This part of the market is super fragmented.

Secondary Marketplaces: I’m looking forward to Google and AppNexus duking it out over this marketplace from the exchange point of view – but there are many ad networks in this space as well, including Millennial Media, which is clearly the powerhouse of the market.

5. Cross-Media Plays

Let me break out of my model for a moment and say that while the market has certainly fragmented into players focused on each of the various channels, I think we’re now starting to see a lot of investment in cross-media initiatives. These range from publishers to technology companies and marketplaces.

But the real interesting thing to me is that in the ad-technology space we’ve rarely seen the ability for companies to support multiple media types simultaneously and become a dominant player. That is changing.

Publishers: Google, Yahoo – yes, I said Yahoo – Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, AOL and a plethora of others are starting to gain real cross-media traction. I don’t see any one publisher dominating across media, but certainly there will be publishers who stand out because of their cross-media footprint.

Technology: Obviously Google stands out here. But watch out for AppNexus, which is really investing heavily in video, mobile and social to extend beyond its display roots.

Secondary Marketplaces: Again – I think it’s Google and AppNexus that are really poised to win here.

Why dynamic creative has bounced back from failure

By Eric Picard (Originally published on iMediaConnection October 14th, 2013)

Back in 1999 (when the moon did not have a moonbase Alpha, nor did an explosion send the moon rocketing across the cosmos — a reference for old-timers like me) while at my last startup, Bluestreak, we started experimenting with dynamic creative.

The idea was that there were e-commerce companies with thousands of products available online, and that based on location we should be able to test and optimize which products led to the most clicks and purchases. Over the next few years, we worked with several customers to experiment with this. We ultimately ran ads with several publishers that would rotate through a list of products, and we used our creative optimization technology to determine which combination of offers was getting the best results (based on clicks, interactions, or conversions).

It turned out that there were various combinations of location (publisher) and product that worked much better than others, and the tests were successful. But the question was really about matters of degrees. We saw significant improvements in results, and we developed great technology that supported all this. But after the bottom dropped out of the market in 2000 and 2001 and the price of inventory dropped significantly, the improvements in performance stopped mattering as much.

Essentially, the price of inventory was so low that it was cheaper to just run much higher volumes of unoptimized ads than to pay for optimization service.

But I knew that creative optimization and dynamic creative would have its time and place. Either the impact of the creative optimization would drive significantly better results, the price of inventory would come back up, or we’d be able to optimize the offers based on user targeting rather than just by publisher.

Creative optimization and dynamic creative dropped out of the industry for eight to 10 years, but it came screaming back. As I guessed, the major driver was targeting based on user data. And over the past few years, the growth of real-time bidding and audience targeting has led to significant improvements in dynamic creative and optimization.

There are now several significant companies that have built their business around the idea of optimizing the offer shown to users based on their profiles, including a lot of retargeting. They build advertising campaigns that are driven by databases — ones that pull together the creative in ways that include hundreds or thousands or even millions of possible combinations. The best offer is selected based on a variety of criteria, including audience targeting attributes such demographics, behavioral data, and retargeting data. This information is extensively available and can be used to drive significantly better optimization than just location.

We all know that with real-time bidding and ad exchanges, ads can be targeted based on this kind of data. And we all know that with basic tracking of impressions, clicks, and conversions, bid prices in ad exchanges can be adjusted to optimize results based on the number of clicks or conversions. But dynamic creative optimization can take things to the next level. Using all of these technologies and techniques in combination can significantly drive up ROI. The only question is how many different products, offers, or options are available for optimization purposes.

The more opportunities to adjust the creative — especially if those products or offers can be somehow predicted to match against different audiences’ preferences or interests — the more likely the user is to act.
Read more at http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/35170.asp#sxRJhl1kvggxUiAe.99

When will digital take over traditional media?

By Eric Picard (Originally published on iMediaConnection.com, September 12, 2013)

In 2005 I worked on a project to map the infrastructure used for all traditional media advertising and determine if there was an opportunity to inject the new modern infrastructure of online advertising into the mix. This was a broad look at the space — with the goal to see if any overlap in the buying or selling processes existed at all and if there was a way to subtly or explicitly alter the architecture of online advertising platforms to drive convergence.

If you think about it, this is kind of a no-brainer. Delivering tens or hundreds of billions of ads a day in real time with ad delivery decisions made in a few milliseconds is much harder than getting the contracts signed and images off to printing presses (print media) or ensuring that the video cassettes or files are sent over to the network, broadcaster, or cable operator by a certain deadline. And the act of planning media buys before the buying process begins isn’t very different between traditional media and digital.

I went and interviewed media planners and buyers who worked across media. I talked to publishers in print, TV, radio, out-of-home, etc. And I went and talked to folks at the technology vendor companies who supported advertising in all of these spaces. It was clear to me that converging the process was possible, and as I looked at how the various channels operated, it was also clear that they’d benefit significantly from a more modern architecture and approach.

But in 2005, the idea of digital media technologies and approaches being used to “fix” digital media was clearly too early. It would be like AOL buying Time Warner…Oh yeah, that happened. In any case, the likelihood of getting traditional folks to adopt digital media ad technology in 2005 was simply ludicrous.

And despite progress, and clearly superior technical approaches in digital (if lower revenue from the same content due to business model differences), there’s little danger of traditional and digital media ad convergence in the near term. This is actually a real shame because digital media now is stepping into a real renaissance from an advertising technology perspective.

Programmatic media buying and selling is clearly the future of digital, and I believe they will extend into traditional as well. And within programmatic, RTB is a clear winner (although not the only winner) in the space. The value proposition of RTB for the buyer is incredibly strong.  Buyers get to deliver ads only to the specific audiences they desire and on the specific publishers (or group of publishers) they want their ads associated with. While still mostly used for remnant media monetization, this is changing very fast.

Television is the obvious space to adopt digital media ad technology, and with terms like “Digital Broadcast,” “Digital Cable,” “IPTV,” and others, it would seem on the surface that we’re moments away from RTB making the leap from online display ads and digital video to television.

That’s not quite the case. While great strides are being made in executing on targeted television buys by fantastic companies like Simulmedia, Visible World, and others, this space is still not quite ready to make the transition to real-time ad delivery (what we think of as ad serving in the online space) at large, let alone RTB.

This is because the cable advertising industry is hamstrung by an infrastructure that is designed for throughput and scale of video delivery, which was absolutely not designed with the idea of real-time decisions at the set-top-box (STB) level in mind. Over the years we’ve seen video on demand (VOD) really take off for cable, but even there, where the video content is delivered via a single stream per STB, they didn’t design the infrastructure around advertising experiences. Even the newer players with more advanced and modern infrastructures and modern-sounding names like IPTV, such as Verizon’s FIOS solution, haven’t built in the explicit hooks and solutions needed to support real-time ad delivery decisions across all ad calls. That basically means that for the vast majority of ads, there’s no targeting whatsoever.

Some solutions like Black Arrow and Visible World have done the work to drop themselves into the cable infrastructure for ad delivery, but nobody has seen massive adoption at a scale that would let something happen at the national level. And the cable industry’s internally funded advanced advertising initiative — The Canoe Project — laid off most of its staff last year and has focused on delivering a VOD Clearinghouse to get VOD to scale across cable operators. So in 2013, we’re still not to the point where dynamic video advertising can be delivered on any television show during its broadcast, and even VOD doesn’t yet have a way to easily, cohesively, and dynamically deliver video advertising — let alone providing an RTB marketplace.

On the non-RTB side of programmatic buying and selling, I think we’ll see a lot of progress here in traditional media. Media Ocean has been doing their own flavor of programmatic for quite some time — in fact the Media Ocean name of the post-merger company was a product name within the Donovan Data Systems (DDS) portfolio that helped bind together the DDS TV Buying Product with a Television Network selling product and allowed buyers and sellers to transact on insertion orders programmatically for spot television. With Media Ocean’s new focus on digital media (which is getting rave reviews from folks I’ve talked to who have seen it), there’s little doubt in my mind that these products will extend over to the traditional side of the market and ultimately replace (or be the basis of new versions of) the various legacy products that allowed DDS to dominate the media buying space for decades.

If our industry can get to the point where executing media buys across traditional and digital share a common process until the moment where they diverge from a delivery perspective, I think the market overall will make great headway. And I’m bullish on this — I think we’re not far away but it won’t happen this year.