It’s a delight to see well-thought out and well-reasoned arguments being put forward about online marketing.
I should declare an interest here – I’m VP International for wunderloop, who offer behavioural and other forms of targeting, wrapped in the Connect ad exchange… so I’m not exactly impartial.
However, a dozen or so years in online marketing have shown that success of placing campaigns is rarely single-dimensional. In fact I’d tend to draw it as a compass, with the main axes pointing to geographic, timing (e.g. day and day part), socio-demographic and behaviour/interest based. In the centre of the compass I’d put context – because that is always a factor, regardless of the other targeting elements.
How much of a factor depends (at least in part) on the aims of the campaign – for example: is it the influence of brand associations or is it purely direct response?
Again, this is not a binary question – there are definite shades of grey.
Either way, what the industry is seeing – and accelerated by the current economic conditions – is a shift in buying patterns from premium to discretionary advertising inventory. This is a trend that was happening in any case, but which a softer buying market is accelerating.
Targeting (BT or otherwise) offers benefits on both sides of the media buying/selling equation: buyers can get better placed campaigns to drive whatever measurable benefits the campaign is aimed at; sellers can get a better price for the inventory they select by making sure that they put the right inventory into the mix for their customers.
And what do the audience get?
Content, in one shape or form or another – and mostly free of charge.
When I started in the online business a dozen or so years ago, my dad would always ask “yes, but who PAYS for it?” In the late ’90s, that was a rare question to ask.
Most forms of payment, other than ad-funding, have been gradually debunked: subscriptions models have not really taken off; micro-payments exist but don’t provide the currency to compensate for the development of web systems or creating content; fees from ISPs have been stripped away, packaged or reduced to commodity pricing. So ad-funding is (for most online content) an inevitability – as well as very competitive.
Which means that attempts to add value to discretionary inventory are here to stay too.
| 3.2 |
A year after ESPN cancelled the use of Ad Networks (did anyone else follow suit?) there are rumours of UK publishers doing the same? Is this a myth or a mistake?
I understand why premium publishers are committed to maximising the value of their audience – and often the impact of using ad networks can diminish that value, especially if they are selling ‘inventory’ – or ad impression opportunities – on an undifferentiated basis – or selling ‘pork bellies’, as IAB (US) chair Wenda Harris put it last year .
But of course not all third party sales opportunities are about ’stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap’. There are some credible partners in the marketplace who seek to add value to their networked sales approach. This is not selling pork bellies, but making ready meals, to stretch a poor analogy too far.
All of this reminded me of something I read in the Times this morning about the changes being made over at Unilever by the new chief executive, Paul Polman.
It seems that when, last year, Unilever raised prices on it’s ‘power brands’ at well above the rate of inflation (9%), one of the consequences was a drop in market share. It seems consumers, rather than pay the premium for the power brand, swapped to ‘own brand’ alternatives – note my earlier post about the sacrificial consumer.
Sandlines is of the opinion that we’ll see similar things happening in the online market: if some publishers decide to pull from the networks, they will lose some of their revenue, but it is highly unlikely that enough will do this to reduce the ability of those networks to meet their commitments to provide advertising opportunities to their advertisers and agencies.
In other words, they’ll lose revenue and gain little if anything.
As I hinted at the start, it might be worthwhile for a power brand like ESPN to decline to play the network gain, but it is unlikely to have much impact on the way the online advertising marketplace shapes up during the ‘interesting times’ we find ourselves in.
And, interesting timing, all this coincides with a period when many ‘power brands’ in the online display advertising market here are in the process of building their own ad networks…
What’s wrong with this picture?
| 3.2 |
Recent Comments