Blog

Where’s the innovation in guaranteed ad sales?

Thursday, August 9th, 2012

In “How publishers sell ad inventory,” Eric Picard of Rare Crowds gives a great overview of how guaranteed ad inventory is bought and sold. In his conclusion, he makes an excellent point:

“For all the innovation in the ad-tech space over the last decade, it’s fairly impressive that very few of the core problems of a publisher have been solved. At the end of the day, 60-80 percent of the revenue that publishers bring in comes from their premium inventory, sold on a guaranteed basis — which represents generally less than half of all their available inventory. Nearly all the ad technology innovation in the last decade has focused on what to do with that other half in order to raise the median price of that revenue from nearly zero to a bit more than zero.”

It makes no sense that the big piece of the pie has been neglected by technologists. They’ve been focused on algorithms and transactions to maximize the value of remnant inventory. How about match-making and workflow to maximize the value of premium inventory?

Technology for buying and selling premium is a big opportunity. This is a hot space for innovation.

Building the Core of Your Agency

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

This article was previously published in The Makegood.

Advertising agencies are notoriously inefficient in digital media. A recent study showed that agencies typically spend more than $4,000 in media labor to place an advertisement on a website.

The good news for challengers is there’s a big opportunity to win business away from inefficient agencies by adopting new methods that give you a sustainable competitive advantage. Gaining this advantage starts by understanding your core competencies.

Here’s a handy litmus test: of everything you do at your agency, which of those activities does your client appreciate when you do a great job? Those are your core competencies. Conversely, which activities aren’t noticed even when you do a perfect job? Those are non-core activities.

Core competencies are the defining activities of your agency. A core competency fulfills three key criteria:

1. It differentiates you from your competitors.

2. It’s not easy for your competitors to copy.

3. It’s highly valued by your clients.

Identifying your core competencies is an important exercise because it guides your decisions on how to best allocate your resources. Once you understand your core, you know where to focus your time and money. You also discover where your resources are being squandered because they are diverted away from your core competencies.

To illustrate this concept, see figure 1 for a breakdown of core versus non-core activities of a media agency on a typical digital campaign.

core vs non-core activities at a media agency

In this example, you see that 45% of time and 33% of labor costs are being diverted away from core competencies.

Non-core does not mean not important. For example, it’s critical to traffic tags without error. If not, the campaign would fail and your client would surely be disappointed with you.

How can you perform those non-core activities as efficiently as possible? The goal is to minimize the resources you spend on non-core activities. Cost advantage is a classic competitive advantage and even more powerful in the context of non-core activities.

Outsourcing is one way to reduce non-core activities. In addition to reducing costs, outsourcing insulates your organization from distractions related to running the operation like hiring, training, managing, providing office space, and many others. Outsourcing is common in many industries. For example, consider software companies and their data centers. Despite the mission-critical nature of the data center, the activities involved in running a data center are not a core competency of a software company. Therefore, it’s typical for a software company to outsource their data center to third party specialists. This enables the software company to focus their resources on their core competencies such as building software, selling software, and servicing their clients.

While it’s common for publishers to outsource their ad operations, it’s not yet common for agencies to outsource ad operations. The dynamic nature of agency ad operations makes it difficult to outsource. It’s not a factory job. Working in agency ad ops is like playing in a jazz band. You constantly have to adapt to changes from other “band” members. For example, revisions to creative assets often come without notice to meet client demands. These changes need to be implemented flawlessly without delay and to make beautiful “music” for your client.

“I’d outsource if I could,” says Michelle Burnham of Burnham Marketing. “I tried outsourcing our trafficking and reporting functions. It worked great when there weren’t any changes to the plan. Unfortunately, that’s hardly ever the case in digital. I found myself spending more time documenting what had to change than it would take me to make the changes myself. It was scary when we started running up against deadlines because of the short lead time on these changes. Ultimately, I gave up and brought it back in-house.”

While the benefits of outsourcing non-core activities are clear, it’s also clear that the problems related change management need to be resolved to make it feasible. Agencies that solve this problem will be able to focus their resources on high value activities and to operate more profitably.

Can you outsource your non-core activities? If not, why not? Answering these questions will help you discover weaknesses and opportunities in your agency.

Regardless whether or not you choose to outsource, your strength is at your core. Focus your time and money on your core competencies and you will gain a competitive advantage.

Media Magnet v2.1 gives you Goldilocks and Training Wheels modes

Friday, July 27th, 2012

Media Magnet has been winning praise among digital media veterans because it offers a fresh alternative to the much-maligned RFP process. It just got even better with version 2.1.

Early this morning, our superstar development team rolled out another set of improvements to Media Magnet. Altogether, version 2.1 includes 14 improvements that make it even easier to use.

Goldilocks Mode

As we’ve reviewed these new features, the one customers like the most is the counts in the category selector. It’s a simple but powerful tool. As you see in the screenshot above, each category now displays how many media programs are in the given category. This is helpful in creating a consideration set that’s not too big, not too small, but just right. Goldilocks would love this!

For example, in the Arts & Entertainment category, there are 1,389 media programs… that’s a big category! Maybe it would be a better strategy to pick a sub-category like Humor that only has 51 media programs to refine your consideration set. It all depends on what you and your client need.  The nice thing about this feature is it gives you more insight as you are creating your campaign. So, you can make more informed decisions.

Training Wheels Mode

We’ve also introduced a new “training wheels” mode (that’s what I call it). Previously, when you posted a new campaign it would instantly go live. That’s super-efficient, but sometimes it makes sense to have a review before releasing it. That’s what this new feature is all about. Now, when you post a new campaign we’ll review it with you before it goes out.

With this feature, you don’t have to worry about an embarrassing misfire. It also makes it easier to kick the tires without going live with a campaign.

More to come

We hope you like the new features. Please let us know how we can make it even better!

In Digital Advertising, Time is Money

Friday, July 6th, 2012

This article was originally published in The Makegood.

“I remember to have heard of a notable Woman, who was thoroughly sensible of the intrinsick Value of Time: Her Husband was a Shoe-maker, and an excellent Crafts-man; but never minded how the Minutes passed. In vain did his Wife inculcate to him, That Time is Money: He had too much Wit to apprehend her; and he cursed the Parish-Clock, every Night; which at last brought him to his Ruin;”
Ambrose Philips, 1719

With all the advanced technology in digital advertising today, you would think that placing an advertisement on a website would be as easy as clicking a button. Not so. In fact, the current reality is quite the opposite. It’s amazing how laborious, tedious, and expensive it is.

Brian Morrissey wrote about this problem in “Beefing up Banner Ads”:

“The dirty secret of Web advertising is the actual process of buying and selling ads isn’t very efficient. Compared to the TV industry, where a few dozen players can move billions of dollars, the legwork it takes to execute a Web ad campaign is laughable. According to ThinkEquity, administrative processes eat up 28 percent of the costs in Web advertising versus 2 percent in TV.”

That 28% online versus 2% TV overhead statistic has been used in presentations by Google and countless others to put a spotlight on the inefficiency in the process of placing an advertisement online (and to justify big investments in new technology). It’s a statistic that may have launched a thousand startups.

We recently took this research in a different direction with a study that asked the question “how much does it cost an agency to create and execute a digital media plan?” By using Activity-Based Costing and understanding all the tasks, roles, time, and hourly costs involved with the process, we calculated that it takes an agency 482.5 hours and costs an agency $40,356.36 in labor costs to spend $500,000 assuming 10 sites with 10 placements each. In other words, on average it takes 48.25 hours and costs $4,035 to place an ad on a website.

That’s a lot of time and money.

digital media time and money

The research showed 8% overhead expense in the agency’s media department (note: this number does not include creative and other expenses outside of agency media labor). This seemed high. However, in discussing this research with agency media executives, we learned that 8% is actually on the low side of the spectrum and that that 10-12% is a typical rule of thumb for digital media.

Online advertising is often sold on accountability. This accountability comes at a price. We found that 64% of the time spent on an online campaign is spent in implementation, execution, and reporting. Much of this time is spent manually copying and pasting data from one system to another because of lack of tools and integration. Microsoft Excel is still the tool of choice to fill the gaps and to tie it all together. TV does not have the extra burden of accountability at this level of detail (although that may change as TV becomes addressable).

This high cost situation is ripe for disruption. Cost advantage is a classic, powerful competitive advantage. Conversely, cost disadvantage is a classic weakness.

Agencies that employ inefficient manual processes and pass those costs along to their advertiser clients are in a risky position.

Procurement officers who look at this situation see an opportunity to squeeze out the inefficiency.

Entrepreneurs who look at this situation see a big opportunity. It only takes a quick glance at Terry Kawaja’s Lumascape to be overwhelmed by the innovation in advertising technology. To date, this innovation has been largely directed at remnant inventory, which is a small portion of the spending in digital advertising. However, direct sold inventory is next.

Agencies have a window of opportunity to take control of the situation and to gain a competitive advantage. Streamlining agency operations through workflow automation is the key and will be the subject of future articles in this column.

ICO Cookie Monster Strikes Tomorrow

Friday, May 25th, 2012

May 25, 2012

On May 26, 2011, a new web privacy law came into effect in the United Kingdom (UK). The UK was first of the 27 European Union (EU) states to bring their laws in line with the directive intended to protect the privacy of individuals within the EU. With an understanding that there is work to be done and technical issues to resolve, the UK Government extended a one-year grace period for web sites to comply with the new regulations.

Well, the time as come! Effective tomorrow, the grace period is over and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) will be authorized to impose fines of up to £500,000 — heavy!. In theory, all web sites that serve UK visitors would be subject to this legislation. In reality however, it will be very hard to pursue a case against companies with no legal presence in the EU.

While a few organizations may be looking to leverage web server locations as a scapegoat, it is the location of the legal entities that the enforcement agencies will be focused on– the web host locations won’t matter. There are many types of cookies and forms of consent, so the rules can get pretty complicated. So before you decide to cuddle with the cookie monster, consider that he can complicate your life and confine your business. For example, the legislation does not require consent for cookies to be used in situations defined as ‘strictly necessary’ — but what does that mean? As currently clarified, if a user has placed an order online, then it’s implied by the user’s initial request that permission be granted without further consent to interfere with the transaction. This is just one example of an exemption to the consent requirement, and there are likely to be many more as the battle continues. Very few precedents have been set, so it will be interesting to watch the progression in Europe — and to compare and contrast with the ‘Do Not Track’ agendas in the United States.

To further complicate the legislative implications, take a peek at the definition of “Consent” as noted in the Open letter on the UK implementation of Article 5(3) of the e-Privacy Directive on cookies: “Consent” is defined in the Data Protection Directive as “any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes.” Note that there are no time constraints associated with this definition, and no specification that the consent must be “prior consent”. Therefore, it is possible that consent may be given after or during processing.

While a few of us may start to feel better about our online privacy, and I’d expect virtually none from the online marketing communities, this legislation has negative implications. The efforts required to acquire informed consent on the use of cookies are likely to be costly for web site owners and businesses. Non-compliant web site owners will have an advantage as well, because their users will not be faced with questions that interfere with their browsing and buying activities.

Is the EU agenda overkill? Why can’t we just rely on innovative solutions that work with our browsers, like Ghostery for instance, to give us better insight and control?

To learn more about online behavioral advertising using cookies, take a look at the video below from Christina Tsuei at The Wall Street Journal. This was created back in 2010, but still very relevant and helpful for understanding how cookies work.

5,000+ Top Digital Media Ad Programs Now Available In NextMark

Thursday, April 26th, 2012

NextMark has hit yet another milestone with the Digital Media Advertising Index: more than 5,000 of the top digital media advertising programs are now represented via data cards. It was just four months ago that we hit the 2,500 record milestone. Great momentum!

The top publishers have been very enthusiastic about posting their data cards in the index for four good reasons:
1) It makes it easier for media planners to find them
2) It makes it easier for media planners to buy from them
3) It’s easy to use
4) It’s free

The data card index complements other website indexing services like those from comScore, Nielsen, and Google that to a great job with website metrics such as number of visitors, page views, and basic visitor demographics. Those other services help media planners to find sites on which to advertise, but they don’t answer all questions a media planner needs to know when building a media plan such as:

  • “Does the site accept advertising?”
  • “What more can you tell me about the site and the visitors?”
  • “What are the placement options?”
  • “How much inventory is available?”
  • “How much does it cost?”
  • “Who do I contact for more information?”

Those are the types of questions that are answered on NextMark’s data cards. Data cards have been used by media planners for years in other traditional media channels through SRDS, NextMark, and others. However, it’s been effectively absent from digital media. NextMark is trailblazing this initiative by adapting and evolving the data card concept for digital media.

The goal of the index is simple: to make it easier for media planners to find, compare, and buy digital media advertising programs.

What we learned in launching the RFC

Monday, April 9th, 2012

On February 17, 2012, we quietly launched an alternative to the much-maligned RFP called the Request for Consideration or RFC. The aim of the RFC is to provide a better way for buyers and sellers of digital media to connect and collaborate on media plans. The goal of the RFC is to eliminate the hassles of the RFP while encouraging more innovation.  We also launched two products support the new RFC method: (1) Media Magnet for Media Planners and (2) Compass for Publishers.

As with any new product launch, listening and adapting is the key to success. I never get anything right on the first try. Here’s what we’ve learned from agencies and publishers since introducing the RFC seven weeks ago.

What we learned from Agencies

As any sales rep will attest, it’s not easy getting a meeting with a media director. They are incredibly busy people with jammed calendars. Despite their busy schedules, many have asked us to come in to show them and their teams the RFC and Media Magnet. I think they’ve invited us mainly because they hate the RFP and are hungry for an alternative.

So far, 31 leading digital agencies have begun using Media Magnet and 6 more are being set up this week. I’m very pleased with the initial adoption by these great companies and grateful for working with them to improve the industry workflow.  I’m also happy to report that 100% of the agencies we’ve met with have signed on to try Media Magnet.

In initially introducing Media Magnet, we presented agencies with two key benefits: efficiency and innovation. We discovered a third unforeseen benefit through these initial discussions: organization of proposals. One of the challenges that agencies face is tracking and managing of all the proposals they get. We thought it was a given that the Media Magnet should be good at organizing information. We did not realize how much of an improvement it was over existing systems (emails, file servers, etc.). So, we are now including organization as a key benefit.

We learned that agencies want a lot of visibility and control. That’s not really a surprise. In our initial implementation, the list of publishers who received campaign alerts was not displayed. Media planners need to be able to see this list and to be able to control it.  They want to be able to add and remove publishers from the list.

We made a mistake in positioning Media Magnet as a standalone product that runs alongside other RFP tools. We assumed that every agency already had good RFP automation.  Since Media Magnet implements a fundamentally different process (the RFC), our initial approach was to say, “keep using whatever you are using today for RFPs and use Media Magnet to source additional ideas with minimal effort with the RFC.” But this has resulted in proposals coming in from two different directions. Media Planners want all their proposals from all sources in one place.  They don’t want to get proposals from RFPs one way and proposals from RFCs another way.

We also learned that Media Magnet should be extended to support the RFP process. As one media director put it, “You are selling the product short by limiting it to the RFC. You could easily add RFP capabilities.” Easier said than done, but the point was well-taken. It makes sense to be able to run RFPs and RFCs through a single interface.

We’re now in the process of building version 2.0 of Media Magnet, which incorporates the initial learnings: transparency and control of alerts and RFP automation. We’re already pretty far along with the development and it should be out by the end of this month (exact date TBD).

What we learned from Publishers

Publishers are also willing to try out the RFC.  Hundreds of publishers are already getting campaign alerts.  22 publishers have already signed up for “Pro” Compass accounts which gives them access to the Campaign Navigator and all the campaigns on the system. Another 27 have requested free trials and are in the process of getting set up.

Publishers are impressed by the clean and simple design of the product. However, to our dismay, they don’t care about technology.  As one ad sales rep put it, “The last thing I need is another system to log into.” What they care most about is qualified sales leads.  They like when they get an email saying, “Here’s a new campaign that matches your inventory. Check it out.”

We’ve no significant product enhancement requests from publishers. What they want is more sales leads. Publishers want us to ramp up the number of campaigns in the system.  There’s only been a trickle of campaigns so far because we are just starting to get agencies up and running on the system.  You can expect a significant increase in the coming weeks.  Until that trickle becomes a flow, publishers will continue to get free access to Compass.

What is the RFC – Request for Consideration (vs. RFP)?

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

The “RFC” or “Request for Consideration” is new method of media planning that was introduced by NextMark in February 2012. The RFC is an alternative/complement to the “RFP” or “Request for Proposal” process that has been traditionally used in the media buying/selling process.

The RFP and RFC are both methods for match-making among buyers and sellers. With the RFP, the buyer requests proposals from sellers. The RFC takes the opposite approach and turns the RFP process inside out. With the RFC, sellers request consideration from the buyer. In other words, the seller says “Here’s why I think this program deserves to be in your media plan. Will you please consider it?”

The motivation for the RFC is the universal dissatisfaction with the RFP. It seems nobody in digital media likes the RFP.

This inspiration for the RFC comes from interviews with buyers and sellers and an understanding of the dynamics of today’s digital media marketplace. The RFP works great in an environment where the options are limited, well-known and relatively static – like TV was in 1962. Fast forward 50 years to today’s digital media and you find the opposite: tens of thousands of options that change every day. It’s virtually impossible for a digital media buyer to keep up with the market and to make efficient and optimal decisions. The RFC addresses this problem by shifting the burden of proof from the buyer to the seller and gives the seller more responsibility in the match-making process.

RFC processThe RFC employs a patent-pending method and protocol between buyers and sellers. The RFC match-making algorithm utilizes NextMark’s proprietary index of the top digital media programs. As you see in the the attached flowchart, the process starts and ends with the media planner. The media planner makes all decisions regarding the media plan.  However, with the RFC the seller has the ability to discover the campaign and make a proposal without requiring the media planner to specifically request it. This opens up the process to both innovation and efficiency. In implementing the RFC, it’s important to include spam controls and identity protection to protect the time of the media planner. Otherwise, more time will be wasted than saved.

The RFC is currently implemented in two commercially available products by NextMark: (1) Media Magnet for media planners and (2) Compass for ad salespeople. Both products access the RFC platform via a web API. The RFC engine and API is available to third party software developers via licensing agreement.

Ditching the RFP

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

In yesterday’s Digiday, Brian Morrissey wrote about “Ditching the RFP.” Agencies and publishers both universally dislike the RFP process. Finally, alternatives are actively being developed:

“A pair of efforts are underway to change the dreaded RFP process. NextMark  wants to turn it on its head, taking a page out of the Lending Tree model. The idea behind its “request for consideration” is rather than sending out RFPs to dozens of publishers, media planners would simply post the specifics of what the campaign (budget, campaign dates, target audience) to a site that would match it to likely publisher candidates. Another effort by video ad exchange Adap.tv wants to adapt the auction models that are popular in real-time bidding for reserved buys. And Google, ever the critic of waste in ad buying, is rolling out a “direct deals interface” in April that it promises will eliminate the need for a flurry of emails and phone calls between buyers and sellers.”

[See the full story on Digiday]

The RFC has only been available for 11 days, but already 22 agencies are actively testing the RFC as an alternative / complement to the RFP process.

FYI Free trials of NextMark’s implementation of the “Request for Consideration” or “RFC” are available. Choose from the  two applications that support the RFC:
1) Media Magnet for media planners/buyers at digital agencies
2) Compass for ad salespeople at digital publishers

 

RFP event in Boston draws a crowd

Friday, February 24th, 2012

Riding the momentum from their successful event in NYC, the Online Marketing Network brought their Inner Circle Series to Boston. More than 125 media buyers and sellers convened at the Marriott Copley last night to “Learn How to Earn RFP’s and Win Media Business.”

The agenda was similar to the one in NYC, but the discussion was fresh because of the new set of experts.

Panel 1 – Getting on the RFP List

The first panel’s topic was “Getting on the RFP List.” It was moderated by Susan Beard, National Account Manager at The Washington Post Digital. The panelists were:

Here are some of my notes from the session:

  • Melissa – “Most of my team would say they don’t have enough time at their desk to get their work done.”
  • Paula – “I’m at my desk until 9:30 a.m. then gone to 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. when I catch up and get more work done.”
  • Melissa – “I like it when a vendor sends me an Outlook invite after we’ve set up a meeting because it gets it right into my calendar and I won’t accidentally double-book it.”
  • Melissa – “Don’t waste time in a meeting going through roles and clients. Get that up front because it’s a waste of time away from your offer”
  • Paula – “We try to keep our vendor meetings to 30 minutes. Plan for 20.”
  • Paula – “Visuals are good. Powerpoint is good as long as it is well put-together.”
  • Paula – “I have no hope of responding to every email because otherwise I’d be working 50 hours per day.”
  • Melissa – “Expect a 30 minute meeting.  However, you can get a full hour if you bring us lunch.”
  • Melissa – “We try to meet with everyone.  However, expect at least a six week lead time when setting up a meeting because we are so backed up.”

After the panel, I asked Melissa about her perspective on meeting with vendors. She told me that she follows the advice that Sarah Fay gave her when she was working for her at Carat. Sarah advised that you never know where people will end up and you should always treat them with respect.  Plus, you have to meet new people to get new ideas. That’s great advice.  Should we say that Melissa follow the “Fay Doctrine” in dealing with vendors?

I can certainly attest to Melissa’s willingness to meet. She met with me back when our Media Magnet and the Digital Media Planning Systems were just a concept and we wanted to validate our assumptions. She and her team met with us and provided some great feedback that helped us to design better products.  And, because we bought lunch, we got the full hour!

Panel 2 – Getting on the Media Plan

The second panel, moderated by Anthony DeMaio, Director East Coast Advertising at The Washington Post Digital, was on the subject of “Getting on the Media Plan.” The Panelists were:

Some of my notes from this session:

  • Victor – “The difference maker in the RFP is the people that come in, whether or not I trust them, whether they have good ideas, and they are different. What wins is the people and the ideas.”
  • Andrew – “The number of RFPs depends on many factors.  Typically 5-10 per campaign.”
  • Victor – “I don’t want my agency wasting time summarizing proposals. Instead, I ask them to rip the most important page out the proposal and I read that.”
  • Victor – “I have some advice to vendors: no one is the best. No one is world class. No one is one of a kind. No ones is state of the art. So, don’t tell me that because it is a turn off.”
  • Andrew – “What I like about the RFC is it organizes information and has the potential for innovative and brilliant ideas.”
  • Kaileen – “We like to host a media day where we bring in all the vendors and give them each some time.”
  • Andrew – “It sticks with me when the vendor brings in useful market research.”
  • Kaileen – “Mobile remarketing is an example of something that is innovative.”
  • Victor – “Everything has to be multi-channel. No channel is a silo anymore.”
  • Kaileen – “If you follow up, you need to add value every time you do. For example, updated information or a better price.”
  • Victor – “Effectiveness is what wins. I’m okay with trying something new and failing.”