tag:econsultancy.com,2008:/topics/media-planning-buying Latest Media planning & buying content from Econsultancy 2018-03-15T15:20:22+00:00 tag:econsultancy.com,2008:Report/4739 2018-03-15T15:20:22+00:00 2018-03-15T15:20:22+00:00 Second-Party Data <p>First-party data at scale sounds unattainable. But by creating second-party data pools, brands and publishers can vastly increase the applicability of their customer data. This report, created in partnership with <a href="https://www.salesforce.com/products/marketing-cloud/data-management/"><strong>Salesforce</strong></a>, addresses the fundamental questions about second-party data so it can move from abstract concept to specific strategy.</p> <p>The promise of customer data has tantalized brands for the better part of a decade. Their interest was focused on the maturation of the programmatic marketplace, where it became possible to easily buy audiences instead of space. The evolution of the ecosystem has been fueled by previously underutilized troves of customer and aggregate data.</p> <p>Today, it’s clear that huge stockpiles of data processed and sorted by third parties only hold the solutions to some of marketers’ needs. For data to be effective in digital media, it needs to balance quantity with quality and relevance. As the ad ecosystem evolves, marketers demand more certainty, accuracy and trust in the data that underlies their efforts.</p> <p>In recent years, the industry has begun exploring the value of second-party data—another brand’s first-party data acquired directly through partnership. The use of second-party data is no longer a nascent opportunity. We now can lay out guidelines for how to select partners whose data can enliven your campaigns, how to navigate walled-garden environments, and how to apply this data without risking your partners’ security or users’ privacy.</p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69802 2018-02-14T11:06:52+00:00 2018-02-14T11:06:52+00:00 Unilever fires a shot across the bow of Google and Facebook, but is it all bark and no bite? Patricio Robles <p>Despite the fact that they rely heavily on Google and Facebook, advertisers in particular are increasingly vocal about these companies' shortcomings and have started showing a willingness to put their money where their mouths are. For example, a little over a year ago, Google-owned YouTube was the subject of a temporary mass advertiser boycott after it came to light that ads from top brands were being displayed alongside extremist content.</p> <p>Both Google and Facebook have taken steps to placate the advertisers that fill their corporate coffers with cash but many advertisers still aren't satisfied that the efforts are bearing enough fruit quickly enough.</p> <p>Case in point: at the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) annual leadership meeting held in Palm Desert, California this week, Keith Weed, the CMO for Unilever, <a href="https://qz.com/1204787/unilever-un-is-threatening-to-pull-out-of-facebook-and-google/">issued a blunt warning to Google and Facebook</a>: clean up your act or we will stop sending you our ad dollars.</p> <p>“We cannot have an environment where our consumers don't trust what they see online,” he told attendees. “We cannot continue to prop up a digital supply chain-one that delivers over a quarter of our advertising to our consumers-which at times is little better than a swamp in terms of its transparency.”</p> <p>He elaborated: </p> <blockquote> <p>Consumers don't care about third party verification. They do care about fraudulent practice, fake news, and Russians influencing the US election. They don't care about good value for advertisers. But they do care when they see their brands being placed next to ads funding terror, or exploiting children. They don't care about sophisticated data usage or ad targeting via complex algorithms, but they do care about not seeing the same ad 100 times a day. They don't care about ad fraud, but they do care about their data being misused and stolen.</p> </blockquote> <p>Unilever, of course, is the second largest advertiser in the world, so when its CMO speaks, companies that rely on ad dollars listen. With Google and Facebook being the recipients of nearly three quarters of digital ad spend in the U.S., nobody has a greater incentive to listen than they do.</p> <p>And they would be wise to listen because there is no doubt that they have room to improve. For instance, <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69709-will-influencer-marketing-take-a-hit-after-the-logan-paul-firestorm/">the recent drama with YouTube star Logan Paul</a> raises questions about how Google polices its most prominent content creators. Paul came under fire after he posted a grotesque and disturbing video filmed in Japan's “suicide forest.” Google-owned YouTube removed Paul from its Google Preferred program, which offers top creators access to the best advertisers and guaranteed placements.</p> <p>But not a month later, Paul was in hot water again for posting more disturbing videos, including one in which he shocked a rat with a Taser. In response, YouTube declared that his content was “unsuitable for brands” <a href="https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/logan-paul-youtube-advertising-suspended-1202693482/">and demonetized his channel</a>, a move that could cost Paul an estimated $1.2m a month while the demonetization remains in effect. But <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/02/13/youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-says-logan-paul-hasnt-done-anything/">according to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki</a>, Paul's disturbing behavior doesn't warrant a total ban from the popular video platform.</p> <p>The situation with Paul, who has 15m subscribers and is one of YouTube's biggest homegrown stars, highlights just how significant the challenges Google and Facebook face are. After all, if Google struggles with one of its most prominent content creators, how could it ever deal with the countless small fish in Weed's so-called “swamp”?</p> <h3>So what is an advertiser like Unilever to do?</h3> <p>Is it inevitably going to find itself having to cut ties with Google and Facebook, or will it be forced to back down?</p> <p>Part of the problem advertisers face with Google and Facebook is that their services are underpinned by content they don't produce or own. Google the search engine scours the web and uses algorithms to determine how it should be delivered to users when they perform searches. Algorithms will never be perfect and human intervention won't always be either.</p> <p>Google-owned YouTube is a video platform that allows anybody to upload and publish videos they have created and Facebook is a social network with well over a billion active users, all of whom can pretty much post whatever content they want to their accounts.</p> <p>While this doesn't mean that Google and Facebook shouldn't and can't do anything about the content present on their services – they should and can – Google and Facebook aren't newspapers or television channels either. </p> <p>Unlike newspapers, which have a limited number of pages, and television channels, which have a limited number of programming hours, there's almost no physical limit to how much content Google and Facebook can handle and make available to the world. But there are physical limits to how much moderation and curation they can perform. </p> <p>Advertisers, it would seem, have lost sight of that.</p> <p>Despite the known risks of advertising against user-generated content – risks that were widely discussed years ago when the ad offerings of Facebook and YouTube were in their infancy – companies like Unilever voted with their wallets. Consumers embraced platforms dependent on user-generated content and advertisers followed them. Today, brands spend tens of billions of dollars a year buying ad inventory associated in some way with user-generated content.</p> <p>While advertisers can pull back – P&amp;G, for instance, <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69531-direct-ad-buys-are-back-in-fashion-as-programmatic-declines">cut $100m from its digital ad budget</a> – the reality is there's no turning back. Google and Facebook are for all intents and purposes digital advertising and advertisers can only shift so much spend around them. While threats make for good headlines, advertisers are likely to find that threats do little to address the problems they're concerned about.</p> <p>Instead, if they want to clean up the swamp they largely funded, advertisers are going to have to get their hands dirty too.</p> <p><em><strong>For Econsultancy subscribers:</strong></em></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://econsultancy.com/reports/paid-social-media-advertising">Paid Social Media Advertising Best Practice Guide</a></li> </ul> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69783 2018-02-08T14:30:00+00:00 2018-02-08T14:30:00+00:00 How sports advertisers should react to changing media consumption Patricio Robles <p>But brands that advertise against sporting properties might have bigger reasons to worry: <a href="https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/10/03/Research-and-Ratings/Ratings.aspx">viewership</a> and attendance of live sporting events has been on the decline, and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-premier-league-viewership-dip-has-raised-doubts-about-live-sports-2017-6">not just in</a> the National Football League (NFL), which has been dealing with <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/news/sports/ubs-survey-anthem-protests-top-reasons-nfl-ratings-declines/417971">politically-charged controversy</a>.</p> <p>It's not that sports are less popular. It's that the way individuals are consuming sports content has changed.</p> <p>Perhaps the best evidence of that comes in the form of new data Google released based on an analysis of sports content consumption on YouTube.</p> <p><a href="https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/consumer-insights/sports-fans-video-insights/">According to Google</a>, “watchtime of sports 'highlight' videos on YouTube grew more than 80% in the past year.” In some sports that figure is even higher. For example, searches for American football highlights nearly doubled on YouTube in the past year.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/2135/google_youtube_sports1.png" alt="" width="779" height="196"></p> <p>There was also a 60% jump in the watchtime of sports “interview” videos on YouTube in 2017.</p> <p>While these statistics don't mean that individuals aren't tuning into live sporting events on television or though streaming services – many still are and doing so through multiple screens, sometimes simultaneously – when the live attendance and viewership declines are taken into account, it seems apparent that a growing number of fans are not only time-shifting their viewing of sporting events but opting to limit their consumption to segments of a full broadcast, such as highlights of key moments in a match.</p> <p>The implications of this shift in behavior are wide-ranging. For example, it could eventually impact the value of broadcast rights and naming rights which, in turn, could have an impact on the value of teams and player compensation packages. </p> <p>For advertisers, it's not too early to start thinking about how this shift in consumption behavior will impact their ability to use sports to reach consumers and how their strategies and media buying activities should change. In fact, this is an activity they arguably need to be doing now.</p> <p>For example, brands might find that advertising against television and digital properties that feature highlight reels offers increasingly more bang for the buck than, say, signage and live broadcast television ads, which for obvious reasons tend to be most expensive.</p> <p>Brands that have invested in sponsorships should also reconsider how they activate against their sponsorships. Google revealed that searches for “how to” sports videos on YouTube have more than doubled in the past year. A brand that has a relationship with a professional athlete, for instance, could take advantage of this to create how-to content with the athlete instead of yet another traditional ad.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0009/2136/google_youtube_sports2.png" alt="" width="593" height="309"></p> <p>To be sure, changes in consumer behavior will create challenges for brands, especially those that have already made long-term commitments to a sporting property, but for brands that are smart and nimble, the shifts could bring with them many interesting and worthwhile opportunities. </p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:TrainingDate/3417 2018-01-25T17:15:50+00:00 2018-01-25T17:15:50+00:00 Creating Inspiring Briefs & Giving Effective Feedback <p>Great creative work can give you an unfair advantage, that’s a fact. It always starts with a great brief that is insightful, challenging and inspiring – and also relies on your ability to truly spot and nurture the best ideas. This workshop will help.</p> <p>It will instil the techniques and confidence in writing better quality briefs and giving inspirational briefings, along with the core skills involved in creative judgment and giving constructive feedback.</p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:TrainingDate/3416 2018-01-25T17:14:02+00:00 2018-01-25T17:14:02+00:00 Creating Inspiring Briefs & Giving Effective Feedback <p>Great creative work can give you an unfair advantage, that’s a fact. It always starts with a great brief that is insightful, challenging and inspiring – and also relies on your ability to truly spot and nurture the best ideas.</p> <p>This workshop will help. It will instil the techniques and confidence in writing better quality briefs and giving inspirational briefings, along with the core skills involved in creative judgment and giving constructive feedback.</p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69672 2018-01-02T11:40:00+00:00 2018-01-02T11:40:00+00:00 If PPC is a line item on your media plan, you're not very good at it Daniel Gilbert <p>PPC is being commoditized under the holding company model. This needs to change.</p> <p><a href="https://econsultancy.com/reports/paid-search-marketing-ppc-best-practice-guide/">Running a successful PPC campaign</a> requires a high level of specialism; it is completely discrete from other types of media, and needs to be respected as such rather than being bundled together with traditional advertising channels.</p> <h3><strong>PPC is reactive </strong></h3> <p>I get it. If you’re an international brand with a huge media budget, it’s just a lot easier to incorporate PPC into one big package. The problem is, PPC is not something you buy up-front. If you fix your PPC spend before measuring its performance, you’re not going to get the results you want. Either you’ll spend too little or too much. </p> <p>Because AdWords is so measurable, it’s possible to adopt an outcome-driven approach through this channel. Once you start running a campaign, it may be that you need far less money than anticipated to achieve your objective; or it may be that you need far more. Setting a limit on this before you’ve had a chance to assess the market is madness. </p> <h3><strong>There are no rebates in PPC</strong></h3> <p>Unlike virtually every other advertising channel, a platform such as AdWords provides no opportunities for rebates, nor any of the non-transparent practices that are commonplace elsewhere in media buying. The only way to make profit on it, is to do it better than the rest - which is hard when it’s not your specialism.</p> <p>I don’t want to drag on the transparency debate. It really comes down to different business models in the end. If you’re looking to get a good deal on a large quantity of premium media inventory, then you need buying power. If you’re looking to drive business growth through PPC, there are definitely better options. </p> <p>If, as Gideon Spanier recently wrote, ‘things have got to change’, maybe this is a good starting point. Let’s cut PPC from the media plan, and put it in the hands of independent agencies that know how to do it best. Then we can start talking about <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69671-programmatic-advertising-trends-in-2018-what-do-the-experts-predict">programmatic display</a>, <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69559-ask-the-experts-how-to-integrate-your-programmatic-and-tv-ad-strategy">TV</a> and radio...</p> <h3> <strong>PPC is for specialists</strong> </h3> <p>Perhaps people underestimate the complexity of successful PPC. Take AdWords as an example. It’s a platform that changes every month: new ways of reporting, changes to its metrics, adaptations of its ad unit, new targeting options, new bidding options, gradual tweaks to its primary algorithms, and the ongoing shift in the way people search.</p> <p>Just to cope with these changes requires considerable adaptability. But to outperform the millions of advertisers you are in competition with, that requires the concerted effort of an entire business. Building software to enhance capability, using automation to optimise every process within account management, processing the enormous supply of data any campaign acquires - these are challenges that require teams of experts. </p> <p>Agencies can give advertisers the competitive edge, by supplying them with the additional expertise and technology needed to stand out from the crowd. Ultimately, this comes down to data and automation—being able to extract value from the enormous supply of data that digital advertising involves, and using automation to enhance capability. </p> <p>This is why PPC should have long ago been cut from the media plan of advertisers. It never belonged there. It is not something you buy up-front, and it’s certainly not something you let run.</p> <p>It requires a completely different skillset. Data analysis, the ability to operate and develop automation technology, coding, maths, science. It is just not suitable for traditional media companies. </p> <p>So if PPC is on your media plan, I’m sorry to say that you must not be very good at it.</p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69596 2017-11-23T10:14:54+00:00 2017-11-23T10:14:54+00:00 Digital publishers fall back to earth Patricio Robles <p>The company was a poster child for the rise of digital publishers. Founded in 2005 by then 19 year-old Pete Cashmore in his home in Aberdeen, Scotland, Mashable grew its audience to 30m-plus and its social media followers to more than 14m before it raised outside capital for the first time in 2014.</p> <p>At the time it decided to take investor money, Cashmore boasted that Mashable was profitable and spoke of a bright future. "What's exciting is that we are only just beginning to realize the potential we have to build a new kind of company, which is equal parts media and technology," he stated.</p> <p>But in just a few short years, Mashable's fortunes appear to have reversed. While the company reportedly achieved good revenue growth, it apparently spent far more than it took in; the Wall Street Journal says the company was set to realize a sizable loss in 2017.</p> <p>But Mashable isn't the only digital publisher that appears to have hit a bump in the road. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/buzzfeed-set-to-miss-revenue-target-signaling-turbulence-in-media-1510861771">According to</a> the Wall Street Journal, an even larger name in the digital media space, BuzzFeed, "is on track to miss its revenue target this year by a significant amount" and as a result, the company's plans to go public next year are looking less viable.</p> <h3>Is there a digital media crash taking place?</h3> <p>Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theres-a-digital-media-crash-but-no-one-will-say-it">suggests</a> that "there's a digital media crash...but no one will say it" and even for those who believe such an argument is exaggerated, it does appear that an important shift is now taking place.</p> <p>The rise of digital publishers like BuzzFeed and Mashable has been fueled by the rise of the digital ad market. As advertisers shifted more and more of their money to digital, the piece of the pie available to top digital publishers grew.</p> <p>These digital publishers were eager to capitalize. Not only did they prove adept at leveraging their young brands and impressive audiences, they were quicker than many established publishers to embrace new digital ad formats. BuzzFeed, for instance, was a native advertising pioneer and up until recently, actually favored it over display advertising.</p> <p>In Mashable's case, the company built on its success as a tech blog and expanded its audience by extending its coverage to topics like entertainment, culture and business. Last year, it embraced video in a big way in an obvious effort to take advantage of advertisers' seemingly insatiable demand for video ad inventory. And it even operated Mashable BrandLab, an agency-like division that "helps...clients become content creators and amplify their social media assets."</p> <p>But despite their ability to grow their audiences, innovate, and develop offerings designed to help them get cozier with advertisers, it's now clear that the laws of gravity applied to digital publishers too. In other words, they face many of the same challenges as the established publishers they have eclipsed online.</p> <p>Good content, especially video content, is costly to produce regardless of whether you're New Media or Old Media. Initiatives designed to forge stronger advertiser relationships, such as Mashable's BrandLab, are also expensive and as the Wall Street Journal noted, hard to scale up. And despite the fact that they probably should have known better, upstart publishers proved they can splurge on non-necessities like swanky offices and high-profile hires just as well as their older competitors.</p> <p>At the same time, the digital ad market has changed. Advertisers are more savvy and thanks to concerns over issues like <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69276-following-youtube-s-brand-safety-backlash-will-ad-relevance-take-center-stage">brand safety</a> and <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/67246-advertisers-willing-to-shift-spend-over-viewability-report">viewability</a>, publishers don't have it as easy. Growth of both <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/67076-the-rise-and-rise-of-ad-blockers-stats">ad blockers</a> and <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69125-despite-losses-of-6-5bn-there-is-some-good-news-in-the-fight-against-ad-fraud">ad fraud</a> is problematic and, perhaps most importantly, the <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69381-the-google-facebook-duopoly-extends-to-mobile-apps-what-can-marketers-do">so-called duopoloy of Google and Facebook</a> has only strengthened. This has meant that even though the digital ad pie is growing, lots of the growth – virtually all of it according to some estimates – is going to Google and Facebook.</p> <h3>Where to from here?</h3> <p>Obviously, it's not all doom and gloom for digital publishers. BuzzFeed might not be able to go public in 2018, and the price Ziff Davis paid for Mashable is certainly a huge wake-up call, but just as many disrupted established publishers have not gone out of business, there's no reason to believe that the survival of the brightest stars of digital publishing will be disappearing any time soon. At least not yet.</p> <p>It is clear, however, that those looking to avoid the fate of the companies they so thoroughly disrupted will need to make big changes, and that will give established publishers who have been transforming themselves into digital publishers time to play catch up.</p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69586 2017-11-15T14:30:00+00:00 2017-11-15T14:30:00+00:00 After Keurig faces social media backlash, brands need to get smart about advertising and politics Patricio Robles <p>It has found itself in the cross hairs after it pulled its ads from <em>Hannity</em>, a political commentary cable program that is broadcast on the conservative Fox News network.</p> <p>The show and its host, Sean Hannity, has come under fire after he conducted an interview with Roy Moore, a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has been accused of inappropriate behavior with underage girls.</p> <p>After being asked why it its ads appeared on <em>Hannity</em>, the company announced on Twitter that it was taking action to ensure its ads would not appear on the program.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Angelo, thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show.</p> — Keurig (@Keurig) <a href="https://twitter.com/Keurig/status/929404968750198786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2017</a> </blockquote> <p>That was welcome news to some, but others saw Keurig's move as political cow-tailing and a fierce backlash ensued. #BoycottKeurig became a top trending topic on Twitter, and individuals even began posting videos in which they destroyed their Keurig machines in what might be one of the most visually impactful brand boycotts seen yet.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Liberals are offended by this video of a Keurig being thrown off of a building.</p> <p>Please retweet to offend a Liberal.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottKeurig?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BoycottKeurig</a><a href="https://t.co/0qbHlmyqcA">pic.twitter.com/0qbHlmyqcA</a></p> — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) <a href="https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/929777702537543681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 12, 2017</a> </blockquote> <h3>Forget brand safety. Companies need brand savvy</h3> <p>So what to make of the situation? It's simple: Keurig messed up. Big time. In fact, the Keurig's CEO has even <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/11/13/keurig-ceo-tweet-regarding-hannity-created-an-unacceptable-situation">admitted as much</a>. In a statement, he wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>In most situations such as this one, we would "pause" our advertising on that particular program and reevaluate our go-forward strategy at a later date. That represents a prudent "business as usual" decision for us, as the protection of our brand is our foremost concern. However, the decision to publicly communicate our programming decision via our Twitter account was highly unusual. This gave the appearance of "taking sides" in an emotionally charged debate that escalated on Twitter and beyond over the weekend, which was not our intent.</p> <p>I want you to know the decision to communicate our short-term media actions on Twitter was done outside of company protocols. Clearly, this is an unacceptable situation that requires an overhaul of our issues response and external communications policies and the introduction of safeguards to ensure this never happens again. Our company and brand reputations are too valuable to be put at risk in this manner.</p> </blockquote> <p>For his part, Sean Hannity has called Keurig a victim and said that the company was "preyed on" by an organization that he claims has been targeting brands that advertise on his program.</p> <p>Notwithstanding the fact that Hannity is using this incident as a way to hit back at an organization he has been dueling with, there is a valid point here: in today's highly polarized political environment, there are a growing number of groups with political agendas that are looking for ways to attract attention. Increasingly, one of the ways they're doing this is by trying to publicly influence the entities that fuel the media business: advertisers.</p> <p>Advertisers can no longer ignore this fact. For all the talk about brand safety, advertisers also need to be brand savvy and that means <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/69116-how-brands-can-navigate-today-s-super-political-environment">being smart about how they navigate politics</a>. If they make hasty decisions in response to the slightest politically-motivated provocations, the odds are good that eventually they are going to find themselves facing a Keurig-like backlash.</p> <h3>So what should advertisers do? Is it even possible for them to win?</h3> <p>The way companies purchase advertising has changed dramatically in recent years. Specifically, advertisers today largely target people (audiences) and not properties.</p> <p>While advertisers are rethinking some of their media buying habits in the wake of this year's brand safety and ad fraud crises, it's unlikely that this trend is fundamentally going to reverse.</p> <p>Given that, brands should consider the possibility that they're going to need to become more active in educating consumers about how they purchase ads. Specifically, they need to be clear that they're trying to reach a diverse range of consumers and that involves advertising on a diverse range of properties. That means their ads are likely to appear on properties that publish opinions on topics that can be polarizing, including politics.</p> <p>While this fact obviously isn't going to appease those who are looking for for opportunities to deliver ultimatums to brands, advertisers need to come to grips with the fact that it's simply not viable to pull ads from major media properties the minute those properties publish or broadcast something that is slightly controversial or upsets a particular interest group.</p> <p>The sooner brands take a stand and make clear to their stakeholders that they're not going to respond to every controversy that causes somebody to demand that they pull their ads and that they're not going to make all of their media buying decisions public, the sooner they can start to avoid Keurig-like backlashes.</p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69556 2017-11-10T10:01:15+00:00 2017-11-10T10:01:15+00:00 More brands want to bring programmatic in-house, but can they? Patricio Robles <p><a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/309473/32-of-marketers-to-bring-programmatic-media-buyin.html">According to</a> Advertiser Perceptions DSP Report, which polled more than 700 advertisers, nearly a third (32%) of those surveyed say they plan to bring their programmatic buying in-house. </p> <p>And it looks like many agencies apparently aren't going to stop them from doing that as the majority of marketers and agencies polled revealed that they believe programmatic ad buying will eventually become an in-house responsibility.</p> <p>The reasons behind this are not surprising: brands are increasingly concerned with ad fraud, brand safety and verification. As <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/69438-is-uber-s-lawsuit-against-an-agency-a-harbinger-of-greater-brand-agency-discord">Uber's recent lawsuit against one of its agencies</a> demonstrates, these issues are difficult for brands and agencies to navigate and when something goes wrong, the fallout can be ugly.</p> <p>There's also the issue of cost and how agencies are paid. Specifically, brands have become aware of <a href="https://www.marketingweek.com/2016/05/23/mark-ritson-agency-kickbacks-are-turning-media-buying-into-a-shadowy-black-box/">agency kickbacks</a> and double dipping, and for obvious reasons, they don't like it.</p> <h3>What needs to happen for programmatic to move in-house?</h3> <p>Of course, bringing programmatic in-house will require more of brands in the following areas:</p> <h4>Knowledge.</h4> <p>Knowledge of programmatic has improved considerably in recent years but before brands can bring programmatic in-house, they will need to honestly and accurately assess how much knowledge of programmatic exists within their marketing organizations and not only ensure that they have enough to support programmatic in-house but establish plans to grow and disseminate that knowledge throughout the marketing organization.</p> <h4>Resources.</h4> <p>Programmatic can be complex and the processes that support programmatic efforts can't be done without ample people and technology resources. This is especially true for brands that expect their in-house programmatic operations to perform better than agency operations.</p> <p>People and technology resources both obviously require an investment of dollars and brands should keep in mind that even with dollars, staffing can be a challenge because there is a shortage of skilled and experienced programmatic professionals and many of them are concentrated in a small number of geographic regions.</p> <h4>Vendor relationships and partnerships.</h4> <p>Brands that want to bring programmatic in-house will need to establish direct relationships and partnerships with vendors that supply technologies and services related to programmatic. From attribution modeling to data management platforms (DMPs), there are a whole host of external vendors that brands will need to line up to bring programmatic in-house.</p> <h3>Is an in-house shift really going to happen?</h3> <p>Some brands might have a reasonable rationale for wanting to bring programmatic in-house and have the substantial resources necessary to make the investment, but even then, there are few examples of brands actually doing so. For example, when <a href="http://adage.com/article/digital/l-oreal-bring-progra/302519/">L'Oreal made headlines</a> about this last year, <a href="https://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/when-programmatic-in-house-is-really-not-in-house/">it was clarified</a> that its initiative was actually a “strategic partnership with our media agency supporting our decisions, the operations, technology, and relationships.”</p> <p>So for the time being, while nearly a third of brands say they plan to bring programmatic in-house, there's no reason to believe that number will be achieved any time soon.</p> <p><em><strong>Subscribers looking to learn more about programmatic can download <a href="https://econsultancy.com/reports/the-cmo-s-guide-to-programmatic/">The CMO's Guide to Programmatic</a></strong></em></p> tag:econsultancy.com,2008:BlogPost/69531 2017-10-31T15:10:00+00:00 2017-10-31T15:10:00+00:00 Direct ad buys are back in fashion as programmatic declines Patricio Robles <p>Meanwhile, following the <a href="https://www.econsultancy.com/blog/69276-following-youtube-s-brand-safety-backlash-will-ad-relevance-take-center-stage">YouTube brand safety scandal in April</a>, more brands owned by two of the largest advertisers in the world, Procter &amp; Gamble (P&amp;G) and Unilever, started purchasing ads directly.</p> <p>Between January and March, MediaRadar observed 49 of P&amp;G's brands purchasing premium video and native ads through direct buys. From May through July, that number increased 27% to 62.</p> <p>The number of Unlilever brands turning to premium inventory through direct buys was even more substantial, growing from 25 in the January to March period to 53 between May and July, a 112% increase.</p> <p><img src="https://assets.econsultancy.com/images/0008/9920/mediaradar.png" alt="" width="449" height="522"></p> <h3>Not just a temporary shift?</h3> <p>Obviously, programmatic is clearly here to stay. It now accounts for over 80% of the display ad market, and the industry has invested significant sums in building out programmatic infrastructure.</p> <p>At the same time, however, it is also looking like concerns over brand safety, as well as ad fraud, have caused brand advertisers to fundamentally rethink their digital advertising strategies.</p> <p>"Everyone is talking about transparency and brand safety," stated Todd Krizelman, CEO &amp; co-founder, MediaRadar. "In the quest for it, many of the world's largest advertisers are shifting ad spend, and now spreading it across more than a dozen different media formats."</p> <p>From P&amp;G, which slashed its digital ad budget by $100m, to Chase, which cut the number of sites it advertises on from 400,000 to 5,000, both without any apparent negative impact on return, it's increasingly evident that brand advertisers are not just making temporary changes.</p> <h3>Has the ad industry been living a lie?</h3> <p>Business Insider's Mike Shields believes that it has. In <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-advertising-industry-has-been-living-a-lie-2017-10">a piece</a> that has sparked discussion and debate, he suggested that advertisers "have fallen in love with the fantasy of buying ads aimed at exactly the right people on the web's 'long tail.'"</p> <p>But, he observes, "most people don't spend time on thousands of websites", which begs the question: if consumers don't spend time on thousands of websites, why have advertisers been throwing so much of their budgets to programmatic channels that help them buy ads across thousands of websites, exposing themselves to <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/ad-industry-insiders-are-connected-to-a-fraud-scheme-that">audacious fraud</a> in the process?</p> <p>If MediaRadar's data is any indication, it would seem that brand advertisers are starting to ask themselves that very question.</p> <p>While it's too early to predict the precise long-term impacts of this trend, it seems reasonable to assume that greater scrutiny of open programmatic exchanges, renewed interest in direct buys, and more adoption of <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/68844-should-advertisers-be-more-picky-with-programmatic">private exchanges</a> lie ahead.</p>