paidContent.org - The Economics of Content

Current Story

On Ad Networks: Pork Bellies, Diamonds, Or The New Direct Marketing?

By David Kaplan - Tue 08 Apr 2008 09:00 AM PST

imageimageOver the past few weeks, a debate over the use and growing prominence of ad networks and exchanges has been gathering. The recent shuttering of ESPN’s (NYSE: DIS) and the Washington Post’s (NYSE: WPO) respective ad nets, as well as the news that Forbes was starting another one, have given legs to a comment made at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s annual conference by Martha Living Stewart Omnimedia’s Wenda Harris Millard (pictured, above, left) warning that media companies were selling web inventory like “pork bellies.” I interviewed a number of execs, including Millard, MSLO’s president of media and new IAB chair, and AOL Platform-A President Lynda Clarizio (pictured, above, right), about their views on the buying and selling of media companies’ online ads, including some at a recent IAB conference with programming inspired by the debate.

All ad networks are not created equal: If all sides can agree on one thing, it’s the need for greater clarity to what’s being sold and where it’s being placed. Until then, the divide will remain. On one side, there are the vertical ad nets run by media companies like CondeNet, MSLO, Nickelodeon’s ParentsConnect Network, CBS’ network of local TV station sites and Forbes’ forthcoming financial network. Verticals promise control over ad sales and placement. On the other side are the sale of remnant ads (ad space that has gone unsold and is typically offered by web publishers, often at a discount) handled by Google/DoubleClick, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) and AOL (NYSE: TWX).

Some of their views after the jump.

-- Millard: “Both buyer and seller require transparency. In a lot of cases [in terms of ad nets’ handling of remnant, or unsold ad inventory], the buyer doesn’t really know what they’re getting. And the seller doesn’t have any control over price.”

-- Clarizio: “I’ve said before that there are an enormous amount of ad networks out there. And over time, the industry will consolidate. Speaking of Advertising.com, we have a different value proposition - what we sell is really reach across a network of sites - and there are 8,000 sites in the Ad.com network. Or we sell targeting within a sub-set of sites. We sell what the individual sites cannot sell. I freely tell people, if you strictly want to be on the front page of iVillage, then you should have a conversation with iVillage. But not everyone has those kinds of specific needs. And to lump all networks together and compare it to the sale of pork bellies can confuse the issue. The people who are going to win are the people who drive the best results for advertisers and offer the highest monetization for websites.”

-- Millard: “Basically, the main message is that there is a lot of room in the marketplace for ad networks and ad exchanges. But there are a number of networks out there that are focusing on simply amassing volumes of inventory that all result in decreased pricing—and, the discussion about value is never heard. I do believe in exchanges and networks. But I don’t believe in networks that are just amassing massive amounts of inventory, just so they can sell it off cheaper. I don’t consider that marketing and I don’t believe that serves the publisher well or the marketer for that matter.”

-- Joelle Kaufman, VP, marking, Adify: Remnant ad sales operate in much the same way direct response campaigns do, which is unlike a TV sponsorship or other major branding campaign, Kaufman, whose company, Adify continues to power the WaPo network, MSLO’s and others: “In direct response, all you care about is reach. Just trying to get people to click, trying to get in front of as many people as possible and get as much reach as you can – therefore you don’t care what you’re next to… It’s not as if unsold ads proliferate because these people are bad at selling advertising. It’s unsold because it’s not appropriate for brand advertising.”

-- Mutual benefits: Bill Wise, GM of the Global Exchange, Right Media, contends that if exchanges didn’t benefit publishers, the Yahoo-owned unit wouldn’t be trading over 5 billion impressions a day with over 30,000 sellers. He doesn’t see a real conflict with what media companies like MSLO or Forbes are doing with their vertical ad networks—promising premium placement. Despite publishers’ established links with advertisers and agencies, they face a world where the proliferation of blogs and vertical content has resulted in their respective category - inventory and ad dollars - growing at a faster rate than their business. The best way to maintain their growth is to partner with exchanges - like Right Media’s, of course - in order to address the challenges to their businesses.

-- Not all targeting is equal either: Adam Shlachter, senior partner and group director at MEC: The message from some networks has been: we have a ton of inventory across the web and we’re going to run ads across these types of places and these types of users. Targeting is crucial and the more refined the targeting can be, the more valuable that type of inventory can be—but only if the message fits. To tell me you’re going to be able to target a particular behavioral segment because of the recency of their consumption of a piece of content – and then immediately, they’re hit with an ad – well, I think we’re beyond those days. It doesn’t work as well. Consumers are taking in a lot more content. We’ve seen some variance in things that are more contextually targeted. More precision is needed.

-- All about pricing: Sarah Welch, co-founder and COO, Mindset Media, an ad network specializing in “psychographic” behavioral targeting, noted that a lot of the ads on exchanges is undifferentiated and does get pushed down to absolute bottom – that is, commodity level prices. What happens from their perspective is that advertisers, and agencies who support them, think that they can get Martha Stewart level inventory at bottom of the barrel prices. That’s not good for the publishing industry, in general. I absolutely understand [Millard’s] perspective on that. Is that what’s happening, fundamentally on exchanges? I think what happens is, unless there are dimensions on which inventory can be priced and understood by buyers and sellers to be of value, yes, things do get traded down to that level.”

--Diamonds, not pork bellies? In a post on IAB’s blog shortly after Millard’s pork bellies comment, Randall Rothenberg, the organization’s president and CEO, weighed in, noting how Michael Rubenstein VP-GM of Google’s (NSDQ: GOOG) DoubleClick responsed to Millard by comparing the sale of remnant ads to the gem exchanges of Antwerp: “We like to think of our publisher impressions as diamonds, not pork bellies.” At the recent IAB conference, ThinkEquity analysts William Morrison and Robert Coolbrith were asked what publishers could do to work with ad nets on premium ad placement without putting their ad sales at risk? Coolbrith responded, saying publisher could seek “iron-clad” business arrangements that would keep them off site lists. But ultimately, it’s up to the publishers to monitor what is done with their advertising.

-- No magical platform: John Battelle, who runs the Federated Media blog ad net, weighed in with two long posts on his Searchblog. In his initial take, he said “neither the publishers nor the brand marketers believe that a magical ad platform will somehow address their needs online.” He grudgingly accepts that advertisers will spend 5-15 percent of their budget on lower-CPM “pray and spray” DR and awareness campaigns. And he figures that publishers really like seeing algorithms raising CPMs for the remnant inventory. But Battelle insists no one believes that ad networks can achieve the level of engagement provided by basic two-page print ad or a 30-second TV spot. So what’s going to happen? Battelle: “I think brands will also build the next batch of great online media companies. And up until recently, I thought Yahoo, AOL, and MSN were best positioned to be those companies. Now, I’m not so sure.”

Posted in: Advertising, Marketing, Media, Misc

Tags: lynda clarizio, wenda harris millard, adam shlachter, joelle kaufman, sarah welch, ecosystem 2.0, bill wise

Related Research from Alacrastore.com
9 Responses:
  • From Kelly Jenkins Wed 09 Apr 2008 07:54 AM

    The leader in CPA television advertising should be mentioned here.  REVShare allows for the remnant inventory to be monetized using tested, proven, national advertisers in lieu of a firesale or the inventory going unsold.  Why give it away when a network can make upwards of $15,000 a WEEK running our spots...with unparalleled weekly reporting, a personal sales rep who has a vested interest in the success of the network, and the experience of 20 years in the industry working with over 1500 media properties throughout the United States!?
    Remnant inventory is a goldmine for networks, if they choose to think outside the box.

  • From Media Exec Wed 09 Apr 2008 08:29 AM

    I couldn’t even read this article because they were so many blinking advertisements and distractions on the page.  Nice one, pC.

  • From R.J. Lewis Wed 09 Apr 2008 08:36 AM

    I applaud the distinction between broad national networks/exchanges and VERTICAL highly focused networks, but feel those differences need to be even more prominently illustrated. 

    A vertical network is also a category expert, deep diving into a specific niche.  That expertise and an intense focus on a highly specific audience segment in essence forces the communication of value in the sales process.  It’s the only way we know how to sell - value-driven advertising commanding a CPM pricing methodology. 

    The industry at large has brought this problem on itself by agreeing to sell against price only (without the value distinction) and any metric we can measure… CPC, CP-Anything.... which dilutes the entire qualitative aspect of an audience segment. 

    I find if funny that the latest trend is now all about “engagement” and moving beyond the click.  I recently read a piece that basically said, “we’ve been measuring (and paying on) the last click all this time, and we probably have it wrong...”.  Vertical Networks and sellers who communicate the value of an audience, and sell on a CPM basis, haven’t had it wrong at all… but if I were a long time publisher partner of a larger national network (if long-term partners exist), I would be very upset to read a such a comment....  how much value did they deliver (that they were not paid on?).

    Where’s the class action lawsuits against networks who took real audience value from a publisher and turned it into a commodity?  How does a change in a networks algorithm (to improve performance for advertisers by lowering misleading and possibly inappropriate clicks) result such a reduced change in total click volume?  Where the class action suit by advertisers asking, “what have you been billing me for all along”?  Ooops.  The industry has brought this upon itself—it’s allowed for online advertising (perhaps the greatest innovation in advertising history) to be commoditized within a little more than a decade.

    Kudos Wenda Harris Millard—Keep fighting the good fight

  • From Robert Kadar Wed 09 Apr 2008 08:57 AM

    In the health and Medical category, transparency is a requirement and therefore the traditional “ad network” is usually off the table for consideration. But a vertical ad sales representation firm can offer both reach to difficult to reach audience segments and full transparency.
    Robert Kadar
    CEO
    Good Health Advertising
    http://www.GoodHealthAdvertising.com

  • From Marc Wed 09 Apr 2008 10:46 AM

    I couldn’t read this article. I started, but the blinking ads were awful. I had to stop. That is disappointing because the content looked useful. Please cut the ad content to a point where I can at least look at what I am reading without getting frustrated.

    I am starting to question who is MySpace and who is the news site here. I understand it is a paid content site, but there is no reason you can’t make it more palatable to the eye of the reader. This was one of the few times recently when I have had to stop reading something on account of the advertising being so abrasive.

    Marc

  • From Tessa H. Rudd Wed 09 Apr 2008 02:34 PM

    I agree with Kaufman regarding remnant ad space. Direct response campaigns, and overall use of left-over, and often clearance priced, ad spaces, are not conducive to effective brand marketing strategies in the web. Especially when it comes to marketing in the rapidly expanding blog and social media platforms, which serve as fertile ground for effective brand marketing and behavioral targeting. In the end, it doesn’t matter how far you can through a ball if it’s going in the wrong direction.

  • From Liza Hausman Thu 10 Apr 2008 09:14 AM

    Certainly media companies with quality content should be wary of selling their inventory like pork bellies, but with an excess of available inventory there is plenty sold which is appropriate for direct response marketers where nearly anything makes sense for the right price, but which may not be the smart choice for brand efforts.

    Per the article’s comment on social media, it comes down to attention, and successfully monetizing the enormous amount of time people are spending on pages they create or control is a major challenge facing the industry today.

    New interactive advertising units, and more permission-based marketing models will likely become more standard for brands in this new world.  At Gigya we’ve started down this path with a permission-based, pay for performance widget distribution network.  It will be interesting to see how these models continue to evolve.

  • From Kevin Normandeau Thu 10 Apr 2008 10:13 AM

    All ad network are not created equal so discussions like these are helpful in the education process. Some network are selling non-premium opportunities. That is quite different from say a vertical networks that focus on select sites and strives to bring advertisers innovative premium programs with scale that would be difficult to execute with out the help of a network.

    As Lynda Clarizio points out, in the end the network who will win are those who can drive the best results for advertisers and sponsors. I would add that winning network will also make efforts to educate and help the publisher in their network grow. This makes them loyal and gives the network builder more scale and even better solutions to offer to their advertisers.

  • From Jaan Janes Thu 10 Apr 2008 01:36 PM

    The display banner space is only the beginning. At SyndiGO, we believe that publisher-backed media networks are the future - they have the brand, content and the salesforce to sell premium inventory to premium advertisers.

    Publishers will have an owned and operated ad business as well as a distributed business and they’ll sell ads better than the broader ad networks - they’ll be able to leverage their content and brand to “go beyond the banner” for marketers - delivering deep integration, promotions and other branded elements that create real engagement - and then can be promoted on these media networks to like-minded consumers.

    Publishers can and will win at this game and there are plenty of great mid-tail sites looking to get real yield for their inventory.

Post Your Comment

Mobile Options

» Mobile/BB App
» Mobile/Wap Site

Send a News Tip

About

paidContent.org, flagship of the ContentNext Media network, provides global coverage of the business of digital content.

Rafat Ali
Publisher & Co-Editor

Staci D. Kramer
Co-Editor

David Kaplan
Senior Correspondent

Joseph Weisenthal
Correspondent

Robert Andrews
U.K. Editor

Amanda Natividad
Editorial Producer

EconAds Conference - The Economics of Ad Deals. Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008. The New World Stages, NYC

New Media/Interactive Job Listings

Post Job
More Jobs

Generous Supporters