Author: jon

I didn’t see the whole Peter & Kerry thing coming. My predictions were clearly off, my tea leaves were not telling truths and my crystal ball was cloudy. Still, some things from my 2010 futureology (is that even a word?) moment are true. Digital advertising revenues are up and a few people seem happy about that. But I am not going to tick-off my successes because it only makes you highlight the nonsense I talk at other times. So we continue as if nothing happened. Deal?

Rupert (Murdoch, not The Bear) is pushing ahead with his pay wall idea. I’ve written before about how I see pay walls are good (and not necessarily in the way that you think) and I have discussed why they’re good for advertising. But, thinking today, I realise there’s a key advantage I missed in my previous musings on this matter (my use of the word musings makes my previous posts seem more considered, don’t you think?)

To summarise, I suggested that pay walls will rise and fall for most mainstream publications within a twelve month period. Sites that put up pay walls have an opportunity to understand their users a little more – market research if you will – through the subscriber data they are collecting. Advertisers will like pay walls because the users behind them both value the content they are reading and will be generally more engaged with it.

But I didn’t really talk about us users who sit on the wrong side of the pay wall. Of course, we have options and can go somewhere else for some of the news; and we probably will. But, and this is the key advantage I’m interested in exploring, does the rise of the pay wall re-emphasize the role advertising plays in supporting content? In turn, will that make us more likely to share data with publishers (given proper controls, transparency and disclosure) in a more explicit deal: data supported advertising for free access to content. And not just unobtrusive advertising but premium, targeted advertising that’s sold at a value publisher’s can use to invest in content (and, yes, make their profit margins).

Controlling my identity – and the data (preferences & behaviours) associated with it – is a key stage in delivering the above. Targeted advertising should carry a premium as it’s more likely to be put in front of people interested and responsive. Targeting can take many forms, and is probably the subject of another piece of writing, but targeting based on what I tell you as a publisher and/or advertiser (by allowing you to track my behaviour or by telling you directly) should be the most valuable and I would consider trading it for valuable content (again, as long as you had proper controls and were transparent in your use of it). But who do I trust?

Truthfully, I am not wholly convinced by my previous paragraphs. By which I mean I’m not clear if pay walls will re-emphasise the value of advertising in supporting content nor if that will make us more likely to trade data for content. I am not sure if I would trade (but I might). But I do wonder if it will happen and if the so-called advertising eco-system will become so complex that the value is lost.

We have many twists and turns on this road ahead. Publishers (and I mean all content producers here) need to scale their businesses for the new market which for many once large organisations means shrinking. You can’t even begin to talk about profit margins until that point. I’m not sure what that might mean for on-going coverage of Peter & Kerry but I’m sure somebody will have a cheque book for the wedding pictures. I’m hoping for an invite.

Every man and his dog, if he works in digital media, has an opinion on this one. Pay walls will, or will not, save newspapers, magazines, books and any other form of printed word. E-readers, iPads and digital paper is, or is not, the saviour of the free press. So, why shouldn’t I wade in here? I may as well be shouted down by those who think that paper has, or hasn’t, got a future.

And so as not to be sidetracked, I’ll repeat my first prediction that pay walls will lead newspapers and magazines into a better digital world (which may, or may not, save their business models in the long run).

My second prediction is that pay walls will be removed after – for arguments sake – twelve months.

In my end of year predictions I suggested pay walls would be good for advertising because an engaged, paying audience is, generally, attractive to advertisers. And it’s far too early in the year to be retracting such suggestions so I’ll be sticking with it. But, upon further reflection, I think there will be a second advantage to short term pay walls and it’s not the pay bit that’s useful but the wall itself; the act of registration and identification that will aid newspapers’ business models.

The subscription money may – or may not – be insignificant. But in a world where advertising is highly targeted to us as people, be that by our tracked behaviours or the things we write – or the games we play -in social media, knowing more about audiences is becoming a necessity to deliver advertising online. But most media organisations don’t know much about me as a user at all. I read anonymously with only an ip-address acting as a proxy for who I am.

But look at the market they are playing in. According to Hitwise, getting on for 6% of all UK web visits are to Facebook. And Facebook knows lots about me because I tell them in all my interactions on a daily basis. Google accounts for nearly 9% of all visits which, while admittedly being search-based (i.e en route to somewhere else) is still giving them tremendous insight into my behaviours.

Pay walls will start to give newspapers a better insight into their audiences and with that data they’ll start to be able to attract much more highly targeted media. Once that data is put to use newspaper will realise they need to tear down the walls to grab a big audience but those people will start to be given reason to identify themselves so that advertising can be targeted properly. And then another of my predictions will come true: it’ll be all about the data.

It is for that reason that I think pay walls may save newspapers and magazines.

I also predict personal jet packs are the future of transportation by 2011.

The iPlayer was really the platform that pushed on-demand viewing across the internet in the UK. You wouldn’t expect anything less from an organisation with the resources (in monetary terms, in talent and engineering terms and in marketing and reach terms) that the BBC can bring. It’s still the iPlayer that comes to mind when most people think of watching TV via the web and the iPlayer was certainly the talk of other European broadcasters (at least it was when I was regularly speaking to them). It’s a shame as other on-demand services are equally as good, ITV in particular have made great leaps. The Sky Player has been made to work with their proven business model which can only be a good thing for the space.

Because the iPlayer is not commercially driven, however, there has been little discussion of advertising in on-demand platforms. For the commercial providers it has always been the advertising that pays for the content. ITV has always been great at ensuring you get similar experience online as you would watching the show on television: why would they show programming without advertisements and commercial breaks? At last, most organisations have reached the point of being able to replicate the linear television commercial break experience. Sadly, however, we’re not seeing a great deal of innovation in this space which intrigues me even more now I’m less directly involved in the technologies that power this advertising. It’s an area ripe for new ideas. I know people in organisations I worked for have ideas by the truck-load but, for some reason, they’re not sharing them right now.

The economic climate and resulting downturn in advertising spend can be used as an excuse for the lack of in-production experimentation and, for commercial television companies struggling with smaller audiences and reduced ad revenues, this may be valid. But where are the innovative tech companies pioneering new ways of advertising around on-demand television? They must be there somewhere.

So, my Christmas/Birthday wish, point me to the innovators. I’m @curns on Twitter and I’d be interested to read about something genuinely innovative in the way in which advertising content is presented to consumers of on-demand content.

I wrote sometime ago about the amount of advertising in the world and how we should not fool ourselves into thinking that advertising will pay for all the products and services we would like to use; be they a TV programme, a daily newspaper or a website. Advertising won’t pay for it all because there’s not enough money to go around. Basically, the well isn’t that deep. The pot isn’t that large. There are too many hands in the till. Those kinds of metaphors work here, I think.

For me to say that is really easy but we also need to think about the pot/well/till and just how big it really is. There are a lot of resources that estimate the amount of advertising measured in all sorts of ways. And with different colclusions. Will budgets grow or will they shrink during the global meltdown? And where will the money go? Newspapers are suffering, traditional ad-funded TV and radio has long since lost any licenses to print money and digital advertising will grow, or maybe shrink. The outsider would assume that digital advertising has taken taken some kind of wild bungee jump into the well and the hands can, sometimes, grab the cash (if the cash was floating in the well … ah, you get the point).

But regardless of the current state of the budget we’re are moving into a world where there is a proliferation of ‘stuff’ that we all enjoy that we don’t dierctly, pay for. We pay by allowing the product/service to take a fraction of our time in viewing the ad. This proliferation of ‘stuff’ however, means the marketers/advertisers have to spread their limied budgets in an ever-growing number of places. The water in the well must now quench thirst for many more people.

Thinking about the well, I’ve started to wonder how long it will be before the amount of water in the well isn’t enough to keep anybody alive for very long. Are we moving to a position where things we all want to watch/read/consume will disapear because marketers are trying to use a little of everything? You know what I am thinking here: spend some money on social media marketing and take it away from TV. But now there isn’t enough money for either TV or social media.

Is this a concern? I don’t think my views are wholly thought through but I’m kind of throwing it out there to see what people think.

When will it end? When will the water run out?

The technology behind managing online display advertisments can be incredibly complex. The business behind it the technology even more difficult to comprehend. Then there’s the poor publisher behind who buys the ad-server technology to manage their own increasingly complex business. These are the people I work with day-in, day-out. Publishers trying to get a grip on technology when, truthfully, they don’t care about technology. Generally, they care about delivering the advertising campaigns that somebody is paying them to deliver. The tech should do that. Seamlessly.

Sadly, much of the technology in this space is a black box. Few people in an organisation understand how it determines how/when/why ads appear. While it’s not ideal, I don’t consider it to be too surprising given that the online display market is only just a teenager and is still maturing. New approaches to selling online media result in new tech features which in trun need to be understood and explained to an end business. Here, I am focussing on the publisher ad-serving business because different problems exist in the agency world.

However, there is one part of the business that I think we’re missing in the advertising tech game for online content owners. We need to be the dashboard for the advertising & marketing departments in a publisher or content owner. And we’re not. We are one of many systems from inventory prediction spreadsheets through unrelated billing.

Although we shouldn’t need to be every component of the system we do need to unify the data. Your ad-server makes the decision if it should serve an ad or not. Why then is a spreadsheet handling the prediction. Your ad-server knows how many ads it displayed. Why is that information being re-keyed into a billing system? (OK, not everywhere, but in many places). These are blockers to efficiency and suceess. They are not insurmountable. The industry will move in that direction.

However, there’s one area where we have a disconnect. The advertising technology systems don’t tend to work well with those web analytics systems. This, to my mind, is the biggest disconnect we have in the industry.

I do know all the arguements that explain the disconnect; I’ve used them myself. The systems are trying to achieve differet things and the stats from the analystics systems provide lots of useful data over and above the kind of advertising data our industry needs. Designers, content producers, systems admin and network people all need the data web analyitcs software delivers. Often it’s great and detailed data.

But web analytics systems report numbers of users on websites. In any business, these numbers are usually passed along to management and the board. They’re used on marketing materials to shout, “Hey, look how great we are. We have a big number here and it’s getting bigger by the month. My graph groweth towards the sky”.

People love good numbers and a good story. So, the board in the company gets the marketing people in the company to tell the good number story far and wide. And they really don’t have to go that far until they’re telling it to the ad sales people. Who, in turn, pick up the phone and tell the news to their customers. And before you know it, everybody wants to buy ads against these lovely big numbers because they have these big numbers.

Unfortunately, the ad-server disagrees with these big numbers. There are lots of reasons why. Some valid reasons for different data, some valid differences between counting approaches, some just tech differences. Occasionally, these differences can add up to a big number.

Some years ago a major broadcaster had a site that generated big numbers. But their ad technology didn’t say the same number. Remember, people like big numbers. So the management didn’t like the smaller numbers from the ad-server. Smaller numbers meant a smaller revenue. And yours truely was asked to look into it.

After being provided with two data sets I started looking at them and, quite quickly, I found a bunch of clear and obvious discrepancies. The nice analytics numbers counted all the pages, even the ones without ads (and there were a good number of them). The analytics numbers counted non-human traffic from search engine bots and other robots. You can’t serve ads to them. And if you do people don’t like it.

I could go on but this is already long enough.

Let me be clear. This is not a problem with trhe analtics industry nor the ad technology business. The analytics companies could easily provide reports that matched up by filtering in the same way ad-servers do. That’s just a report to them. But the issue is at the end client. They don’t want to know the technicalities of the differences. And why should they? But equally, they should not be allowing sales and marketing folks to be building & selling advertising models against numbers that they stand no chance of delivering.

My appeal to the ad-server business is this. Develop an interface that marries analytics data with ad-serving data. For my purposes let’s assume that’s easy. Create a single view of the data for the end business so they buy, sell and predict from the same numbers. Make sure predictions and post-delivery reports are based on the same data,

I think it’s the only way we can make the industry work without the distrust that happens when different systems purport to report on the same things but provide different reports.

And don’t get me started on differences between ad-servers!