In today’s world, agencies often need to use a different ad serving system for each different media type.  It’s not unusual for a single campaign to be delivered using 4 or 5 different agency ad servers: 

• Standard server for all basic Flash placements
• Video ad server that can deliver a VAST/VPAID tag as well as track a site served video
• Rich Media server for expandable and multi-functional ads
• Dynamic ad server that can do true Multi-Variate Optimizations, and
• Mobile server for running ads on smartphones and tablets

Not to mention any site-served placements, which can range from integrated content hubs to homepage takeovers.

Needless to say, this creates a lot of extra work, and maximizes the inefficiencies that have become infamous in our industry.  From the Agency Ad Operations perspective, this means creating multiple traffic sheets, generating many sets of tags, and doing many creative uploads.  Often times, agencies rely on their ad serving partners to also traffic out the tags to the various Media Partners, so a Publisher could be receiving 4 different sets of tags from 4 different ad serving vendors….all for a single campaign.

Then, there is always the inevitable problem with billing, as in which numbers to use for invoicing.  According to the IAB Terms & Conditions, the “controlling measurement” has to be compliant with “IAB/AAAA Ad Measurement Guidelines”.  Not all ad servers are considered compliant, which means we are often using multiple sources of impression data to reconcile a single monthly invoice.  Multiply this by thousands of live media campaigns at any given moment, and it becomes clear as to the inefficiencies involved.

Bottom Line:  The fact that I have to use 4 different ad servers to run a single campaign is absolutely ridiculous.  There has to be a better way.

So what will the Ad Server of the future look like?

Tomorrow’s Ad Server will allow an agency to confidently manage all possible media types in one central location.  It will enable us to run Flash, Video, Mobile, Rich, Search, Dynamic, and whatever else the future holds, efficiently and easily.  I will be able to generate one complete set of tags that can be sent directly to a Media Partner, and will include everything they need to run that campaign.  No more need to generate tracking pixels and click trackers, and no more need to argue over which numbers will be used for billing purposes, because in my vision of the future, all Ad Servers will be accredited and certified.

I know there are many people out there who are probably saying, “Hey, my company can do all those things today.  We should talk.”  The fact is, most Ad Serving companies can handle multiple asset types today, but I still haven’t seen one Ad Server that can do all these things expertly.

I also realize that the Single Ad Server dream is completely dependent on industry adoption of guidelines and standards, particularly around Video and Mobile.  But I do think that at some future point in time (let’s go with 5 years from now), we will look back on the days when we used to use one Ad Server for Rich Media, a different one for Video, a different one for Mobile, etc. with a feeling of “we’ve come so far since then”.

Over the past year, our Ad Operations team has met with countless new startups that are popping up out of the digital media ecosystem.  Everything from new ad exchanges to data providers to optimization engines to analytics aggregators.  These companies all bring something new and innovative to the table, along with a great deal of enthusiasm and energy.  It’s an exciting time to be a part of the Digital Media world and witness such fast-paced growth and development.  If someone in our industry were to take a 6-month leave-of-absence, there is a good chance they would be completely lost upon their return – that’s how fast things are moving.

Along with all of this high-growth comes much confusion and anxiety.  How do I know what is right for my client?  Is this service “legit”, or will it be added to the junk pile of internet startups?  How do I make sure my client is not missing the boat, while at the same time protecting their Digital investment?  Should I wait for others in my category to take the plunge, or should I be the pioneer and try something new before all of my competitors do?  These are all reasonable, normal questions that I find myself asking everyday.

I believe it is the role of the Digital Ad Operations team to help answer these questions. Of course, Ad Ops cannot provide all the answers.  But what Ad Ops can do is help our internal teams make sense of all the noise and clutter in the marketplace, and help find the right fit for the right client.  This should be done by taking a true team approach.  If our Planning teams are not well informed, then our clients won’t be either, and, as an agency, we will not be performing to the standards our clients expect.

On my team, each Ad Ops staffer is responsible for becoming a Subject Matter Expert in an area related to ad serving or targeting technology (known internally as Project SME).  For example, Christina has chosen Dynamic Ad Serving as her area of expertise, and David has chosen Video.  Some other areas being covered are Mobile, Verification Services, and Data Providers.  The list goes on.  It is then each person’s responsibility to do a deep dive on that particular topic (meet with providers, follow the news, attend conferences, etc.), and then eventually present their findings to the Ad Ops team.  The presentation and all supporting materials are then saved in a central location for the entire Digital Planning department.

Having an expert on my team for these types of topics is extremely valuable.  During the course of day-to-day business, we regularly get asked many questions related to technology and targeting.  And it’s very difficult for one person to have all the answers.  For the appropriate question, I can simply say, “Let’s ask Brooke.  She’s the expert on Research services”, or “Send a note to Kate.  She covers ad networks”.  Then it’s up to that Ad Ops Expert to work with that Planning team, and help them find the best possible solution for the client’s objectives.  There is also an opportunity to be proactive with this information, and seek out situations where we can provide value to the Planning Teams and clients directly.  This is where the rubber meets the road, and each SME must put into practice all of the research they’ve done.

Things do get a little tricky when a question comes up that crosses different areas of expertise, such dynamic ad serving in the Rich Media space.  Nothing is ever cut and dry in our industry….but that’s ok.  Situations like this present an opportunity to get two different points of view on an issue.  If those points of view are in agreement, great.  If not, it’s another opportunity for discussion and healthy debate.

Project SME also helps the Ad Ops team get out of the daily grind, and see the big picture.  It is the role of Ad Operations to focus on the small, granular details of Digital Media.  However, having each team member pursue a particular area that interests them, gets them out of the day-to-day stuff, and allows them to see that our industry is much bigger than the particular task at hand.  This helps keep the role of Ad Ops in context as we go about our daily jobs.

This type of approach is not just limited to Ad Operations, and can work in any department, Digital or otherwise.  Having a team of experts provides good depth of knowledge and ensures all bases are being covered, and it also helps each team member build and define his/her own career.

For years, we’ve gotten used to building up our loyalties around one side or the other of the major players in the digital game. Are you a PC or a Mac? Do you use Google or Bing?

But in this time of ever-overlapping mobile, TV, search, and social worlds, rivalries are no longer so clearly defined—it’s not search vs. search, or hardware vs. hardware. It doesn’t really matter that Apple and Google are companies that manufacture totally different products—they are competitors because they share the same consumers, expansive aims, and innovative mentality. Ditto Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Verizon, and other digital products that you use on a regular basis. In 2010, it’s all about partnerships, staying relevant, and looking forward.

With this said, any digital partnership should really be evaluated on the basis of not just what it means for the consumer, but what it means for the companies that have been excluded from the partnership. And it is through this lens that we examine the latest: Bing and Facebook, together at last.

A partnership between Bing and Facebook is good for both of them, mostly because it excludes Google. Google has made it clear that they are looking to expand into the social space. It makes competitive sense for Facebook to expand into the search space. And put simply, it’s much easier to expand into search than it is to expand into social, since creating a pervasive social network on Facebook’s scale is nearly impossible. This partnership was a good business decision.

What does this mean for the consumer? Well, let’s stop and think about the importance of search. For most web users, search is the internet. Search is our digital transportation system – the road that gets us where we need to go on the internet.

Bing is very much the number 2 player in the search game. Though Bing has constantly proven itself to be more innovative in search than Google (even forcing Google to play catch up with features in image search, and on their homepage…) it’s hard to usurp a company that has become so integrated into our habits. Google has recently made headlines by integrating Twitter results into its search. But by partnering with the socially-dominant Facebook, Bing takes the “social-search” concept to another level. Clearly, if social search is appealing to you, Bing is the way to go. Your friends’ “likes” will pop up if you search for “restaurant in the East Village,” and who wouldn’t want that, right?

Um, we guess. There’s something about search that seems like it should be objective, even if it’s not. If search is a roadmap to the internet, shouldn’t it quietly point you in this direction or that one, without your entire social network standing jumping and cheering you over to the right?

Maybe we’re overreacting. Your search results will otherwise stay the same, we assume, and with SEO fully in place, it’s not like search was ever really an objective roadmap. Search has always been “smart.” And if your Facebook friends are people whose opinion you trust, your search just got smarter.

There were a few common threads that came to the forefront, one of which was sparked by this question: How do your companies (or clients, if you look at it from the agency side) determine how to get the most out of their social media outreach? What kind of agencies are leading the way, and how do you make that determination? The simple answer was that nobody yet has really taken the lead. All agreed that collaboration among agencies is currently the best way to achieve results, plucking the best ideas from wherever they spring. Pepsico, Microsoft, and Ford all commented that it’s a team effort to reach a common goal.

And just what is that holy grail of an idea? Simply put, it’s anything that results in organic consumer engagement.

Ruxin pointed out that approaching social media as a stand-alone content channel is the best way to succeed. Reading a Facebook news feed is content. Following someone on Twitter is content. Those channels actually can help consumers follow other media as well, as they then get access to the content that their friends and social networks are connecting to, in addition to the content they consume firsthand. It’s a web of information that is begging to be shared, and it is content that now competes with traditional media such as television and print. Ruxin later pointed out that the social media campaigns that work are those that aren’t forced. Genuine engagement goes a long way, but users can smell it when marketing is being shoved in their faces, and they often respond by not responding.

The social media sphere is still a work in progress. For agencies, the key is to stay as far ahead of the game as possible and to get on board quickly when the train is leaving the station. As more pieces of the puzzle are revealed, the picture will become increasingly clearer.

How do I know this?  I crowdsourced my Facebook friends.

Of course, crowdsourcing has been around for centuries.  The Romans called it the Senate, the Catholic Church calls it the Bishops, and in more recent decades marketers have called them focus groups. Modern technology has enabled the term to earn a vaunted space on the corporate bingo card.

At its best, crowdsourcing can be magical.  When used strategically, it can endear a brand to a community.  But it really depends how clearly you define the purpose, and even the definition of crowdsourcing.  In my opinion, the more loosely we define crowdsourcing, the better the application.

For example, crowdsourcing is generally better at bringing people together than asking people to create something.  When Microsoft crowdsourced Section 140, which was essentially enabling sports fans to talk about a game in real time through chat, everyone benefited.  Research said that the fans loved it, the fans gave credit to the brand, and the fans left with higher regard for Microsoft.  Score one for crowdsourcing.

On the other hand, when crowdsourcing is used because it has “panache” in a deck, it’s often doomed.  Crowdsourcing creative may save a client a lot of money in the short term (and generate a lot of press, as in Doritos’ SuperBowl ad) but cost per risk ratio is very high, as is the cost per energy ratio.  For every Doritos spot, how many crowdsourced ideas are sitting in trash heaps?

At the risk of sounding extremely elementary, here are some thoughts on how to frame crowdsourcing in your world.

1. It depends on the crowd.  If you are crowdsourcing how to build a rocket, and your source crowd is 150 nuclear engineers, I’d say you have a pretty good pool of knowledge for the project.  In the same way, if you are asking Pauly Public to help produce ideas for a digital campaign, you may get an interesting nugget or two, but someone or some team is going to spend hours and hours sifting through a lot of sand.  More like crowd mining.
2. It depends on what you want to do.  Of course, strategy must come into play.  If crowdsourcing is its own line item on your marketing worksheet, it’s probably a forced idea.   Crowdsourcing is a way to do something.  Crowdsourcing needs to support a bigger vision.  So you need to consider what you are trying to get at (new ideas, amplification of a benefit, enhancing a valuable community) and then see if crowdsourcing is a method that makes sense.  Don’t force crowdsourcing just because it’s buzzworthy.
3. It depends on how well you brief the crowd.  This is the critical bit.  As in our business, the ideas are generally only as good as the brief.  If you have identified the right crowd and you have articulated the strategic role, you must be prepared to share, in inspiring and humans terms, exactly what you expect of the crowd.

So can crowdsourcing be a magic bullet?  Yes.  Can crowdsourcing be horribly mismanaged?  Yes.  Crowdsourcing represents a fantastic opportunity for our business, but as always, it all comes back to the basics of finding and defining a strategic, compelling role before lobbing the question “what if we crowdsource” into a crowded room.

The iPad is once again another ground breaking technology from the minds at Apple.  For those who see it simply as a “large ipod touch” are missing the bigger picture, literally.  The iPad represents a new user interface.  None of us are about to start touching our computer monitors or swiping the screens of our laptops anytime soon so a tablet fulfills this destiny.  Even more important is that the App is the perfect portal into EXACTLY what we want.

Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of WIRED just published a new cover story that “the web is dead, long live the internet.” The simple graph he provides shows that traditional browser surfing is down, and we are to blame.

It would seem that WE all really want a direct link and don’t want any interference in getting to it.  Apps reign.

This experience is exactly what the iPad provides along with all the technologies who look to follow in its path.

Not only is the iPad a start of the evolution of computing, but it might just change our lives permanently (it will need a camera or the ability to link to an iPhone with a camera, first).  The first time my 7 year old daughter picked up the device she knew what to do with it, and she loved it.  When considering what to get her laptop/desktop/iPad, the decision is clear: iPad.  Portable, interactive, multifunction long battery life and no accessories required, it’s a hands-down winner.

Lastly, with more and more cloud services coming to consumers, who needs storage? The notion that at one point in time we all relied on unstable, fragile rotating storage disks that have the propensity to fail for our most precious data is clearly now outdated.

Is it better to conform to the way that billions of dollars are currently transacted or do we need to create a new paradigm?

Which is more important: the right audience or the right content?

To GRP, or not to GRP?

These questions and others were discussed at the recent gathering in NYC dubbed the “IAB Digital Video Agency Day.”  We managed to pull together over 100 agency and media professionals to discuss the growing online video marketplace.  It was a great discussion for a number of reasons, but primarily because we had a few “traditional” buyers (I know, you hate that) in the audience which added a healthy dynamic to the discussion.

As an industry, we have many data points that should translate into explosive online video advertising growth.  While we have seen some movement, it is still a mere fraction of other sight, sound and motion marketplaces (read: television).  It is interesting to look at this from a few perspectives…

In Corner #1:

Online video delivers the same rich, emotive experience as television, can be infinitely targeted and allows for full interactivity.

Online video comprises nearly a third of all time spent online.

No clutter!  For all online video, there is 99% content and 1% ads (Comscore) compared to TV which is about 75% content and 25% ads.  If you take out all user-generated content and focus on long-form online video it is still 92% content and 8% ads.  Your ads will be noticed.

It performs!  According to a Nielsen IAG study which has been making its rounds for a while now, online video is more likely than television to deliver brand recall (50% vs. 28%), message recall (39% vs. 21%), and likeability (26% vs. 14%).

In Corner #2:

Online video is WAY overpriced.  On a CPM basis, television delivers audiences at approximately $8-15 CPMs, while online video is more along the lines of $20-40.  When you add demographic CPMs on top of that online video gets even more expensive.  Is online video worth a 3-4x premium?  The television buying community doesn’t think so.

It’s far too complicated.  Different ad units/formats, VAST 1.x/2.x, pixels, traffic sheets, data partners, audience verification, content verification, oh my.

No scale.  If we were to significantly increase the amount of ad spend in high quality long form content, we would simply run out of inventory.

Where do we go from here?

There is no doubt that there is an extraordinary opportunity for growth in the online video ad marketplace.  For us to progress we need to do a few things.  For starters, the conversation must evolve from one of COST to one of VALUE.  Today we are far too preoccupied with the perceived high cost of online video relative to television.  What we don’t know is how much it is worth in terms of driving business results.

There is a significant research project moving ahead around overall online measurement that brings the industry (AAAA, IAB, ANA) aligned around a common measurement standard.  While this won’t be a quick fix, it does have the potential to allow us to create a more uniform apple to apples comparison across media types.

In addition, as we all learned in ECON 101 – the marketplace revolves around supply and demand.  Clearly we need more supply.  Not (insert furry animal here) on skateboards, but high quality engaging storytelling that captivates consumers.

Questions still remain around who should be buying online video today and how we should organize ourselves structurally for success as agencies, clients and media partners.  As soon as we figure that out we will need to figure out video delivered via mobile devices, video via Xbox/Playstation, video delivered via digital OOH, and on and on.

That’s what makes this business so darn exhilarating, right?

Please let me know your opinion.  Would love some new perspectives.

People talked about the democratic nature of the internet. “Information wants to be free,” they argued, as it became harder to keep information tethered to copyright. And for the most part, information on the internet was free. Magazines and newspapers floundered to figure out how to produce online content without charging for subscriptions.

Then there was “web 2.0,” a term that people started using to reference the meta-Internet that was emerging as the blogosphere and social networks exploded. People were becoming architects of their own web content. HTML-illiterates were building online identities, uploading to social networks. Oversharing came in many forms: blogging, tweeting, reblogging, retweeting. The internet was a new way to communicate and share, not just a place to read. It was the “web 2.0” because suddenly, content was a two-way street.

Web 2.0 meant an outpouring of content, in high and low forms. “Content is king” became an internet mantra: people understood that a compelling website meant compelling content above all else. Democratic systems like Twitter and Reddit ensured that the best articles would rise to the top.

So where are we now? What does Web 3.0 look like?

Steve Rosenbaum’s recent blog post “Content is No Longer King: Curation is King” lays out the argument that the web has become so cluttered that content is no longer the determining factor in terms of securing web traffic. Excellent content is still necessary, but curation is of primary importance. Rosenbaum argues that we need real humans to determine what content goes where, which voices are appropriate for the Huffington Post vs. CNN.

I remember hearing some version of this argument several years ago, when “information wants to be free” was met with the following counterpoint: information does not want to be free. Information wants to be categorized, sorted, and laid out for us in the cleanest, most accessible way. Custom news aggregators and social networks made us the curators of our own information, but it is always the architecture of these devices that determines who reads what– not the content itself.

As we move further and further from a browser system, this architecture becomes increasingly determinitive. I think most people would agree that the internet will be living increasingly on mobile devices. Application stores like the Apple App Store have exploded with new, more user-friendly ways for content to be accessed on iPhones and iPads.

Only allowing applications that meet certain standards is a tradeoff for freedom of content. Many people don’t realize how tightly controlled the iTunes application store is. The iPad does not play flash video, a ubiquitous online video type. The iTunes book store is so carefully curated that Ulysses was censored. Consider the recent email conversation that Steve Jobs engaged in with a Gawker writer, in which Jobs defended the strict approval process that goes into iPhone and iPad applications in the iTunes store. He explains that strict control of materials ensures better-quality content:

“Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom.”

If this argument is beginning to feel a bit political, that’s because it is. Content is moving from computers to mobile devices, and as it shifts, new standards are being exacted in ways that affect everyone. At the latest Apple Keynote, Jobs  introduced “iAds,” advertisements that live in mobile applications. No doubt other application stores will soon host their own advertisement-applications as well. Advertisers will want to develop materials to exist in these spaces, even if they are closely regulated.

As content becomes ubiquitous, curation becomes crucial. How will we allow curation to dictate content? How should we?  And who should be in charge?

Rather, I wanted to talk about what we can do about it, and how we need to be thinking about developing talent during the analog to digital migration that we are all living through.

It is worth stating for the record that there is no doubt that we live in a world of grey.  It’s messy, dynamic, and exciting.  The lines of demarcation between digital and analog are rapidly eroding, planners are becoming buyers, media companies are becoming agencies and agencies are becoming ad networks.

Craziness.

Over the past year, we have been fortunate to win several pieces of business.  Naturally, these wins necessitated the need for staffing up our digital team.  Make no mistake – digital recruiting is not for the faint of heart.  A healthy dose of humor is required.  The terms “entitled, bold, audacious and aggressive” come to mind.  We have navigated the marketplace and have found many diamonds in the rough, but it is a very challenging recruiting environment.  The depth of talent at the middle to senior level is very limited.  There are a lot of the same folks circulating from one agency to another.  We simply don’t have enough practitioners in the market to handle the growth we are experiencing.

The industry has a number of efforts to bring fresh talent in.  Job fairs, aggressive education, and recruiting on college campuses have been going on in earnest for the past few years.  Hopefully the college graduates of today will be the digital marketing leadership of tomorrow, but what do we do to solve our talent shortage today?  How do we cross-train our teams and ensure that all employees are conversant in digital technologies?

The answer is multi-dimensional.  First and foremost, the solution requires a serious training effort which familiarizes all agency personnel to the basics of digital marketing – the nomenclature and basic principles.  There will be some that will show an interest and aptitude for digital and those should be nurtured into specialists if so inclined.  For us, the training includes both an e-learning component as well as in-person instruction.  We just rolled out a whole new training effort this year, called “CuriosityU” – and we are really excited about it.

Secondly, a codified rotation program for junior and mid-level staff should be instituted so that employees can experience many different facets of the business and become better overall media practitioners.  Finally, we are experimenting with “battle buddies” or mentors that can provide more personalized education and knowledge sharing on an ongoing basis.

From a structural standpoint there are many agencies that are trying to solve the digital brain drain through experimenting with new organizational structures.  Some are eliminating digital specialists all together and others are combining their analog and digital teams into an overall client focused team.  There is no simple answer and it is still early days to be able to determine what is the best practice is as we evolve into a more comprehensive digital ecosystem.

One thing however is certain.  This is not the time to sit idly by.  It requires effort, a plan, dedication and the determination to devote to this issue despite the daily tasks and initiatives that keep us all so busy.

What are you doing to solve the digital brain drain?  How are you organizing yourself for success in the future?  Let me know!

We live in an age where the privacy policy of Facebook (at 5,830 words) is longer than the U.S. Constitution (4,543 words excluding amendments).

A world where Facebooks’ 400 million users navigate privacy options which include more than 50 settings and more than 170 options (NY Times).

A time when privacy is discussed each and every day on Capitol Hill and throughout the halls of Washington DC.

Privacy is a red hot topic and one that shows no signs of abating.

The desire to create sweeping federal legislation that governs consumer privacy is something that has been simmering in Washington for years.  Recently, Rep. Rick Bouchier from Virginia (Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet) and Rep. Cliff Stearns from Florida released draft legislation on the subject.

Under the heading of “you can’t please everybody all the time”, consumer groups are up in arms that the legislation does not go far enough to protect consumers.  Others are saying that the draft is a solid step forward for the industry, and will provide greater consumer controls and transparency into data usage.  There is no doubt that the debate will rage for some time before being introduced to Congress as formal legislation.

I think it is a reasonable starting point to elevate the discussion.

Specifically, the bill would require a company that collects PII (personally identifiable information) to display an understandable privacy policy that explains how the company uses the data.

Under the proposed legislation, companies can collect information about individuals unless they opt-out of those services. Information that is collected could be stored for up to 18 months, after which it would have to be anonymized or deleted.

Behavioral targeting (serving ads based on exhibited online characteristics) is a tremendous asset for marketers, and has become a meaningful piece of the online advertising equation.  The new legislation states that a third-party ad network would need to provide opt-out options via a “clear, easy-to-find link to a webpage for the ad network that allows a person to edit his or her profile and, if he chooses, to opt out of having a profile, provided that the ad network does not share the individual’s information with anyone else.”

There are probably some shades of grey here as sharing of information across partners is fairly routine assuming the appropriate disclosures and commercial relationships exist.  We spent an extraordinary amount of time speaking about data usage and privacy as we worked on the recently announced Terms & Conditions 3.0 for the online advertising industry.  It is a complex and highly charged issue, to say the least.

The even darker underbelly of privacy revolves around data security.  There have been several well publicized events that made valuable consumer data more public than intended.  A few notable examples of this recently occurred with two of the most prominent social networks, Twitter and Facebook.  Twitters’ stumble allowed users to “force” others to follow them on Twitter and naturally, celebrities were the target of many overzealous fans.  On Facebook, the flaw revolved around a privacy setting (go figure!) that allowed users to preview how their profile would appear to their friends. For a brief period of time, the flaw allowed users to actually see what their friends were doing and saying on Facebook.

It should go without saying that consumer data is sacrosanct and should be treated as such.  Companies must be held accountable for breaches, and we all need to get more sensitized to the data that is shuttling around cyberspace.  As the world becomes increasingly comprised of zeros and ones (i.e. digital), the proliferation of data will continue.  With that data comes great responsibility.  What do you think?

I am certain that many of you have opinions on this subject, and I’d love to hear them!