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”.

The Long and Winding Road – Gamesmanship of Shopping – Snapshot

In the past few years, new digital tools have led to a renewed energy about shopping that ultimately benefits consumers and brands. The growth of online tools like social networks, the mobile web and coupon sites have transformed shoppers from passive recipients of information — merely taking in communication from marketers — to active creators and distributors of product information and opinions.

Consumers have become an integral part of the process and are having fun with it. This has led to a new shopping mindset that is analogous to playing a game. The result for advertisers is a shopping landscape that is more complicated but provides a wealth of opportunities. How can marketers influence purchase behavior in this new shopping paradigm and where in the purchase path they can leverage new tools?

Yahoo! and Universal McCann partnered to help marketers understand the new dynamics in the path to purchase so they can use digital media more efficiently to engage shoppers.

Click the link above to download.

All three concurred that the industry as a whole needs to do a better job of recruiting and developing top talent, with Sorrell noting that the current trend of simply poaching talent from competing agencies is counterproductive to grooming future leaders. Roth chimed in and agreed, but also pointed out that IPG has made diversity a major priority. Sorrell countered by repeatedly asking Roth if there was a Chief Talent Officer on the IPG board and then stated that he felt the holding companies were simply “paying lip service” to the issue. Roth quickly responded: “Maybe you are, but we’re not.”

On the subject of the holding company format, all three executives agreed that acquisitions will remain an important part of the future, though they all stated a preference for more organic, internal growth. Technological and digital advances were also a focal point, with Wren stating that he anticipates a total integration of traditional and digital marketing within two years, doubting that agencies will still have Chief Digital Officers at that time. Roth shared a similar perspective when he stated that digital must be ingrained into the DNA of all parts of the business, but he felt the opportunity for specialists and digitally-focused agencies would likely remain.

The discussion ended with the three sharing their views on what role clients can play in the fostering of stronger relationships. Wren pleaded with clients to trust the agencies and frankly suggested that they should “pat someone on the back instead of prying $5 from their wallets.” In a rare moment of agreement, Sorrell stated that praising agencies when they do good work goes a long way in improving morale. Roth opined that both sides get the most out their symbiotic relationship when they view each other as partners with common goals.

After the CEO panel was a one-on-one interview with Miles Nadal, Founder, Chairman, & CEO of MDC Partners Inc. He followed up on the above discussion by stating that he believes the role of the CEO is synonymous with Chief Talent Officer, and he shared his views on the underestimated impact of social media and being accountable to clients who are seeking a return on the investments they make with their agency partners.

The second half of the morning’s program kicked off with a panel on television programming, with executives from AMC, History and Lifetime Networks, and Science Channel and Animal Planet discussing the future of what is still the biggest and most important screen that advertisers use to reach consumers. All felt that the use of social media to connect with viewers changes the game, though Nancy Dubuc (History and Lifetime) said that a show’s potential social media reach doesn’t determine whether or not it will be green-lighted. The importance of Netflix and streaming video services was also touched upon, though Charlie Collier (AMC) said, “we don’t’ dive in for the pennies,” with Dubuc agreeing that the main focus remains on TV screens and Nielsen ratings.

Geomentum CEO Sean Finnegan took part in a discussion on mobility and place-based business models, focusing on how local marketing is being transformed by emerging platforms. On the topic of new engagement standards, Finnegan stated that the universe of new technologies has added measurement complexity; however, Geomentum continues to focus on the most important metric to its clients: sales and business results.

Next was an eye-opening look at the present and future of gaming as presented by Ken Simon from Microsoft, a UM client. He took attendees through a close look at the “war for the living room,” providing staggering numbers on the reach, ever-expanding scope of the gaming target audience through innovations such as Kinect, and innovative means advertisers can use to appeal to consumers.

The day’s last discussion centered around new advertising guidelines, particularly as it pertains to digital marketing. All speakers agreed that it is of the utmost importance for the advertising industry to properly police itself in this realm, or run the risk of the federal government intervening and constructing strict guidelines that could limit the effectiveness of targeted marketing.

Transformation 2011 provided opportunities to think about the present and future states of the media, advertising, and marketing worlds, and IPG, Mediabrands, and their affiliated agencies were crucial to the discussion.
Special thanks to Jonathan Nierman at Mediabrands for this recap. Check out Mediabrands online at www.facbeook.com/mediabrands

After some opening remarks by 4A’s representatives, the action immediately kicked off with an in-depth conversation with Keith Weed, CMO & CCO of Unilever, an Initiative client. He spoke at length about how digital technology in particular has changed the game, noting that there’s so much going on, marketers can literally make things up on the fly. He gave an advertiser’s viewpoint on the need of the industry to evolve, removing the classifications between traditional and digital marketing to empower brands with the ability to connect with consumers through multiple channels simultaneously. Weed also commented on dealing with conflict between advertisers and agencies, sharing his opinion that the most fruitful relationships often are those that are the most enduring. He even stated that “everyone has failed” if an advertiser feels the need to walk away from an agency partner and begin anew elsewhere.

Fareed Zakaria, Editor-at-Large of Time Magazine and CNN on-air personality, then took the podium for a fascinating look at how events are transforming the world. He cited three big trends in particular: political stability around the world thanks to the end of the cold war, the extraordinary level of economic convergence globally and the resiliency of the worldwide economy, and technology and connectivity linking people together virtually in real time. He ended his remarks with the poignant opinion that the USA “globalized the world, but that it has forgotten to globalize itself.”

Robert Groves, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, took the stand next, leading attendees through some of the most interesting findings from the data collected in 2010. He pointed out that while the U.S. population continues to rise, its growth has slowed significantly. However, foreign-born residents are flooding into the U.S. at astronomical rates. Marketers in the room were certainly taken aback by some of the figures he presented, but the changing face of America is also a huge opportunity for the growth of brands.

UM’s Jacki Kelley then took part in a discussion on communication planning, verbally sparring with other members of the panel and drawing applause when pointing out that some agencies, such as UM, are already leading the communications planning charge and being compensated based on results, as opposed to impressions or other outdated measurement metrics. Kelley also remarked that listening to client partner insights is crucial when developing communications and overall marketing plans, a fact she has learned from sitting on both sides of the client/agency table.

Immediately following that breakout session, Mediabrands Chief Digital Officer Quentin George helped spearhead a lively discussion on improving targeted marketing, stating that it makes advertising more relevant for consumers and more efficient for brands. Yet, he also noted that targeted marketing is an augmentation – not a replacement – for traditional media planning, as this highly-specified way of appealing to consumers is still in its infancy. Many issues – most notably privacy – are still being worked out both by the industry and governing bodies such as the FCC.

Much more is going on Wednesday, including a panel discussion on agency and advertiser collaboration featuring holding company CEOs Michael Roth (IPG), Martin Sorrell (WPP), and John Wren (Omnicom). Mediabrands Communications will bring you the highlights on Thursday.

Special thanks to our Mediabrands reporter, Jonathan Nierman, for this recap. Check out Mediabrands on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/mediabrands

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.

If you have ever read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, you will know what a perceptive and persuasive treatise on the viral power of social trends this book really is.  Through an eclectic set of superbly chosen anecdotes, Gladwell engagingly unveils this phenomenon, from the retro rise of Hush Puppies footwear to the disturbing epidemic nature of teen suicides.

But do such findings really apply to a brand’s advertising and marketing?  Can we see an outwardly perceptible relationship between the few, influencers who have the capacity to influence, and the many, general consumers of a brand or product.  If so, can we readily quantify that relationship?

To help answer this, we recently interrogated the word of mouth study, Talk Track, by the Keller Fay Group.  We found clear evidence that the relationship between influencers and general consumers talking about a brand varies by market category in quite a predictable relationship.

Each year, Talk Track asks 36,000 consumers about their daily word of mouth goings-on and how often and in what ways they talk about brands. Talk Track also classifies people by the size of their social network and the amount of advice they provide to others in a specific market category.  Consumers placed in the highest social network and category advice levels are called Conversation Catalysts, as an effective proxy for a category’s influencers.

Taking the fifteen market categories that Talk Track monitors, we can place them on a map to determine if there is a visual relationship between general brand mentions by consumers and Conversation Catalysts or influencers.  We call this type of map, the WOM Opportunity Grid (see Figure 1), and it shows a clear relationship between the two criteria:

Figure 1

As we can see, the map implies a connection between, on the vertical axis, a category’s share of total mentions (for all brands in all categories) and, on the horizontal axis, the penetration of a category’s Conversation Catalysts among the general US population.

The individual blue dots on the map represent each of Keller Fay’s 15 market category’s spanning the full range from Media & Entertainment to Household Products.  We can see the best line of fit, the regression line, as the dotted blue line that dissects the map, running diagonally from bottom left to top right.  And we can also quantify the relationship or fit between these two factors where correlation is 81%.   In other words, as conversation levels increases there is, on average, an 81% proportional increase in influencers and vice versa.

This map and its findings have two major implications for marketers:

1.     If a brand is to maximize its conversation potential, it is not enough to focus simply on creating that conversation with consumers, a parallel communications strategy should often be embraced for influencers.

2.     Where a brand and its category fall on the map is critically important for that brand’s conversation, face-to-face marketing and social media strategies.  Plainly, it is not a case where one overarching conversational strategy will fit all brands in all categories.  Brands in categories in the top-right hand quadrant, high mentions/high influencers, have a very different – and much easier – task to develop consumer conversation levels than products in categories in the lower left quadrant, low mentions/low influencers.

How do we identify and reach influencers?  For an influencers’ strategy, it not just a case of reaching them but actively nurturing them as well.  For example, the major media survey, MRI, has specific proprietary questions to identify what it terms category influentials.  Taking the travel category as an illustration, MRI indicates three magazines, Travel + Leisure, Condé Nast Traveler and Arthur Frommer’s Budget Travel, are particularly relevant at reaching travel influencers.  Online has similar opportunities such as Trip Advisor.  By proactively harnessing these media, one would not only aim to reach out to travel influencers, but also via competitions or promotions or other invitations to be involved, start to build a direct dialogue with them and establish a highly customized, relationship marketing strategy.

In such a short column, we can only quantify and explain the core issues.  Macro approaches and solutions that are individually tailored to a brand’s conversational aims and needs also follow some clear guidelines.  If you are keen to know more, I would urge you to attend to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association Summit on November 17-19.  Among others, Brad Fay of Keller Fay and I will talk about tangible and practical solutions to the issue of amplifying a brand’s conversation levels using the approach outlined here.

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.

I’ve been fascinated by the recent publicity around The Gap and their new logo. They have decided to scrap the new logo and return to the original branding, largely due to the volume of negative buzz surrounding the change.  As I read the reports, I started to think back to the infamous launch of New Coke from the 80s, as well as several more recent back-tracks, from the new packaging for Tropicana to the recent change in the packaging for Sun Chips.

My first reaction was that while there is a clear trend here of brands reacting to consumer feedback, the reasons cited for the negative feedback have become increasingly disconnected from the actual product experience. When New Coke was pulled from the shelves, it was because of a perceived issue with the actual taste of the product. Contrast that with the recent Sun Chips uproar – over the noise the package makes! Nothing to do with the actual product itself!  Even the logo for The Gap clearly has no relationship to the store experience or the products sold! What is going on here?

What’s happening here is the continual rise in the power of the consumer. UM’s recently-launched Wave 5 survey has been tracking the explosion of social media and the associated power that it places in the hands of consumers since 2006. The most recent data reinforces the tremendous opportunity – and risk – that this provides brands. Consumers are actively looking for an ongoing relationship with brands, and the data clearly shows that when they have this relationship, there are enormous positive benefits for brands.

However, the examples above illustrate the double-edged nature of this transfer of power. The reality moving forward is that consumers will be more and more vocal about all aspects of brands – not just the actual brand experience – and brands need to  accept and embrace this. This all raises some fascinating questions around the role of measurement and research in new product development and brand evolution. I am guessing that a volumetric risk assessment of the negative PR impact was not always conducted in the examples above before decisions to reverse course were made.  Did The Gap forecast a significant negative sales impact if they continued with the new logo? Did Sun Chips have strong evidence that the overly loud bag would stop people buying them?

In this ever-expanding world where consumers and brands engage in a lively dialog and consumers wield power for both good and evil, the brand impact needs to be measured, forecast, and factored into every major marketing decision.

Whether it’s buying a car, choosing a financial services provider, or deciding whether to buy a Mac or a PC, everyone relies on other people to help.

Depending on the category, and the exact nature of the target, somewhere north of 50% of people say the most important influence on their final decision is family and friends,  96% say they take their friends and family’s opinion into account.

While friends and family used to influence one another face to face, this is changing.  Face time is declining – between 2005 and 2009 shared family time dropped 30%. [1]  There are a lot of reasons for this – economic stress means that people who are working often have to work harder, or to travel farther to find work. People are working farther from home – Among transplants, 40% say that the place they consider home is not where they currently live. [2]  But they are still staying in touch, and they are still helping one another make purchase decisions.

This is not exactly new news. In fact, it’s so obvious that when we put marketing plans together we ignore it.

The change is not what, but how

When we look at how people are making purchasing decisions – the process is still the same. If anything, the groups of people collaborating on a decision are bigger than ever – crossing geography, nuclear and step families, and generations. They gather information, share it, discuss and decide. What’s changed is not what they do; it’s how they do it.

People are still making decisions within networks that share information and discuss it, but these days the networks are tied together with digital media, rather than just face to face communication. This presents two opportunities for marketers:

1. A channel opportunity: Digital media – Social media, IM, Email, text messages, pictures sent via the mobile web, just as a start.
2. A targeting opportunity: There is a relatively stable cast of characters across decision making networks:

• A doer – the person who actually gathers the information, and from a marketers point of view, becomes the lead
• A catalyst – the person who has the idea for whatever needs to be done. Whether buying a second home, or vacationing in the tropics
• A professional friend – a friend who works in the industry who can advise on the pros and cons of the various options being considered
• A cheerleader – Someone who provides emotional support for the decision

The implication for marketers

The mistake that most marketers make is in focusing their marketing efforts on the doer alone. Because the decision making network is held together by digital media, and because the different players in the network want different types of content  – we hypothesize that by programming  content discretely to the players in the decision-making network we can increase the overall efficiency of a client’s marketing efforts.

We’ll be testing this hypothesis in some upcoming client engagements, and will post again on what we find. In the meantime, if you’d like more information, take a look at the studies below.

[1] Source: USC Annenberg School digital future project

[2] Source Pew Social & Demographic Trends survey