23 March 2011 in ExchangeWire EMEA 48 Comments

The Life And Death Of The Ad Network

The ad network is a great business model. No, it’s amazing. You could start one in the morning with two people and be making 200K by the end of month. No joke. It’s easily done. You just need to know the right people at the right agencies – and if your story is reasonably compelling, you’ll be on multiple plans. We offer personalised re-targeting. BOOM! We offer social re-targeting. BOOM! We have a semantic behavioural re-targeting platform (SBR). Oh yes! How much money do you want, son? If you had half a brain and modicum of sense you could make “mad cash” in the ad network game.

But things have started to get a little more complicated in the last twelve months for the ad network. They used to have a monopoly on inventory aggregation and optimisation. The advent of DSPs and SSPs has changed the rules of the game. The ad net’s biggest client, namely the agency, is setting up trading desks to buy and optimise inventory in-house. And publishers are abandoning them for the SSPs and private exchanges. Some senior agency industry people reckon that the end is nigh for the once mighty ad network. So should we be calling time? Let’s examine some of the reasons why the ad network will die and indeed why it will power on.

Why The Ad Network Model Is In Real Trouble

Agency Trading Desks and DSPs are eating my margin alive

There’s been so much written on the subject on DSPs and the ATD (Agency Trading Desk) that it’s pointless to even summarise the high-level points. It’s been all been boringly tame and relatively friendly stuff. Don’t be fooled. DSPs were conceived to allow agencies to compete on equally footing with ad nets – in terms of inventory aggregation and optimisation. And that is a fact. You don’t believe me. Go ask agencies if the number of ad nets on the media plan has decreased – and whether increased budget has been put into the DSPs (Invite, MediaMath, AppNexus, etc) at the expense of ad nets. This buying trend is become more evident across agency land – and it will become more pronounced over the coming months.

The sell-side is abandoning me for the SSPs and exchanges

When the SSPs arrived on these shores some two years ago, they worked with publishers to manage ad network relationship. Since then they’ve morphed into trading platforms for publishers, enabling them to sell inventory to the entire market. If this wasn’t bad enough players like OpenX, Google and Audience Science are looking to manage yield across all classes of inventory. There are slim pickings for ad nets in the premium space. Sure there are some top-tier publishers and niche B2B players working with ad nets. But how long for? There are exceptions. Criteo, for instance, is working with a lot of top tier publishers and has even managed to lock down a sizeable chunk of premium inventory from Microsoft. Sweet deal. For the minute anyway ad nets look a little beaten on the sell-side. And that includes the long tail as well. Thank you, Google.

The post impression CPA metric is in the exit lounge

A very senior agency person recently described post view CPA as a “pure racket”. Much of European DR campaigns are based on this metric. Attribution is a massive issue in the industry. Affiliates are up in arms about post impression CPA, because they are still working on the post click model – and who the hell clicks on ads anyway. It’s very much high on the agenda of most agencies. Some ad nets are making a lot of cash gaming the current model by engaging in merciless cookie bombing. Once the agencies address this critical piece of their business some ad nets are going to get hit hard in the pocket. No more week-long junkets to Vegas for you then.

I want to see what and where you bought

Ah, the black box solution. It has long been the favourite throw-away line of many an ad network. Agencies used to be happy this mystical “special sauce” – and if it ain’t broke why fix it. But in the age of the DSP, it’s all about price and inventory transparency. Where and what are you buying have become the standard questions for agencies when taking their ad net rep to task. If things couldn’t get any worse, along comes ad verification. Damn. It is making transparency a given for most campaigns now. Ad nets not conforming to the new agency diktat will be banished form the plan.

And The Reasons Why Ad Nets Are Rock Solid

We can iterate our model

The one of the key strengths of the ad net model is its flexibility. I have seen some ad nets move closer to the demand side – and some who have gone down the sales house/premium rep route. The emergence of the Demand Side Network is an interesting development. Effectively, it’s all about dynamic inventory – no need for publisher acquisition teams here. Its first and only responsibility is to the agency/advertiser. The DSN is focused on execution – and the optimisation layer is critical to its offering. On the brand side there are several ad networks working closely with B2B and niche publisher to sell customised ad packages. Their focus is getting the best price for publishers. The sales house lives on. The other key development in the ad net space is the supply piece. Ad nets are now making inventory available in real-time to the demand-side. DSPs are plugging into ad nets to access supply that’s not available through exchanges and SSPs. We will see more of this for sure.

The agency strategy is disjointed

The thing to remember about the agency holding company is that it is very much a political beast. You have a number of agencies within a group who are effectively competing with each other – from market share to clients. Centralising exchange-trading would effectively be ceding buying power – and a loss of control. This is the reason why most DSPs or Agency Trading Desks are only appearing as a line item on the plan – instead of being the de-facto “buying portal”. And it’s probably the reason why many agencies within the holding company will want their own buying desk. The P&L is still crucial in the agency world.

The big agency media buyer’s first responsibility is to the client. In the short term it will mean ad nets will still be successful. But they will begin to feel the pinch from the likes of GMM – which is positioning itself as an ad network solution. The most fascinating development in agency land though is the exodus of talent. Frustrated by old school agency politics, many are jumping ship to join ad trading start-ups or client-direct exchange teams wholly focused on automated trading.

The ad trading start-ups might not look like ad nets in the truest sense – but the core ad net skills of optimisation are baked into their DNA. These companies work close with advertisers and agencies, and are in some cases delivering better results than the ATD. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of these marketers moving 100% of their display budget to these specialists over the coming twelve months.

Optimisation is still king and we’ve been doing this for over ten years

Ad networks get a lot of stick for making lots of margin – but the reality is they deliver for the agency. The tools might be available but the know-how and talent still resides within the ad networks. Granted GMM is taking a stab at luring talented people from ad nets to build its own offering. But the reality is that most agencies don’t have the deep pockets to lure the optimisation superstars. This is just an economic fact.

And now the game has changed again. With 188 billion “brand safe” impressions available monthly across the European exchanges it’s clear that new skills like bid management are going to be necessary if any buy-side vendor is to compete in the growing automated space. And where are those people? Most are working in the latest iterations of the ad network model – namely the exchange traders and DSNs. Ah yes, the cycle continues.

What next for the once mighty ad network?

To say that all ad networks are going to go under would be disingenuous. I would say the traditional arbitrage, cookie bombing model is screwed. Price and inventory transparency is now the name of the game. And that will have to become a key offering if ad nets are to win budgets. This is short term stuff though. If we were to jump ahead a couple of years it becomes a lot more uncertain. Agencies and ad nets won’t be able to work together harmoniously.

Someone somewhere in one of the holding companies is going to force through centralised exchange-buying, making media buyers trade through the agency’s own proprietary buying portal. What that means for ad nets is uncertain. So will they just aggregate and supply inventory to agency groups? I’ve spoken about this before. I think ad nets will have to go to source – and try to win the client direct relationship if it is to survive as a viable business model. And I expect this to happen. It’s a given.

Is the traditional ad network model going to die off? More than likely. But in its place we will be left with a turbo-charged hybrid of the agency and ad network. It will gain the client management skills and retain the key optimisation skills. It might not have a publisher acquisition element depending on the success of private exchanges, SSPs et al. So the ad network is dead. Let’s make way for the agency network.



  • Jont

    IASH was brought in to create a brand safe environment because agencies/clients demanded this 5 years ago. This is why Ad-networks adhere to it. The reality of this is that DSP’s are playing their own game as they don’t have a regulator and it’s a pirates game right now. They are just using the spray and prey approach pumping out mass volume, generating high volumes of clicks and in turn conversions (due to volume). The industry has turned back on itself. It’s just created a search model on display on the millions of lower tier impressions available on the web and they are claiming to overlay data. Saying that, there are a few good ones (and I say a few hesitantly) but you need to spend one month of your time going through line by line of every site and verifying it yourself (every quarter).A weighted exposure to conversion analysis on the ratio of impressions delivered to spend would be a good analysis. The inventory is claimed to be premium/brand safe when it’s not. You cannot buy inventory at 7p and claim it’s been audited/check and “safe”. What happens to your big brands when and if they ever embrace this, they just end up nippleslip.com or befuddle.co.uk. There are whole teams in agencies and networks whose job is to do this and there is a value in delivering in a safe environment. Obviously, the spend will be funnelled on the basis of how the brand thinks about its own identity. Some gambling sites just don’t care so there is a market for these lower tier brands. The bigger tier brands where agencies are funnelling the cash through this to make a margin will be exposed in all due course. It’s already happening! People are getting caught out and agencies will lose accounts because of this. It only needs to be published to expose some of the bigger agencies trading habits and get the clients asking the questions.
    Some publishers are starting to open it up to the exchanges but it will fall back on itself. If I was a publishing director, I know I would rather receive guaranteed revenue for the quarter than exposing myself on an exchange. For example, in a market, when you’re selling something and its 5pm and everything is closing down/no one has bought it, what happens to your price, it goes DOWN! And its only the ‘Primark’ type inventory that is getting sold at this market in the first place (with a few exceptions).
    If you want to buy 111,241,724 impressions for 8K so be it. But there is a reason that you buy 7m impressions for 8K from an Ad-network/publisher. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.

  • http://twitter.com/DannyHopwood Danny Hopwood

    Don’t disagree with your eCPM statement Gav. I meant the CPA doesn’t actually tell us anything about what’s happening beyond that eCPM. It tells us we are getting alot for a good price, but I want to get that with the knowledge of what my impression is doing. CPA currently doesn’t allow this and clients are blinded by that number on the bottom right to actual value of the display impression, the user it is shown to, whether that user is exposed or unexposed, propensity, latency etc

    You spoke within your post about the industry PI problems, I see the CPA metric as real base for this.

    Don’t get me wrong it’s always going to be present…I just think we need to move away from it as the ‘be all and end all’.

  • Time for industry to grow up

    But is getting the eCPM sustainable? Does it have scalability? I don’t think CPA is bullshit, I think the way in which optimisation occurs (dropping last cookies) is bullshit. CPA buys are designed with that in mind. Not about ‘connecting ads with engaged audiences’ which was mainly my point

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Brand safety on DSPs is more reliable than IASH’s non technical safety net.

    1. The first safety net is at exchange level where they have filtered out the below.
    2. At DSP level you auto opt out of the below and can choose to run across it.
    3. Next level is the IAB standard maturity rating which you can add extra layers of security.

    Adult
    Adware
    Spyware
    BitTorrent
    Gambling
    Free Download
    Sexually suggestive
    Web Site Pop-ups or Pop-unders
    MP3 Download
    MP3 Search
    P2P
    Phishing
    Photo/Video/File Sharing
    Desktop Software
    Proxy or Mirror Sites
    Pornography

    A leading portal ad network which is IASH accredited has run my 2 x different banking clients (one of which is part govt owned) ads on the casual relationship section of gumtree – now that is targeting!!!

    Also as per my comment on the ad network article ad networks buy huge volumes via ad exchanges and other networks even when they’re IASH accredited so….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    1.2 BILLION ads a month for one advertiser I used to buy at c 30p eCPM – they were a huge advertiser but it proves the point. It did okayish on a pure post click basis so it proves that the users were engaged to the ads

  • Jont

    This is just the standard classification on inventory. It is the way that web properties are categorised on the web (and this is an old model). So with 22,000 properties on the content network, and hundreds of thousands on other exchanges, please could you confirm who comes in and says that this is being categorised as x and this is being categorised as this. And that this publisher tag is here and links to here every few months. Who audits this? Noone – absolutely no one.

    As I stated before, there are smart ways to buy from an exchange as long you’ve checked it line by line and you’ve got a team consistently checking it as tags get moved all the time in within publishers.

    I’ve seen some of the site lists myself and I definitely wouldn’t put a brand near some of these exchanges. And to your point about Gumtree (which is owned by one of the biggest brands on the planet, Ebay), I’d definitely rather appear there than nippleslip/befuddle and some of the other sites I’ve seen.

    It worries me that people just look at the results without looking under the bonnet. You can’t even buy a packet of chewing gum for 7p, so why on earth would you think a publisher will sell you a “premium position” for that price. If you seriously believe your getting valuable inventory for that price, I would question your judgement. As stated in the Changing Media Summit in the last couple of days, content is king and nobody wants free/cheap crap. Targeting users in a verified brand safe environment is critical (with scale) and DSP’s just can’t offer that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Google.

    Not sure if Google would risk miss categorising something dodgy. Can you imagine if a COI ad appeared next to illegal content via content network.

    Have you seen the casual relationship section of Gumtree :) , I’m assuming not.

    Because the algorithm has determined that the inventory is not worth any more. The thing is, we need to stop assuming like when you say ‘believe you’re getting valuable inventory’ – the data does not lie, if I’m making more profit by serving at 7p than at £1.50 then the algorithm will get me it at 7p all based on goals then that is value to a profit making business no? Soon I’ll be happy to start paying £1.50 to £3 because as DSPs get even more sophisticated and targeted then the conversion rate will warrant that price to hit goals and the algorithm would accept that.

    Also can you buy ads from networks above the fold and get that 100% guaranteed? You can with DSPs esp. as you check the box yourself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Yeah agree Dan.

  • Time for industry to grow up

    I'll admit that ad networks aren't going to die any time soon but lets not kid ourselves about the role of ad nets, particularly ones that bang out a lot of CPA deals.

    To this end I find the talk of 'engaged audiences' the biggest amount of propaganda on this page.

    You're telling me that CPA campaigns on eCPMs of circa 30p are 'connecting ads to engaged audiences', making 'the web a better place'? Bollocks. What planet you on?

    As rightly called out on here, the CPA PI practice is a racket.

  • http://twitter.com/DannyHopwood Danny Hopwood

    Theres a couple of those grads that come through and pay off with their interet and passion like you say – just hope agencies see what they have. I agree with you 'la de da' media buyers are still around and care more about their next pampering session or free lunch than the tech they are buying.

    On the 'no agency' point though, they are always going to be around. I agree above that they will change beyond recognition.

  • http://twitter.com/DannyHopwood Danny Hopwood

    Can that DSP be through an agency? Because it's easier to educate and migrate a client to DSP activity than from zilch.

  • http://twitter.com/DannyHopwood Danny Hopwood

    Lets not beat around the bush….the CPA metric is bullshit. It caused and stir the other day and its come to light again here.

    Ad Nets can't answer this, Google don't need to, its up to agencies to begin mining for the truth as has been said before. Ad nets are not privvy to the information – agencies sit in an advantageous position to do this and provide that 'value'.

  • Anon

    A) I dont think it it set to 'screw over advertisers' as you have to remember if it doesn't perform well, that particular offering won't be on the plan again.

    B) Agency fees vary massively from advertiser to advertiser. They all have different contracts in places, and isn't as $$$ as you would think. How much does it cost an advertiser to do everything in house per year, with the QUALITY of service that an Agency provides? Take that amount, and then compare it to what you would pay an agency (imagining that everything was at net – which more and more clients are doing). I know what will be much less.

    Offerings and agencies need to make money, they're a business. Same as the advertisers. A bit of bat and ball in the park never hurt anyone….

  • Time for industry to grow up

    Lets work with these figures…1.2billion ads @ £0.30p CPM and lets assume you worked to a post click CPA of £60 (probably higher for savings / bank accounts), by my estimate, gives you a ‘user who’s apparently engaged to ads’ rate of 0.0005% – I cant see this space sustaining itself if that is the benchmark for success of ‘connecting ads to engaged audiences’

  • Nigel

    This article has generated more comments than most I've seen in a long while. The debate around how an ad network and media agenies can survice in the medium to long term is always going to be quite sensitive.

    I set up and worked at a leading ad network for over 10 years in the UK, and unfortunately it hasnt been easy for at least the last 5 of those. The very low barriers to entry in this market as you mentioned already don't help – you get too many short term cowboys and then you become victime of association. After taht, becasue all ad networks say they do somethign slightly different, the point arrives very quickly where no-one can tell the difference, and you all get put in the same bucket.

    Key observation you made is that ad networks are always in a position to adapt and change when new tech arrives, and if you're clever, you can still stay ahead of the game. The point about SSPs being a threat to ad networks though I dont really think is the case. The SSp model is perhaps even more short term than that of the ad network. The investment required to set that type of business up is clealry higher, and the perceived control that a publisher has within that system is a misnomer. As fill rates on RTB are only ever likely to average 15% – 20% on most sites, they have to sell the rest to – guess who – ad networks – so we've come all the way back to the start again. On top of that they need to sign publishers up on an exclusive basis in order to create value in thier business, and subsequently sell. Once they sell sometime this year to some corporate, then the publishers all have to start again with thier strategy.

    SSPs are very helpful in the market for growing RTB, raising awareness of how publishers can generate revenue, and dlivering some much needed standardisation to a confused space – but let's keep them in perspective – they are not particularly different form a top end ad network.

  • Jont

    You are missing the point

    You’re spraying out hundreds of millions of impressions across extremely cheap inventory and no one is regulating this. Of course you are going to have more clicks and pick up more sales due to 100x more cookies being dropped and post click sales because 100x more impressions are being served? Your conversion rate might be 0.01% better but across 100m more impressions. Does this sound highly targeted and efficient? No… This is the model that adnetworks had 6 years ago and all I’m seeing is history repeat itself under a new name call DSP.

    There is no theory behind the madness apart from these “algorithms” that their sales team has spun you. Google isn’t IASH regulated and neither is any DSP. You need an independent body to verify this. Just because it gives you a tick box option on your interface, doesn’t mean its happening. Brand safety and content is king for a bulk of the advertisers in the UK. This is why publishing divisions exist in major corporations.

    Adnetworks could go out and pitch, “I’m going to buy a whole load of inventory that we’re not even going to check; were going to chain buy, spray cookies everywhere, have you in hidden subpages of the URL’s/ have no idea where you are appearing. They don’t because an advertiser like COI wouldn’t touch this proposition with a 10 foot pole without any brand assurances. Its about audience targeting in a brand safe environment.

    Btw – Gumtree suspended that service 14 months ago because of advertisers demand for safety.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Not necessarily, i've always been a massive fan of CPA deals – it's a good way of getting that eCPM down. Either buy on a CPM basis of £1.50 or run across the same inventory buying a CPA and paying eCPM of c 30p.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    A) Depends what you class as 'performing well', there are several ways you can make bad data look good to marketers. Also we are talking about performing better to what they've done previously. I have several DSP case studies and there's room for increasing the DSP cpm by hundreds of % and it still looking better vs ad networks.

    B) True, also it doesn't help at pitching when marketers look for just price rather than 'premium' or quality which is why we're in this situation now – having to make money behind close doors

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Def agree about always being around, looking forward to the new age agency.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    No, don't forget about the sneaky agency margin setting in DSPs, this will get massively abused. We need this to be audited correctly.

    Most DSPs offer MS and not just SS so if you haven’t got resource you can use them like a network eg. give them 10k and they'll deliver it without any extra margins etc with all of the DSP benefits.

  • Justin Thomas

    Hi Nigel

    Good reading your response, thanks for taking the time to write it.

    Disclaimer: I work for the Rubicon Project, an SSP, running their Publisher Development team in EMEA.

    You make interesting points, but I want to pick up on your specific comment that ‘fill rates on RTB will only ever likely average 15%-20%’. I believe that this is an inaccurate prediction. One could argue that we’re in the early stages of true RTB growth/scale, and still at the Rubicon Project, platform-wide, we are very close to achieving over 20% of our total impressions being filled by RTB campaigns (in the next 30 days we will eclipse this). Fill rate in RTB will always be a function of the Publisher’s floor price (lower floor, higher the fill), advertiser block lists and Demand (bid density), so it will vary (and could go below 20% if all Publishers increased their floors dramatically, or Demand dipped). However, we’ve even achieved this RTB fill rate with our Publishers setting relatively high floors. Therefore, looking at what we’re doing and given the predicted growth of RTB this year (and beyond), I think that it is inaccurate to say RTB ‘fill rates will only ever average 15%-20%’.

    Through RTB, Publishers can now see (and most importantly, price accordingly) what an advertiser – by site, zone, size, data segment, and other attributes – is buying their inventory at. Publishers have never had this depth of insight into their unsold inventory until now, and this transparency/control is driving adoption. On top of that, we see RTB rates at 3-5x of average networks rates, so you can see a Publishers desire to engage RTB.

    If Publishers can get this insight and increase, and Agencies/Advertisers can get efficiency and scale through RTB, then I can only see RTB growing, and filling a lot more than 15%-20% of unsold inventory.

    Cheers,
    Justin

    P.S. We think that the Death of the Ad network is greatly overstated. We work with all major networks across the globe and believe they bring value to our Publishers and the clients they service. Ad Networks have adapted to market dynamics over the last decade and I’m sure they will continue to do so. For example, we’re already seeing some Ad networks buy via RTB.

    P.S.S I hope this post doesn’t continued into the weekend, I’m knackered and I haven’t seen my family all week ;O).

  • Jont

    IASH was brought in to create a brand safe environment because agencies/clients demanded this 5 years ago. This is why Ad-networks adhere to it. The reality of this is that DSP's are playing their own game as they don’t have a regulator and it’s a pirates game right now. They are just using the spray and prey approach pumping out mass volume, generating high volumes of clicks and in turn conversions (due to volume). The industry has turned back on itself. It’s just created a search model on display on the millions of lower tier impressions available on the web and they are claiming to overlay data. Saying that, there are a few good ones (and I say a few hesitantly) but you need to spend one month of your time going through line by line of every site and verifying it yourself (every quarter).A weighted exposure to conversion analysis on the ratio of impressions delivered to spend would be a good analysis. The inventory is claimed to be premium/brand safe when it’s not. You cannot buy inventory at 7p and claim it’s been audited/check and “safe”. What happens to your big brands when and if they ever embrace this, they just end up nippleslip.com or befuddle.co.uk. There are whole teams in agencies and networks whose job is to do this and there is a value in delivering in a safe environment. Obviously, the spend will be funnelled on the basis of how the brand thinks about its own identity. Some gambling sites just don’t care so there is a market for these lower tier brands. The bigger tier brands where agencies are funnelling the cash through this to make a margin will be exposed in all due course. It’s already happening! People are getting caught out and agencies will lose accounts because of this. It only needs to be published to expose some of the bigger agencies trading habits and get the clients asking the questions.
    Some publishers are starting to open it up to the exchanges but it will fall back on itself. If I was a publishing director, I know I would rather receive guaranteed revenue for the quarter than exposing myself on an exchange. For example, in a market, when you’re selling something and its 5pm and everything is closing down/no one has bought it, what happens to your price, it goes DOWN! And its only the 'Primark' type inventory that is getting sold at this market in the first place (with a few exceptions).
    If you want to buy 111,241,724 impressions for 8K so be it. But there is a reason that you buy 7m impressions for 8K from an Ad-network/publisher. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    So you would expect a LOWER CTR% and conversion rate right? How comes on my case studies for DSPs vs ad networks on a POST CLICK basis (so not taking into account post view) the CTR% is higher and conversion rate? By delivering millions of impressions you would normally expect volume like this to have a detrimental effect on the post click metrics. Obv. not the case. Via the ad networks it was ‘highly targeted’ across ‘premium’ inventory and cost c 500% more than the DSP and delivered obv. 500% less in terms of impressions.

    Depends what you class as efficient, if you mean this just because of volume of ads then right but I when I think of efficiency I think of it as bottom line ROI, it proves that delivering 100m cheaper vs 50m higher cost gets a better post click CPA then what option would you go for. All depends again if you’re delivering ads for fun or trying to make a positive ROI.

    Here we go again, DSPs answering the critics. On some DSPs you can log into the algorithm decision tool to see exactly what decision the ‘brain’ has had on an index basis in line with the goal. Ad networks provide a pie chart with IAB formats showing volume of delivered ads.

    Bearing in mind that I have run ad verification tech across 5 large ad networks, all had elements of porn. When running across the DSPs there was no sign of this. This is a FACT unless AdXpose manipulated the data to make ad networks look worse which I doubt is the case.

    100% brand assurance does not exist. Have you got any concrete data to say that IASH is more brand safe than DSPs?

    Finally got rid of it then. I guess the level of compensation I got from the networks must have hit back at the publisher. See, they cannot even control where the ads are delivered on gumtree so they have to take down the ad tags completely.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Also Jon, prob. best to get in touch with a DSP to let them go over exactly what they do, then the comparison and understanding will be clearer.

  • http://twitter.com/DannyHopwood Danny Hopwood

    Don't disagree with your eCPM statement Gav. I meant the CPA doesn't actually tell us anything about what's happening beyond that eCPM. It tells us we are getting alot for a good price, but I want to get that with the knowledge of what my impression is doing. CPA currently doesn't allow this and clients are blinded by that number on the bottom right to actual value of the display impression, the user it is shown to, whether that user is exposed or unexposed, propensity, latency etc

    You spoke within your post about the industry PI problems, I see the CPA metric as real base for this.

    Don't get me wrong it's always going to be present…I just think we need to move away from it as the 'be all and end all'.

  • Time for industry to grow up

    But is getting the eCPM sustainable? Does it have scalability? I don't think CPA is bullshit, I think the way in which optimisation occurs (dropping last cookies) is bullshit. CPA buys are designed with that in mind. Not about 'connecting ads with engaged audiences' which was mainly my point

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Brand safety on DSPs is more reliable than IASH's non technical safety net.

    1. The first safety net is at exchange level where they have filtered out the below.
    2. At DSP level you auto opt out of the below and can choose to run across it.
    3. Next level is the IAB standard maturity rating which you can add extra layers of security.

    Adult
    Adware
    Spyware
    BitTorrent
    Gambling
    Free Download
    Sexually suggestive
    Web Site Pop-ups or Pop-unders
    MP3 Download
    MP3 Search
    P2P
    Phishing
    Photo/Video/File Sharing
    Desktop Software
    Proxy or Mirror Sites
    Pornography

    A leading portal ad network which is IASH accredited has run my 2 x different banking clients (one of which is part govt owned) ads on the casual relationship section of gumtree – now that is targeting!!!

    Also as per my comment on the ad network article ad networks buy huge volumes via ad exchanges and other networks even when they're IASH accredited so….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    1.2 BILLION ads a month for one advertiser I used to buy at c 30p eCPM – they were a huge advertiser but it proves the point. It did okayish on a pure post click basis so it proves that the users were engaged to the ads

  • Jont

    This is just the standard classification on inventory. It is the way that web properties are categorised on the web (and this is an old model). So with 22,000 properties on the content network, and hundreds of thousands on other exchanges, please could you confirm who comes in and says that this is being categorised as x and this is being categorised as this. And that this publisher tag is here and links to here every few months. Who audits this? Noone – absolutely no one.

    As I stated before, there are smart ways to buy from an exchange as long you’ve checked it line by line and you’ve got a team consistently checking it as tags get moved all the time in within publishers.

    I've seen some of the site lists myself and I definitely wouldn’t put a brand near some of these exchanges. And to your point about Gumtree (which is owned by one of the biggest brands on the planet, Ebay), I'd definitely rather appear there than nippleslip/befuddle and some of the other sites I've seen.

    It worries me that people just look at the results without looking under the bonnet. You can’t even buy a packet of chewing gum for 7p, so why on earth would you think a publisher will sell you a “premium position” for that price. If you seriously believe your getting valuable inventory for that price, I would question your judgement. As stated in the Changing Media Summit in the last couple of days, content is king and nobody wants free/cheap crap. Targeting users in a verified brand safe environment is critical (with scale) and DSP’s just can’t offer that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Google.

    Not sure if Google would risk miss categorising something dodgy. Can you imagine if a COI ad appeared next to illegal content via content network.

    Have you seen the casual relationship section of Gumtree :) , I'm assuming not.

    Because the algorithm has determined that the inventory is not worth any more. The thing is, we need to stop assuming like when you say 'believe you’re getting valuable inventory' – the data does not lie, if I’m making more profit by serving at 7p than at £1.50 then the algorithm will get me it at 7p all based on goals then that is value to a profit making business no? Soon I’ll be happy to start paying £1.50 to £3 because as DSPs get even more sophisticated and targeted then the conversion rate will warrant that price to hit goals and the algorithm would accept that.

    Also can you buy ads from networks above the fold and get that 100% guaranteed? You can with DSPs esp. as you check the box yourself.

  • Nigel

    Hi Justin – thanks for the comments too!
    quick disclaimer from me – the ‘only ever 15% – 20% fill rate’ comment was based around current rates – clearly it would be niaive of me to assume it will not grow (significantly). I can only put that down to the fact it was early in the morning when I wrote it!

    We have also seen high floors in our marketplace, so I completely subscribe to that point, and the more publishers understand about the incremental benefits of exposing their media to this demand, the better it will be for both of us.

    Thanks for your comments about ad networks, and glad you have a very appropriate perspective on that.

    I can promise you wont see any more posts from me over the weekend either :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Yeah agree Dan.

  • Time for industry to grow up

    Lets work with these figures…1.2billion ads @ £0.30p CPM and lets assume you worked to a post click CPA of £60 (probably higher for savings / bank accounts), by my estimate, gives you a 'user who's apparently engaged to ads' rate of 0.0005% – I cant see this space sustaining itself if that is the benchmark for success of 'connecting ads to engaged audiences'

  • Jont

    You are missing the point

    You’re spraying out hundreds of millions of impressions across extremely cheap inventory and no one is regulating this. Of course you are going to have more clicks and pick up more sales due to 100x more cookies being dropped and post click sales because 100x more impressions are being served? Your conversion rate might be 0.01% better but across 100m more impressions. Does this sound highly targeted and efficient? No… This is the model that adnetworks had 6 years ago and all I’m seeing is history repeat itself under a new name call DSP.

    There is no theory behind the madness apart from these “algorithms” that their sales team has spun you. Google isn’t IASH regulated and neither is any DSP. You need an independent body to verify this. Just because it gives you a tick box option on your interface, doesn’t mean its happening. Brand safety and content is king for a bulk of the advertisers in the UK. This is why publishing divisions exist in major corporations.

    Adnetworks could go out and pitch, “I’m going to buy a whole load of inventory that we're not even going to check; were going to chain buy, spray cookies everywhere, have you in hidden subpages of the URL’s/ have no idea where you are appearing. They don’t because an advertiser like COI wouldn’t touch this proposition with a 10 foot pole without any brand assurances. Its about audience targeting in a brand safe environment.

    Btw – Gumtree suspended that service 14 months ago because of advertisers demand for safety.

  • Justin Thomas

    Hi Nigel

    Good reading your response, thanks for taking the time to write it.

    Disclaimer: I work for the Rubicon Project, an SSP, running their Publisher Development team in EMEA.

    You make interesting points, but I want to pick up on your specific comment that ‘fill rates on RTB will only ever likely average 15%-20%’. I believe that this is an inaccurate prediction. One could argue that we’re in the early stages of true RTB growth/scale, and still at the Rubicon Project, platform-wide, we are very close to achieving over 20% of our total impressions being filled by RTB campaigns (in the next 30 days we will eclipse this). Fill rate in RTB will always be a function of the Publisher’s floor price (lower floor, higher the fill), advertiser block lists and Demand (bid density), so it will vary (and could go below 20% if all Publishers increased their floors dramatically, or Demand dipped). However, we've even achieved this RTB fill rate with our Publishers setting relatively high floors. Therefore, looking at what we're doing and given the predicted growth of RTB this year (and beyond), I think that it is inaccurate to say RTB ‘fill rates will only ever average 15%-20%’.

    Through RTB, Publishers can now see (and most importantly, price accordingly) what an advertiser – by site, zone, size, data segment, and other attributes – is buying their inventory at. Publishers have never had this depth of insight into their unsold inventory until now, and this transparency/control is driving adoption. On top of that, we see RTB rates at 3-5x of average networks rates, so you can see a Publishers desire to engage RTB.

    If Publishers can get this insight and increase, and Agencies/Advertisers can get efficiency and scale through RTB, then I can only see RTB growing, and filling a lot more than 15%-20% of unsold inventory.

    Cheers,
    Justin

    P.S. We think that the Death of the Ad network is greatly overstated. We work with all major networks across the globe and believe they bring value to our Publishers and the clients they service. Ad Networks have adapted to market dynamics over the last decade and I'm sure they will continue to do so. For example, we're already seeing some Ad networks buy via RTB.

    P.S.S I hope this post doesn’t continued into the weekend, I’m knackered and I haven’t seen my family all week ;O).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    So you would expect a LOWER CTR% and conversion rate right? How comes on my case studies for DSPs vs ad networks on a POST CLICK basis (so not taking into account post view) the CTR% is higher and conversion rate? By delivering millions of impressions you would normally expect volume like this to have a detrimental effect on the post click metrics. Obv. not the case. Via the ad networks it was ‘highly targeted’ across ‘premium’ inventory and cost c 500% more than the DSP and delivered obv. 500% less in terms of impressions.

    Depends what you class as efficient, if you mean this just because of volume of ads then right but I when I think of efficiency I think of it as bottom line ROI, it proves that delivering 100m cheaper vs 50m higher cost gets a better post click CPA then what option would you go for. All depends again if you're delivering ads for fun or trying to make a positive ROI.

    Here we go again, DSPs answering the critics. On some DSPs you can log into the algorithm decision tool to see exactly what decision the 'brain' has had on an index basis in line with the goal. Ad networks provide a pie chart with IAB formats showing volume of delivered ads.

    Bearing in mind that I have run ad verification tech across 5 large ad networks, all had elements of porn. When running across the DSPs there was no sign of this. This is a FACT unless AdXpose manipulated the data to make ad networks look worse which I doubt is the case.

    100% brand assurance does not exist. Have you got any concrete data to say that IASH is more brand safe than DSPs?

    Finally got rid of it then. I guess the level of compensation I got from the networks must have hit back at the publisher. See, they cannot even control where the ads are delivered on gumtree so they have to take down the ad tags completely.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gavin-Deadman/736620636 Gavin Deadman

    Also Jon, prob. best to get in touch with a DSP to let them go over exactly what they do, then the comparison and understanding will be clearer.

  • Nigel

    Hi Justin – thanks for the comments too!
    quick disclaimer from me – the 'only ever 15% – 20% fill rate' comment was based around current rates – clearly it would be niaive of me to assume it will not grow (significantly). I can only put that down to the fact it was early in the morning when I wrote it!

    We have also seen high floors in our marketplace, so I completely subscribe to that point, and the more publishers understand about the incremental benefits of exposing their media to this demand, the better it will be for both of us.

    Thanks for your comments about ad networks, and glad you have a very appropriate perspective on that.

    I can promise you wont see any more posts from me over the weekend either :-)

  • Anonymous

    Great comments, Justin. For the record: I am not saying the ad network is dead. I merely put some arguments out as to why it will have to evolve. I think your points on RTB fill rates are spot on by the way.

  • exchangewire

    Great comments, Justin. For the record: I am not saying the ad network is dead. I merely put some arguments out as to why it will have to evolve. I think your point on RTB fill rates are spot on by the way.

  • B keenen

    I can only assume by your anonymous sign in that you are either
    A: a competitor that can’t win
    B: a new vc funded startup trying make waves in the space
    C: a jilted bride
    D: another layer to the advertising value chain

    Our proposition is a bit different than the run of mill ad networks, and yes engaged audience is part of it. We are working to a better web experiencing, not propaganda just a mission. We are not just another layer to the value chain which I can only assume where your experience sits. Correct me if I am wrong

  • B Keenen

    I just decided that there is not enough time in the day to respond to every comment (although I would love to). It looks like a great debate to me. The market will determine who rises to the top. I enjoyed the data economy when the profit question was asked and no hands were raised. My point is, lots of noise, lots of propaganda and lots of people focusing on the wrong thing with too many layers of cost and in the end, the publishers will lose. The irony is, they have what the advertisers, agencies and dsp’s want. My advice is they focus on user engagement and experience, which will allow them to sell their inventory for more. It’s not rocket science. They can still utilise an ssp to represent them in the marketplace and make more money, but they need to protect their premium asset….the audience.

    Charlie Monger once said, if business schools taught what really mattered the term would end after one day, because it’s too easy.

    No more responses from me, but happy to hold a forum at the carpenters arms anytime. Justin?

  • B keenen

    I can only assume by your anonymous sign in that you are either
    A: a competitor that can't win
    B: a new vc funded startup trying make waves in the space
    C: a jilted bride
    D: another layer to the advertising value chain

    Our proposition is a bit different than the run of mill ad networks, and yes engaged audience is part of it. We are working to a better web experiencing, not propaganda just a mission. We are not just another layer to the value chain which I can only assume where your experience sits. Correct me if I am wrong

  • B Keenen

    I just decided that there is not enough time in the day to respond to every comment (although I would love to). It looks like a great debate to me. The market will determine who rises to the top. I enjoyed the data economy when the profit question was asked and no hands were raised. My point is, lots of noise, lots of propaganda and lots of people focusing on the wrong thing with too many layers of cost and in the end, the publishers will lose. The irony is, they have what the advertisers, agencies and dsp's want. My advice is they focus on user engagement and experience, which will allow them to sell their inventory for more. It's not rocket science. They can still utilise an ssp to represent them in the marketplace and make more money, but they need to protect their premium asset….the audience.

    Charlie Monger once said, if business schools taught what really mattered the term would end after one day, because it's too easy.

    No more responses from me, but happy to hold a forum at the carpenters arms anytime. Justin?

  • http://twitter.com/kpaulmedia kpaulmedia

    Great write up and thoughts. Thanks.

  • http://twitter.com/kpaulmedia kpaulmedia

    Great write up and thoughts. Thanks.