‘Full transparency is necessary’: Spotify’s new recruit Dan Robins on the digital industry’s challenges
Spotify’s latest hire Dan Robins opens up on digital industry issues around programmatic and viewability, brand safety, how some publishers haven’t done enough for advertisers, and the need for full transparency.
Since arriving in Australia at the start of 2013 to head up search for media agency OMD, Dan Robins has forged a reputation as a straight shooter in the digital landscape.
The affable Englishman, who was quickly promoted to be head of digital, was the go-to for many in the industry – including some at the IAB – looking for a no-nonsense explanation of the latest trends and issues in the industry.
So it raised some eyebrows in April when it was announced he was leaving OMD to head to Spotify’s local arm to head up the audio streaming giant’s push into programmatic trading, a relatively new addition to its sales armoury which was first trialled in Australia at the end of last year.
His jump to a digital media owner comes at a time when many in the industry are asking some very serious questions of the vendors in the space, with issues like measurement, viewability, and transparency problems around the trading of inventory red button topics.
He admits programmatic has developed a troubled reputation in some quarters for being a race to the bottom on price but adds: “I do think we’re slowly getting past the worst of it. When programmatic is only remnant inventory bought opaquely via third party exchanges or networks, it can be a race to the bottom to get the cheapest price and ‘win’ the conversion.
“Sadly this proves a false economy and often false attention.
There are lots of points where this kind of model could be gamed, arbitrage can occur and above all the trading remains non transparent. This is where calling ‘programmatic’ a channel gives it a bad name.”
But he argues the development in technology is starting to move the needle in terms of how programmatic is perceived: “Where I think we’re seeing positive strides is the move away from programmatic being seen as a (display/video) channel only, and into being simply a way of trading.
“Traders are using technology to overlay data and buy the right placement at the right time and relevant price. We’re seeing far more buyers running programmatic guaranteed activity where inventory and prices can be agreed and set upfront and segments used to show the right message per users.“
Viewability’s ‘low bar’
Another issue which has reared its head for digital publishers in recent years is viewability – how much of an ad is in view – and for how long – to count as an impression.
Robins has been an advocate for industry action on this issue, but says “after a few years of talk, we’re now in the action phase for viewability,” referring to a move by marketer body the AANA telling publishers they should not be able to charge for unviewed ads by next year.
He says that statement has spurred on all publishers to “kick on with their approaches”, but adds: “It will take some time before viewability becomes a given for all, not least because many publishers are still (slowly) testing which ad units work well for viewability but remain unobtrusive to their users. The Spotify platform allows us to only charge when 100% of, e.g. a video ad, is in view. But not all publishers are set up to do so.”
Viewability is currently measured against a US model developed by the Media Ratings Council, which demand at least 50% of an ad appears in view for at least a second to count as an impression.
Robins describes this as a “low bar”, adding: “Most agree these need to be the start point, but will not be the end goal. When media buyers start to extend their measurement to e.g. 100% of pixels or longer in-view durations, the debate may well start all over again.”
In December the Interactive Advertising Bureau launched a new set of benchmarks it hopes will start to move the needle.
Alongside viewability audibility is also a concern for marketers, although Robins says the fact they can “already report on “sound on” for audibility” allows “many media buyers to use this as a tool in planning”.
‘Full transparency is necessary to drive our industry forward’
Robins is unequivocal about what needs to happen to start addressing some of these issues, and it starts with publishers dropping the veil of secrecy that currently exists.
I personally have previously been pretty vocal here: I believe full transparency is necessary to help drive our industry forward,” he explains.
“That’s not to say business imperative commercial numbers need to be shared, but the use of third party technology to measure performance across the full range of metrics such as viewability, down to page/ad unit level is a necessity today.
“To me, this is the next iteration of the transition the industry had from first to third party ad serving about 10 years ago.
“Does this data need to be made public? I’m not sure what value it would have in the public domain – so long as transparent between buyer and seller that would be enough.”
To that end Spotify has struck a deal with third party auditing system Moat to instigate the Human plus Audible plus Viewable On Completion standard (HAVOC).
Robins explains: “If an ad isn’t seen or heard, it can never have impact on business outcomes. We offer assurance that our audience is listening and viewing advertising at the completion of that message, not just the start. HAVOC is the most robust media metric on the market today, and we believe that by having Moat, verify that all paid media is delivered on this definition, we can virtually eliminate all risk in wasted media.”
This move from Spotify comes at a time when platforms like Facebook and Google are being accused of failing to allow proper auditing for partners, creating a “walled garden” environment which lacks real transparency.
Will they embrace a similar metric to Spotify and open up?
“To some extent yes – the recent, continuous bad press the walled gardens have been receiving has seen them opening to more 3rd party measurement and I would see this continuing,” adds Robins.
“I will be interested to see quite how much data will be made available compared to what is measurable elsewhere, but the progress in the last couple of months has been good to see.”
Trust in media and brand safety
If ‘fake news’ was the word of the year for the Macquarie Dictionary in 2016, the word of the year for many marketers in 2017 has been ‘brand safety’. While Youtube has taken the brunt of advertisers’ anger with several brands and agency groups pulling spend, it is an issue which has cast a pall over many digital publishers.
Robins suggests this has caused “an over-swing away from established media,” but adds: “I would also say many haven’t done enough to keep up with the changing landscape. There has been inefficiencies in ability to seamlessly trade programmatically, not offering viewability guaranteed CPMs or being disjointed between on- and offline sale teams.
“Given the recent brand safety concerns, as well as ‘traditional’ media catching up, I would expect there to be a return to the so-called trusted media.“
One emerging school of thought on brand safety argues advertisers are not actually being harmed by their ads inadvertently appearing next to inappropriate or undesirable content.
But Robins argues: “Regardless of direct campaign performance, when an example surfaces it creates a stir which is amplified by the media and with it noise and ultimately work is created: both publisher, agency and advertiser checking and re-checking all measures, extending or tightening approaches as well as having to manage any press coverage.
“If, as with the approach some brands took with the recent YouTube issues, it is deemed more than removing a site or two from a white list, then a full change of strategy would be explored, and with it a few sleepless nights. Obviously this only in extreme circumstances, however.”
However, Robins says the solution is not as straightforward as a “set and forget fix”.
“The Web and societal views are forever in flux, while fraudsters and unsavoury content creators are in the business of trying to beat the technology in order to maximise the dollars in their coffers,” he says.
Advertisers need to be aware there is some inherent risk to advertising online (as in every media channel), which grows when advertising in user generated content environments. There are steps which can be used to protect, but it is a continuously iterative process which needs time and effort.”
He flags three ways advertisers can work to guarantee their brand safety online, including hand picking sites to work with; private market place deals and white lists; and negative keywords and blacklists.
But with each comes a set of problems: “Hand picking sites is the most risk averse approach – to only trade with a very short list publishers / partners each of which you hand pick based on full checks of content and quality. This would obviously be heavily labour intensive, time-costly to negotiate and would limit audience reach.”
The private market place and whitelist solution would “generate wider scale” by “overlaying private market place deals with their preferred partners, while also building a white list – in conjunction with their agency who should have experience of quality lists – in order to manage only appearing on sites deemed trustworthy.
“The attainable scale will depend on how large this white list is, but can be human-checked in advance of being implemented and will give clarity on where ads can appear.”
And while the negative keywords approach will stop ads appearing against certain types of content, he adds “this will always be, a posthumous approach: every time some new negative content is found they would need to be added to the list, after the point when the brand has been exposed to the risk”.
HAVOC type models will often reduce the quality of viewership and be miss-leading in the true value to advertisers. All this does is encourage ad formats that FORCE people to watch to the end as consumers rarely really want to watch an ad to the end. Choice based units such as skippable and click-to-play are far higher quality views and more valuable to a brand but won’t perform well under this HAVOC model. But i guess marketers need to educate themselves on how all video units work
User ID not verified.
Whilst I agree there is a need for better transparency on the publisher side…it is clear that low CPM and CPA rates paid by media agencies for ad units of any shape and size is driving down the quality of journalism which has a knock on effect on the quality of audience being targeted. As an example since Fairfax offshore all its sub editing their are daily headline and article grammar mistakes that are quite simply appalling. The retrenchment of a further 125 journalists means as a publisher fair will not have the resources to produce quality investigative journalism – which are the stories which drive higher engagement and audience outcomes then typical clickbait headlines like The Daily Mail et al. Advertisers really need to determine whether they are prepared to go down the path of essentially driving the slow death of quality media due to inadequate payment rates. Quality journalism which ensures better engaged audiences and therefore more conversions for brands costs more than advertisers are willing to pay and so perhaps their needs to be a meeting in the middle… just a few thoughts!
User ID not verified.
“As an example since Fairfax offshore all its sub editing their are daily headline and article grammar mistakes that are quite simply appalling”
User ID not verified.