The journey to digital paradise: A little more conversation, a little less rhetoric
As marketing academic Mark Ritson once again unloads on digital media, IAB boss Vijay Solanki fires back
There has been much sound and fury of late about digital advertising. Indeed, some have described digital advertising as being part of the nine circles of hell.
To extend (and possibly flog) the metaphor, I’d counter that if we are putting digital in any part of the Divine Comedy then there have certainly been days in the last twelve months that have felt like Purgatory. However, like the souls on their way to Paradise, we are making positive progress and leaving the sins of an emerging industry behind.
Leaving the literary allusions behind, I have no problem with the digital advertising industry being called to account on some of the issues that have been garnering attention. Indeed, some of the debate has helped accelerate industry initiatives to combat poor practice.
However, to write off an industry that is worth $4.3bn a year in Australia as broken and to infer that most senior marketers have collectively been seduced by the emperor’s new clothes is risible.
I know headlines get eyeballs and bums on seats at events but let’s make them real.
Take for example the recently quoted WFA study that was positioned by some locally as proof that marketers are blindly pursuing digital.
The reality is that study was based on just 50 respondents globally. And most importantly – while those marketers noted they were not yet convinced about the effectiveness of digital advertising, 75% of them were willing to accept the challenges (and opportunities) digital presents.
Let’s get real though.
The reality of life in 2017 is that for the majority of Australians, life is already digital. A total of 20.1m Australians are online each month, with people aged 18+ spending 82 hours a month online.
Unless there is a cataclysmic global event, we aren’t going to retreat into the old school linear world of appointment viewing on a TV in the living room, calling on our Nokia 2110’s or the ubiquity of the morning newspaper delivery.
There are three key pain points that a lot of the headline grabbing rhetoric has focused on – I want to unpick them a little.
Viewability
I don’t think anyone would argue against the fact that all ads should be viewable regardless of the media in which they are shown. IAB has been advocating for the Media Rating Council guidelines as a minimum standard for some time (MRC) and brands should ensure they define and agree acceptable standards with their agency partners upfront.
However, the real focus for our industry should be on creating ads that are inherently viewable (and not just technically viewable) regardless of the mediums. They must be ads that achieve the desired marketing outcome.
Transparency
I think this is a case of ‘you don’t know what you don’t know’. The noise around transparency has been helpful in accelerating a move for greater transparency from agencies.
But transparency doesn’t belong uniquely with one sector of the digital ecosystem. It may lean towards agencies and tech companies, but we all need to get involved, ensure we understand the real issues. It’s incumbent on us all to be asking questions and expecting clear answers.
‘Opaqueness’ isn’t an invention of digital, of programmatic, or even of the media industry come to that. So let’s get real.
In my previous life, I was a practicing marketer and I made it my business to find out the value a supplier or a partner was providing. Sometimes this was tough. Many of us will remember the old days of complex kick-backs, volume rebates and rate card deviations.
The key thing is for marketers to ask questions and not stop until they are satisfied they have all their answers. And agencies should better define their value creation and measures of success so everyone is clear.
The basics remain the same as when you approach any new format or technology – set your hypothesis, pilot the technology, test, learn and measure. A great example of this can be found in Tumi’s programmatic experience.
Programmatic
Last but no means least is the preferred whipping post of the industry, programmatic. It seems like some people have forgotten that programmatic is simply a way of trading media. It isn’t a form of advertising in and of itself. It is a necessary and automated way of buying and selling media, driven by the natural evolution of technology in the number of publishers that the internet had brought to us.
Programmatic is a digital version of the stock market’s ‘big bang’ moment when trading morphed from open-cry to screen-based trading. And we have to get real. The clock isn’t turning back; programmatic is here to stay and is already extending to TV, radio and other mediums.
Like any automated process, it is the quality of the ‘engineering’ that dictates how well it works. So, for programmatic this means the quality of inventory; data, optimisation and associated algorithms all make a difference. In layman’s (coarse) terms – if you put shit in, you get shit out. Some tech is better than other tech so take the time to find out which is which.
This is the area marketers should be focusing and asking questions of agencies – and it’s where agencies should be demonstrating value and outcome.
As we move forward through this decade, we will be further propelled into a digital first world, one where digital advertising and marketing will simply become ‘marketing’.
Immersive technologies like 360 video, augmented reality and live streaming are going to re-shape creative and while incredible TV spots will still continue to be produced, the horizons will dramatically open to support a broader range of digital distribution platforms – driverless cars anyone?
One way or another, all of us in the industry are in this together and there’s no turning back. So I’d like to propose that we focus on having more considered conversations and focus a little less on headline grabbing and divisive rhetoric.
- Vijay Solanki is CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau
Viewability, transparency, programmatic and digital metrics will all be tackled at Mumbrella360, Subscribe here for the latest news
A nice appeal for rational minded hought but let’s get real – the divisive rhetoric will continue until such time as it stops earning the culprits well paid speaking gigs and/or traditional media gives up the fight. Neither will (or frankly for that matter, should) happen any time soon.
User ID not verified.
Hey Vijay
I don’t think it’s possible to “hit back” given this article of yours has appeared before I’ve a) delivered my talk and b) you’ve seen it. I don’t think it’s possible to retort to something that you haven’t actually seen, read or heard. Is it?
Mark
User ID not verified.
Sorry but the IAB is nothing but a lobbyist organisation for digital advertising and has their own agenda. The WFA study showed that media managers act irrationally: they don’t believe in digital but keep spending on it – just drinking the kool aid of course.
Waiting for the day when the IAB does something positive for the industry and is not just repeating vague transparency phrases when it’s sexy to talk about transparency. You had a chance to address the issues for many years but chose not to because of the mates in agencies and media companies who make money through digital garbage marketing.
User ID not verified.
Mark – I think you’ll find the stand to “hit back” was written by the Mumbrella editorial team rather than IAB. That’s the way things usually roll.
User ID not verified.
It is easy enough to predict what Ritson is going to say – same talk with a few more swear words each time to keep people thinking they have heard something new.
User ID not verified.
When there is a 99.9999999% chance that what will be said will be a regurgitation of the same old message, you can’t really define this as a premptive retort.
Let me guess…. Marketers need to go back to basic Brand strategy, shift to zero based budgeting and be channel agnostic. However, since that doesn’t sell tickets or generate clicks, include wildly outlandish, innacurate and outdated statistics to support calling everyone an idiot.
User ID not verified.
This is well-written, thoughtful and honest piece. I have one big issue with it – comparing programmatic to the stock market. It’s irresponsible when agencies & tech throw around terms like ‘trading’ ‘liquidity’ ‘arbitrage’ in the context of ads as it’s perpetuating a fraud that digital ads are somehow finite in nature, swapping hands between parties, where the equilibrium point between supply and demand results in a price. In programmatic, this isn’t true. Instead, programmatic ads are limitless and immeasurable and the prices are set by black-box algorithms, not by the market. And these ads are not always ‘ads’. Imagine a stock market, unregulated, where anyone can list a company, issues as many shares as they like, as frequently as they like, where price is not made public, and where you may or may not have an entitlement to a dividend or a capital return? For my money I’d stick a ‘direct investment’ approach ie. direct deals with premium digital publishers.
User ID not verified.
Its interesting that all of the points above are issues largely brought about by Google and could be solved by Google (if it it did not involve losing millions in revenue that is fraudulent traffic or non-viewable).
Has the IAB ever once spoken to Google about their practises? Once, anywhere, globally?
User ID not verified.
IAB increasingly feels like a lobby group for Google. Wonder how the rest of the membership feels about that…
User ID not verified.
What absolute rubbish. Back that statement up with some facts.
For example, how is Viewability an issue largely brought about by Google (or one organisation) that can be solved by Google (or one organisation).
User ID not verified.
Ok anonymous coward. Can I make it Abundantly clear that I am not being paid to speak at the AdNews event (or Mumbrella 360 for that mater. Furthermore I am not being paid or advised to say what I say. I am flying to Sydney, staying at a hotel on my own dime and (unlike your today self) putting my viewpoint out there for all to see and critique.
You suck.
User ID not verified.
Ok another cowardly wanker.
Thanks for telling everyone what was in the talk you did not see. Nothing Ion ZBB, nothing on basic brand strategy and nothing on agnosticism (neutrality yes).
Does it occur to you that anonymously criticising a talk you have not seen makes you a plonker?
You also suck.
User ID not verified.
Hey, anonymous coward-wanker.
See the comment above aimed at the other plonker. It applies to you too.
By all means have a go at me or (ideally) my talk but can you actually tricking watch it first? Tosspot.
User ID not verified.
Hi editor,
Thanks for the comment. You’re correct. We usually write the headlines and standfirsts on guest posts.
In this case the headline is an expanded version of the one put forward by the IAB, while the standfirst is our own.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
The difference between the IAB and Ritson is senior business people take Ritson seriously.
The IAB not so much.
One talks a language they understand. The other talks about acronyms.
User ID not verified.
Is the personal abuse really necessary?
I get that people should wait to hear what someone says before criticising it.
However swearing at each other does not make any of us look good.
User ID not verified.
Never ceases to amaze me how the IAB/everyone goes into contortions every time Mark says something – it’s hysterical to watch.
& this piece is hardly a counter point to the issues he raises, harden up IAB
‘Real name, in digital for 22 years, KLF aha aha’
User ID not verified.
Conversation is not a solution to the problems that exist. So rather than just saying – “hey guys, let’s talk more, but while we chat still give us all your money” – how about a few solutions get proposed to show some leadership on the issues and in the category. Suggesting marketers should ask questions until they are satisfied with the answers only highlights another problem – half the people selling digital don’t know the answers or how it (actually) all works anyway.
User ID not verified.
This Mark Ritson guy talks a good game, but what has he done? And can he do it on a cold, wet Wednesday night in Stoke?
User ID not verified.
Mark
On reflection, I think I pre-empted you pretty well. Having seen a few Ritson performances I see a trend. I might make a chart for you.
User ID not verified.
You might want to familiarise yourself with our new mission – to ‘simplify & inspire’. I don’t like acronyms either. Come be part of the simplicity movement.
User ID not verified.
Why don’t check out what we’ve done in the last 8 months:
– 2 ad blocking studies
– world first benchmark data for viewability and IVT
– tech industry study
– audio industry study
– digital revenue reporting in partnership with PwC
– position on brand safety
– whitepaper on viewability working with 17 companies
Shall I go on?
User ID not verified.
Hi Mark,
(Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)
Btw TV measurement = a panel of 1,250 transposed to a 24 million population – without accounting for the increasing herd of cord-cutters in the country. Please go speak to someone who was born in the 90s and doesn’t have any grey pubes if they watch any FTA TV.
User ID not verified.
To a large extent it just doesn’t matter what Ritson or anybody else says. The only thing that matters is where the money is going and where it will go in the future.
The trends (financial) are well documented. It’s digital.
People can get upset. It doesn’t matter.
User ID not verified.
“I don’t like acronyms either…”
Signed
Vijay from the I.A.B
(Google the acronym to find out what it means)
User ID not verified.
Your payment is exposure Mark, that you then leverage for paid consultancy, which is fine but please don’t play the “not being paid” card. Many prefer actual results with clients to speak for themselves.
User ID not verified.
*drops mike*
User ID not verified.
Spot on. Well done.
User ID not verified.
Its still the early days of digital advertising.
Unilever Adidas and Renault are all upping their digital spend.
Once the best tech rises to the top, and the clean-out of rubbish companies happens this won’t even be a debate.
User ID not verified.
Yeah harden up IAB you jerks!
Lol
This thread is hilarious, what a mature industry we are with potty mouthed Ritson leading the charge!
Now Nic, if the IAB needs to harden up then how would Mindbox go about challenging Ritsons rhetoric? Are you already hard?
Come on, we need a hero to harden up and lead the way!
User ID not verified.
Ok Mr President, if you actually had any kind of marketing training you would know that a panel of 1,250 is actually oversampling. You only need about 700 to get a CI of 5% and CL of 99% for a population of 24 million. Obviously you want to run demo splits and so on – hence the bigger sample but its really a very good sample to work with.
I appreciate this is somewhat like me trying to explain the AFL Ladder to my Beagle but can you see how you just made an arse of yourself again?
Between you and Vijay – shoot from the hip before the other gunslinger turns up and mortally wound myself in the foot – Solanki, it’s not even sport.
User ID not verified.
I’m not convinced that this isn’t a Mark Ritson bot responding.
Non-partisan but surely all of the arse, wankers, toss-pots and sucks are jumping the shark somewhat and turning it all into white noise?
User ID not verified.
Oi Ritson you salty dog, does the 1,250 panel include people who don’t watch TV?
Eg : Do oztam hand out thems lil tv data boxes to folk like me who don’t watch free to air?
User ID not verified.
I can answer that one. I know somebody who has OzTam in their household but doesn’t own a television. They still watch some TV on streamed catchup though.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Thanks Tim.
I’ve always wondered if the panel is representative of consumption habits and not just measuring those who binge on the 4 hrs of TV a day. I would assume so for the sake of accuracy but you never know these days with all of the agendas out there.
User ID not verified.
You replied to ‘Just Saying’. ‘Anonymous Coward’ is a Mumbrella legend and you mustn’t use his / her name in vein.
Please do carry on and I have bought some popcorn, just in case.
User ID not verified.
Hoards of people watch FTA. I just asked a heap of people in the kitchen of my office and nearly all of them watched Masterchef last night… Having said that, all of them performed Google searches within the last 30 mins too.
Users will use what is easy and simple to use, regardless of the platform, or the delivery. It MUST be really, really easy. Switching on a TV and clicking a channel is mega easy, however if drivel is on the channel then the channel will be changed right? Free is easy. Google is free. FTA is free. Models that put up barriers to entry, including cost, long forms to join or sign up, ‘click here to access the article’, having to tell them your credentials, such as D.O.B, all of this crap will push users away. There is FTA in traditional and there is FTA online. There is also premium, in both capacities also. The really easy and the real quality will get used and, if executed in the right way, might even command a price, which gets paid too.
I see value in the IAB. I see value in what Ritson says. I take away the positives, learn and apply it to my own scenario’s.
Mark, feel free to swear at me all the same, if you think I am a simpleton or an ‘Anonymous Coward’. (Perhaps I am an Anonymous Honest Person?) . Anonymity is great, especially on a forum like this. Have you read comment threads on LinkedIn? Anonymity does not exist on Linkers and everyone just agrees. They dare not take people on, in case their employer or clients identify with their truth’s..? (Perhaps.) . It does seem like an utter wnk fest in the comment threads on there, versus here. This forum is great, it keeps us honest, albeit anonymous too. Peace!
User ID not verified.