main

DataIntelligence

1995-like Media Buying Would Bring 1995-like Outcomes

December 6, 2017 — by Lewis Rothkopf0

LR_LinkedIn.jpg

This article, written by Lewis Rothkopf, General Manager of Supply at MediaMath, originally appeared on LinkedIn. 

Like many of you, I read with interest Augustine Fou’s piece, “What a Concept! Buy Media As If It’s 1995,” in which he shares some disturbing examples of middlemen subtracting disproportionate value from media transactions. Also like many of you, I consider Dr. Fou to represent the very best of our industry — he’s a much-needed independent voice in cybersecurity and fraud research and someone whose perspective I hold in the highest regard.

Our opinions differ, however, when it comes to some of the solutions advocated in his latest piece. To be sure, there is no legitimate place for vendors who add no value to the ecosystem — they are a drag on publisher RPMs and do not promote better business outcomes for marketers. Simply put, if you don’t add value to the media transaction, you don’t deserve to be a part of it.

But to paint all intermediaries — “from agencies to ad tech vendors” — with the same brush would be a mistake. When looking at those entities who play a role in the value chain, it is important to separate Black Holes from Shining Stars.

Black Holes:

• Roll up, or aggregate publisher supply without adding a layer of value or differentiation such as data enrichment, geolocation or fraud protection
• Misstate the provenance of the supply or their right to resell it
• Are highly discrepancy-prone
• Are often several layers separated from the underlying publisher inventory

Whereas Shining Stars:

• Offer a layer of protection for buyers by offering assurance — and sometimes a guarantee — that the supply is legitimate, safe and fraud-free
• Add value to otherwise-commoditized supply with the addition of data
• Help identify the most appropriate demand for particular inventory
• Innovate on formats with marketers and publishers
• Normalize disparate pools of supply to make them addressable across channels
• Improve measurement and accountability
• Work to keep costs low

Additionally, though it can be tempting to dispose of baby along with bath water and flee from programmatic and its defense mechanisms (and the associated costs of same), doing so is not without significant risk. Dr. Fou acknowledges this in his piece, in which he says, “Of course, the publishers have to be vetted…” and that marketers shouldn’t simply take their word for it.

To this point, I’ve spoken with several publishers in recent months who have a strong understanding about where invalid traffic comes from and who have taken the necessary steps to avoid it. But we’ve interacted with many others who do not yet have such an understanding. One media property whom most would consider to be of the highest quality recently told us that invalid traffic is not preventable by publishers. This is most certainly not an accurate statement, and it was asserted in response to a suspicious traffic inquiry that we raised on behalf of our customers. Of course, when you buy inventory you are also effectively transacting with everyone from whom that publisher has sourced traffic in the past!

Dr. Fou raises several important — and downright horrifying — examples of non-value adding middlemen sucking trust and credibility out of the ecosystem. But turning back the clock to a time when there were no intermediaries facilitating media transactions is not the answer. Lots of things must happen in order to make a transaction possible, safe and effective — including things that can’t be taken for granted, such as data-decorating inventory to make it more addressable, ensuring that the inventory is free of fraud and that the supply source has a right to sell it, and intelligently marrying the right supply with the right demand. These things cost money, and should be considered every bit as much a part of a marketer’s investment in “working media” as the final act of displaying the ad on the web page.

It is in the interest of every legitimate actor in digital media to eliminate Black Holes from the ecosystem. By working together, we can continue to reduce costs and remove points of friction from media transactions, and reach a near future state in which good actor intermediaries are able to compete on their technical capabilities and their ability to drive business outcomes, and not only on their existential legitimacy relative to bad actors.

DataIntelligence

How to Kick Start Your Holiday Campaign this Season

November 30, 2017 — by Laura Carrier0

holiday_2017.jpg

This article originally appeared in MarTech Advisor. 

MediaMath’s VP of strategy and measurement Laura Carrier explores how marketers can ensure their advertising campaigns are timed in accordance with the height of consumer holiday spending.

Holiday season is the largest retail season of the year and as the gift giving traditions get underway, now is the time for advertisers to start detailed planning of how they’ll effectively target and reach holiday shoppers. According to eMarketer, Holiday sales will total $923.15 billion, representing 18.4 percent of US retail sales for the year.

To help advertisers make the most of holiday shopping budgets, we looked for trends in the way our best brands and retailers made the most of this season, including the way they think about timing and key dates, budget, media, targeting and more. Consider the following best practices:

Market to Your Audience Based on Deep Understanding

Marketers know it’s important to understand how audiences demonstrate different shopping behaviors – that’s nothing new. But it’s what marketers do with these insights which matters. Ask yourself, does your ad spend correlate to consumer’s shopping behavior? According to our own analysis, 2016 ad spend lagged behind the time frames consumers expected to do most of their online shopping. Over half of consumers plan to start holiday shopping no later than Black Friday, yet marketers had only spent 25% of their campaign budget by that time last year. This year, make sure to pace your holiday budget before customers do their shopping (while they are researching & planning)!

Get Creative Right 

Knowing who you’re targeting on an individual level, as opposed to different segments of customers or audience groups, will help fine tune your creative and targeting strategies this season. Executing true customer-centric marketing with a single view of the customer will allow marketers to optimize against all marketing touch points. Using this approach, dynamic creative optimization, which updates creative elements on the fly without advertisers having to manually build or modify new assets, will allow for more relevancy in the conversations you have with consumers.

When it comes to optimizing campaigns, marketers should take into account differences consumers shopping habits on key holiday dates when deciding on content. For instance, if you’re marketing to someone who is shopping the weekend before Christmas, getting an item to them as quickly as possible is much more important than the price, e.g. offering free shipping or in-store pick up. On the other hand, if you’re marketing to somebody who is shopping on one of the major one-day sales, like Black Friday, Cyber Monday or any retailer’s one-time sales, content around price would take priority, e.g. Buy one, get one free. Knowing the different types of consumption patterns will help advertisers optimize their Holiday campaigns.

M-commerce Market Grows

On the busiest shopping days of the season, customers are reaching for their phones first. Site traffic is just as likely to come from cellular devices as it is desktop site visitors with 47% of mobile share occurring on Black Friday and 49% of mobile share on Cyber Monday out of all total site traffic by device.

Increasingly, customers are continuing to buy sale items on their phones and check out one-day sales. According to eMarketer, US m-commerce sales will rise by 38% this year, and sales via smart phones will increase by 57.8%. With that in mind, marketers should be adopting an ominchannel approach when making marketing channel decisions.  Consumers are influenced by all of the various different media & channels available to them, so understanding behaviors across devices is becoming even more paramount today than it has historically been.

Online vs. Offline Shopping

The share of eCommerce is growing as 55.6% of US consumers plan on doing most of their holiday shopping online . Marketers will make smarter decisions if they understand the influence of online marketing on offline purchases, without ignoring the fact that offline marketing also influences online purchases.

Online shopping is growing at a faster pace than anything else, now 16.6% in 2017, compared to 3.1% for in-store retail. With Holiday shopping beginning earlier, coupled with the growth of online shopping, it’s important to remember that consumer research and holiday purchase planning is happening a lot earlier, too.To fully market across the customer journey, marketers must speak to consumers online in efforts to influence offline store sales, and measure the impact of those marketing touch points on offline behaviors. This will allow for true customer-level understanding, and ultimately the closing of the loop-optimizing marketing to those consumer behaviors.  As a result, brands and retailers alike will benefit from building out a digital strategy that includes both online and offline presences as one strategy-not as two separate tactics.

DataTrends

Get Ready for the Future: Marketing 2027

November 22, 2017 — by Amarita Bansal0

2027ebook.jpg

After a successful #10Then10Ahead campaign commemorating 10 years of programmatic innovation, we’ve put together an interactive eBook looking at how the next 10 years of programmatic will change the digital marketing landscape.

What can marketers expect in the next decade? What will be the biggest trends disrupting the industry in the next 10 years? And what measurement strategies will become more important as programmatic evolves?

Download the eBook today and get exclusive insights on:

  • Four visions of where marketing is going
  • Our top predictions for 2027
  • Curated content from our 10-year anniversary campaign

 

DataTrends

Lost In Translation: Gaining Clarity Around Adtech Transparency

October 12, 2017 — by Amarita Bansal0

supply_ecosystem.jpg

This article originally appears in The Drum. 

Right now, ‘transparency’ is the predictive text after adtech.

It is the latest and likely the most enduring concern to hit the advertising industry in recent times. Adtech players have been scrambling to take the lead in defining to their benefit what transparency should mean in programmatic advertising.

In recent months a number of header bidding partners have flooded the marketplace — threatening conventional auction dynamics, launching products that promise choice and fairness through first-price auctions, and forming collectives that aim to work towards standardization in auction set-ups.

To make the bidding process more transparent, OpenX, has launched a new product which explicitly offers bidders a first-price auction option for buying programmatic media. Meanwhile AppNexus, PubMatic and Rubicon Project have joined forces to launch Prebid.org, an independent organisation with the aim of improving the performance of header bidding solutions for premium publishers.

Little wonder then that transparency has quickly become the new buzzword.

But what is really meant by the term? It can be argued that the meaning of transparency has been lost in translation. Depending on a key player’s position in the ecosystem, it can mean a variety of things. The Drum, in partnership with leading global advertising technology company Media.net, decided to get to the bottom of this confusion by comparing what transparency means from each of the key players in the market.

What does transparency mean anyway?

It is challenging to be “transparent” in an industry rampant with undisclosed fees, unfair auctions, data leakages, and agencies hiding rebates.

Transparency in fees across the supply chain: The seriousness of how money is channeled throughout the media supply chain and who eventually pockets what was recently brought to light with The Guardian’s dispute with ad tech firm Rubicon after claiming it failed to disclose fees earned from advertisers that appeared on the publisher’s site. An IAB study from 2015 revealed that less than half (45%) of programmatic revenues in the US reached publishers, while adtech firms ate up the rest.

Transparency in opportunity: In a fully transparent world, all parties have an equal opportunity to respond to every bid with no preferential treatment. Marc Pritchard has implored all facets of the industry to “come together, put down finger pointers, and solve these problems.” But cleaning up one’s actions requires full disclosure about their participation in the problem, according to Media.net’s chief operating officer, Namit Merchant.

“Let’s start by acknowledging complicity and the fact that programmatic can never be like the stock market it is often compared to because all of the participants (publishers, DSPs, exchanges, networks, and marketers) do not disclose how they operate in order to take advantage of the spread,” he says.

Transparency in placement and viewability: To make progress with the ad tech opacity problem, every player in the digital ecosystem needs to be speaking the same language. Ad placement and viewability rates need to be clear. For Ben Walmsley, digital commercial director of News UK, this means everyone should be clear about how advertising is measured.

“Transparency to us means that everybody should be graded by the same standard. There needs to be some clarity and consistency that applies to everybody and publishers have an obligation to accept the standards that they have agreed upon,” he says.

Tom Shields, chief strategy officer at AppNexus agrees. For him, transparency means being able to see exactly what is happening with your transactions in the marketplace, “where they go, if they were viewed, and who gets how much of the spend.”

Transparency in auction dynamics: According to MediaMath’s SVP of business development, Greg Williams, transparency is about looking at it holistically.

“This means looking at the entire supply chain and includes things like ad quality, load time, and latency that impact the customer experience. Is data represented in the right way? From the buy side, it means understanding auction dynamics, how you bid in those environments and what that looks like,” he explains.

If only it was that simple

But in the complicated programmatic supply chain, it is extremely difficult to be certain whether transparency is being honoured. As Williams notes in the context of fraud “it’s a game of cat and mouse in a system of bad actors that are trying to get around the system.”

Buyers feel plagued by hidden fees because ad exchanges and SSPs can use their undisclosed insights into the gap between winning and clearing the bid to arbitrarily inflate the buy-side fee they charge, on an impression by impression basis. This means potentially rigging the model of second-price auctions.

Moving forward, how can the industry adapt a more transparent model? For Walmsley it’s very simple: “The publisher has to take primary responsibility for investigating the contracts. Practices like soft flooring or dynamic flooring of programmatic pricing need to be understood and couched in a language that the buyer and seller understand, and are happy with.”

Merchant refers to the power of data — data that can fuel programmatic revenue and lead to significant yield optimisation.

“Your adtech partner should not just allow for but foster a practice of openness with data. A partner that gives you visibility into buyer and bidding data and works with you to build upon it can deliver real value. But that is exactly what is missing – enough players that encourage end- to-end transparency.”

To read the rest of the article, click here. 

DataTrends

MediaMath: On Track for Compliance with the New GDPR Law in Europe

September 8, 2017 — by Alice Lincoln1

GDRP.jpg

On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will take effect in the European Union. The GDPR was created to strengthen consumer privacy protections and contains a number of important requirements for businesses that collect and process data about EU and EEA consumers.

MediaMath has a long history of compliance with European data protection standards and is actively preparing to be compliant with the GDPR when it comes into force. Our Data Policy & Governance and Legal teams are working with external counsel, industry groups and other companies to assess the GDPR’s requirements and design the right mix of administrative and technical solutions to support our clients. We have also taken on an industry leadership role as chair of the IAB Europe Working Group on Consent, to bring together advertisers, publishers and technology providers to develop effective compliance solutions for the entire digital marketing industry. In addition, we have designed, built and deployed our products and services to help businesses comply with applicable European regulations while achieving true business outcomes.

MediaMath supports the fundamental aims of the GDPR and is committed to working with regulators and self-regulatory organizations to meet the GDPR’s requirements.  We will help marketers continue to deliver customer-centric, relevant and meaningful marketing experiences across channels, formats and devices, in ways that protect consumers’ personal data.

MediaMath encourages its clients to start planning for the GDPR as soon as possible. If you have questions about MediaMath’s approach to GDPR compliance, please refer to the Knowledge Base or ask your MediaMath account manager to share your questions with our Data Policy & Governance team.

Certified industry organizations, codes and frameworks of which MediaMath is a part:

  • EU-US and Swiss-US Privacy Shields
  • European Digital Advertising Alliance (EDAA) and its counterparts in the US (DAA) and Canada (DAAC)
  • Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Europe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Singapore, the US and the UK, and serves on the IAB UK Board of Directors
  • Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW)
  • Direct Marketing Association in the UK and US
  • Network Advertising Initiative (NAI)
  • Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG)

Data

Which is More Important for Data: Quality or Quantity? How About Both?

August 23, 2017 — by Stephen Fugedy0

data_SF.jpg

The backlash against big data has been going on for a few years now, not because of any inherent problems with big data, but rather because the industry has over-promised its benefits.

When businesses tried to use big data, they often found that it was too unwieldy, too unstructured and too, well, big to be useful. But let’s not get carried away. There is still gold in them thar hills. And the alternative, “smart data” isn’t really a thing. The reality is that useful data is both big and smart.

The challenge with big data

Having huge amounts of information about a huge group is not going to get you very far. For instance, many marketers will buy third-party data targeting a huge demo, like 18-34. According to Nielsen Digital Ad Ratings (DAR) & comScore VCE campaign norms (2015), often the accuracy for age and gender data hovers around 45%, which means that you’re more likely to guess right on a coin flip.

The problem with such targeting is an old one in the computer industry — garbage in, garbage out. If you start with compromised data, you can’t make up for it with algorithmic wizardry.

Getting smart

Almost two years ago, MediaMath launched a proprietary data asset. During that time, we’ve found that even though we have a huge amount of data, not all of it is valuable. Instead, by singling out the most important attributes, we can increasingly provide greater value to our clients from both a performance and scale perspective.

What we’ve discovered is that the signal-to-noise ratio for data is high. Being able to bring something impactful out of the data is very valuable. For example, we learned early on that our standard audiences should only include users based on observed activities. That way, when advertisers target our audiences, they know they’re targeting a user that has taken a desired action that aligns with the marketer’s targeting goals.

How to best use data

For marketers, not all data is created equal. For instance, first-party data is often the most useful. Such data, gleaned from company websites and emails with customers, is based on existing customers who have opted in to have a relationship with your brand.

If you are already a big brand, then you can have a lot of success remarketing to such customers, but if you’re not then first-party data will only take you so far and you have to combine first-party data and third-party data.

To successfully combine the two though, marketers need to be sure that the data is accurate and that the model used to link the two produces accurate results as well.

Often, that’s not the case, which is why marketers complain that their data isn’t working. But blaming data in that case is like blaming the weather because your thermometer isn’t working. So for marketers, the solution to big data woes is to get better data and better models. Usually they’ll find that the problem isn’t that their data is too big but that their methods of harnessing it aren’t smart enough.

DataIntelligenceMedia

Marketing Wiki: Tab Distraction

August 8, 2017 — by Laura Carrier0

MKT-162_MarketingWiki-Blog-Header.png

Quick: How many tabs do you have open on your browser right now? OK, you can stop counting. It’s a lot, right? So how did this happen? If you’re on the web all day, it’s not surprising that you keep opening new tabs. Often when you click on a link, it launches another tab. It’s not unusual to have a dozen or more tabs open at one time. While this probably ranks low on the list of modern white-collar workplace annoyances (well below, say, dodgy Wi-Fi or slow trail mix refills), it rises to the level of minor annoyance for marketers because it makes attribution more difficult.

  • What is tab distraction?

Let’s say you’re in Chrome and have a bunch of tabs open. One is open to J. Crew’s website because you’re about to buy a short-sleeve shirt in Japanese indigo chambray. But the other tabs are markers of various ways you’ve wasted the day so far, including Reddit, TMZ and Facebook. So let’s say right before you decide to checkout at J.Crew, you go to Facebook, which has a J. Crew retargeting ad waiting for you (as would Reddit, TMZ and many of your other open tabs). Then you go back to continue completing your purchase of that short-sleeve shirt in Japanese indigo chambray on J. Crew. Even though it didn’t help make the sale in this case, Facebook will get credit for this sale on last-touch attribution models.

  • Why is this a big deal?

Last-touch attribution may be an inaccurate way of giving marketing credit for purchases or other desired actions (some compare it to making the team that scores last the winner of a basketball game), but it’s still standard practice for many companies. Tab distraction adds to the issue of giving too much credit to the last ad seen before conversion which in this common example didn’t even help make the sale and under-credits all of the marketing that actually did influence the customer’s behavior. That attribution not only impacts measurement of the efficacy of the set of marketing that led to this conversion, but also affects future spending because the marketer thinks “Facebook led to this sale, so I’ll spend my money there.”

  • What can be done?

An industry shift towards multi-touch attribution helps mitigate the impact of this issue, and is one of the most significant steps that marketers can take to ensure that they are understanding the effect their marketing is having on their customers’ behaviors. Consumers’ continuing exodus to mobile is also making tab distraction less of an issue.

DataIntelligenceMedia

In-house, agency or consultancy?

August 7, 2017 — by Amarita Bansal0

Global-Review-of-Data-image.png

This article originally appears on The Drum.

In the year since the last ATS Singapore, a lot has happened in the adtech industry: transparency issues rage, with complexity and issues like viewability and fraud taking centre stage, header bidding has also started to be adopted in Asia Pacific as publishers arm themselves against the duopoly.

As with many conferences about the digital advertising sector, the tone of the conversation had flip flopped between accusations against bad behaviours, calls to arms to work more collaboratively with creatives and the occasional Devil’s Advocate asking whether anyone really cares? Perhaps it is all just industry hot air?

While the tone and opinions bounced around, one key theme persisted: complexity. Grounded in the call from P&G’s Marc Pritchard for better scrutiny on the transparency of media, much of the conversation looked at who is best placed to manage the complexity that will inevitably still exist. Can the agencies regain trust? Will brands take this in-house? What about newcomers to this, such as the consultancies?

Senior professionals from brands, agencies, suppliers and publishers offered their thoughts on what the industry needs to do, particularly in Asia Pacific. The Drum selected some of the key points from across the day on this ongoing global debate.

Marcus Cho, regional multiscreen performance and precision marketing, Asia Pacific at Johnson & Johnson

Cho came from the point of view that FMCG brands did want to see more consolidation and convergence in the programmatic space, particularly around data and agency structures. This was largely driven by the imperative, shared by many brands, to build a single customer view.

“We want to see harder metrics, we want to look at how we measure the sales, use ecommerce data or transaction and credit card transaction data. From what we have seen, those who are providing soft metrics will face a midlife crisis in programmatic,” he said.

“We work closely with trading desks and AORs but we do see convergence and our point of view is in full stack solutions that run through agency partners and partners such as Google and Oracle etc. Once we plug in analytics, we want to see more, a single point of view on marketing and operations. The need state is to see end-to-end analytics through single view on programmatic and operations,” he added.

On the point of using consultancies, Cho stated his confidence in agencies as experts in media but said big companies may still turn to traditional consultancies for bigger picture strategies.

Sanchit Sanga, chief digital officer, APAC and MENA at Mindshare

Sanga’s reaction to the threat of consultancies was to state his confidence in media expertise, arguing that consultancy firms couldn’t provide the insight that agencies could.

He also addressed the topic of agency transparency, referring to GroupM’s recent launch of Mplatform, an adtech platform that promises to answer the client need for a single customer view by using an open universal ID.

“We are big believers at Mindshare and Groupm, that through Mplatform the disclosure and transparency issue gets sorted pretty quickly. You can see it even in the open desks we run for Unilever and HSBC which are 100% transparent; we do believe the future is revealing all costs to clients,” he said.

On the topic of consolidation, Sanga’s key concern lay with the duopoly of Google and Facebook. “in terms of the consolidation of technology, we don’t see walled gardens as anything but a threat to democratic technology. I don’t think all marketers are savvy enough to understand they are playing into hands of two companies who are not revealing the single source of truth,” he said.

Matt Harty, senior vice president, Asia Pacific at The Trade Desk

Harty took on the question of in-housing and whether brands were going direct to adtech partners like The Trade Desk.

“The more sophisticated marketers are wanting to take control. The most sophisticated clients want to take more control and want to be able to see inside of the tools,” he said.

However, he warned: “It is a mistake for people to not take the servicing that the agency has to offer. We have been down this road before; search gives us that lesson and shows us where to go. We had search specialists, then in-house popped up and now it sits in agency again. There just isn’t the amount of talent that can be dispersed.”

Harty argued that if each fortune 500 business across Asia Pacific wanted an in-house programmatic person, the talent wouldn’t be there. “You would be frankly hard pressed have 100 people across APAC that can independently run campaigns.”

“Agencies needed to be centres of excellence but it shouldn’t discourage us for allowing the client to be more empowered than ever before,” he added.

Rahul Vasudev, managing director, APAC at MediaMath

In terms of the duopoly, moderator Wendy Hogan, marketing transformation and strategy director at Oracle asked whether any players in Asia Pacific were attempting to educate the market, as Google and Facebook are. Google itself is almost at the end of the first year of a large-scale training programme for programmatic in Singapore, created in conjunction with the Singapore government.

“Through our training we have trained 10,000 people globally. We get them to focus on outcomes and not get confused by the plethora of terms and technology. The handshakes that take place to enable great marketing should be invisible,” he said.

Prashant Kumar, senior partner at Entropia

Kumar shared a stage with Sukesh Singh, vice president, APAC at Adform to discuss full stack solutions and shared an example of how Entropia was helping Tesco in Malaysia with a digital transformation roadmap.

He commented: “The single biggest challenge is complexity and some in the industry seem to have a vested interest in keeping complexity alive.”

Much like Vasudev’s point of view, he said the market should be helping to reduce complexity for the brand, which would allow them to focus on real business outcomes, not the technology and terms.

He also added that complexity was not just about losing money to margins and ad tech costs: “At the early stage, if the client is bogged down by operational issues and the agency teams are bogged down, you lose sight of larger strategic picture. Complexity is not just about operational cost, it is about what being bogged down by complexity and chaos does to creating the future; you lose sight of insights and ideas. Each time a marketer tries to do agency work, they do less of a marketer’s work.”

DataIntelligenceMedia

Three Major Omnichannel Challenges Today

August 4, 2017 — by Amarita Bansal0

dan_omnichannel.jpg

This article originally appears in DMN News.

Omnichannel has been top-of-mind for marketers since the advent of digital media, and it’s hard to argue with the progress businesses have made in omnichannel marketing over the last decade or so.

Indeed, the industry has come a long way from extolling the benefits of omnichannel to today’s world, where businesses not only understand the benefits of omnichannel marketing, but are increasingly facing pressure from customers and partners to be omnichannel as a standard.

“Today, omnichannel marketing across all addressable channels and inventory, coupled with identity resolution and machine-powered optimization are table stakes for all media buyers and as a result, enriches the consumer experience,” says Dan Rosenberg, chief strategy officer at MediaMath. Not only does omnichannel execution allow you to manage the frequency of ads… but by adopting a more audience-based approach, marketers will be able to consolidate as many addressable channels as possible to enable one-to-one storytelling and messaging, no matter where a customer is connected.”

There are a few key areas of contention that continue to challenge omnichannel marketing as a concept, and marketers will likely grapple with these for the next few years.

Managing the customer journey

The customer journey is extremely difficult to track these days. It’s harder than ever for marketers to distil the customer journey down into the neat funnels that were once standard to the marketing process. Still, marketers are going to have to figure out how to engage customers across disparate channels as best they can.

“Managing consumer data across channels is a challenge with teams that are historically silo’ed and not incentivized to share data. Marketers need to understand the 360-degree customer journey, so that a marketer can address a given consumer’s concern in the moment,” Rosenberg says.

Privacy

As is the case for practically all digital media, privacy and data ownership will continue to be big concerns for brands doing omnichannel marketing, particularly because of the multiple channels and touchpoints involved.

“As part of privacy, marketers should be good stewards of consumer data, and not advertising too aggressively or invasively with the use of frequency caps. Using frequency caps across channels curb the number of times a consumer sees advertisements from a given marketer on any device,” Rosenberg says.

Fraud

Similar to privacy, marketers doing omnichannel have a vested interest in the advertising industry’s battles with fraud.

“Fraud has been a longstanding issue within advertising where marketers are realizing that fraud is susceptible across all channels including fake bot data, fake social media profiles and not just an ad tech,” Rosenberg says.

There’s little in the way of best practice here, as these are issues that affect all of marketing, not just omnichannel, and the progression of technology advances and exacerbates problems like privacy and tracking the customer journey.

In the end though, omnichannel is well worth the effort.

DataMediaTrendsUncategorized

Focus Your Brand Marketing on Problem-Solving, Not Demographics

July 31, 2017 — by Parker Noren0

Puzzle.jpg

This post originally appeared on MarTech Advisor

Marketers and the digital ecosystem have fine-tuned activation methods that best leverage digital platforms and programmatic technology for direct-response campaigns (i.e., those focused on driving immediate ROI as the primary goal). At the same time, they’ve largely replicated what worked in linear channels, like TV, for branding campaigns. This approach commonly includes focusing activation on maximizing reach against a demographic, executing an unsophisticated supply strategy and failing to leverage measurement against real marketer outcomes to adjust in-flight.

It’s time to move past an approach for branding campaigns that in many cases embrace the lowest common denominator – a holdover from a time when the limitations of traditional channel targeting and execution constrained such campaigns. Every shopper has a problem. The purpose of our branding campaigns is to demonstrate how we solve that problem – reaching consumers who are likely to experience it and maximizing internalization of the message via tactical execution. We will better accomplish this by fully embracing the technological capabilities of programmatic for branding campaigns.

Overhauling Approach to Audience Targeting
The most notable example of replicating practices of traditional branding campaigns in digital is buying audiences and measuring success based on demographics. In traditional channels, this focus was rooted more in history than utility—demographics were the universal mechanism for buying media.

The emphasis on demographics is misplaced. When trying to build perceptions, marketers should target consumers who have a struggle that their product can uniquely solve. That is rarely something bound by demographics. Instead of aligning targeting to the constraints of linear buying, marketers should leverage the full suite of programmatic targeting capabilities to reach consumers likely to experience the struggle they solve for. This includes understanding of consumer interests, where they’ve been, who they are and what they’ve previously browsed/purchased.

Developing a Strong Supply Strategy
There is a belief that branding equals video in digital. As a result, many campaigns are executed in channel silos. For all campaign types, supply selection should be driven by the alignment between inventory type characteristics and the requirements of the brand-consumer interaction.

In most cases, this means video has a primary role in branding campaign execution because of its characteristics as a supply source. Video provides the opportunity to story tell and dramatize the brand’s solution to a consumer frustration or struggle. However, other inventory still has a role under a sophisticated supply strategy. For example, display inventory can play a vital role in fighting message recall decay when sequenced off a video touchpoint.

Better Measurement for In-Flight Optimization

What a marketer selects as the measurement criteria for a campaign has a profound effect on how the campaign is optimized. Common branding campaign measurement has no relationship to the marketer’s strategic intent, including click, completion and demographic metrics. Especially in the case of brand-building campaigns, interim reads from brand-lift research should be the primary criteria by which the campaign manager makes decisions and a marketer judges success. Those audiences and tactic structures that are producing the biggest perception change should prompt bigger bets over time. Percent on demographic target as a success criteria, meanwhile, should be used sparingly or relegated to the past.