26th June 2008
Marketing Week Interactive six supplement
Reputable networks now provide a cost-effective route for brands to build reach, thanks to increased quality control and better targeting methods
Advertising networks evolved as a place where media buyers could take the distressed inventory that large publisherstcould not sell, as well as reachtspace offered by a large swathe of publishers
too small to operate their own sales house.
Brand managers have since questioned how much value they are receiving and how much control they have over the appearance of ads, because most network deals have an element of “blind” buying.
However, Richard Sharp, managing director of ValueClick Media, says a lot has changed. “Today, there are strong guidelines and better targeting, so most of what an agency or a brand buys will be transparent. “There will normally always be a little ‘blind’ buying in network campaigns because not all publishers want it to be publicly known they are available on a network, but a network is ransom to its performance. If a campaign isn’t performing, that will be instantly apparent, and it
can be tweaked or changed immediately.”
Blind buying
However, Chris Humphrey, European general manager of AdGent 007, claims that while networks
help ensure inventory that might go unsold is used, they will always have the handicap of an element of ‘blind’ buying and do not always ensure the most apt adverts are served, particularly for international traffic.
“If you go with a decent network, you’ll know you won’t end up next to dodgy material, but that’s about it. So we’re a start-up that’s effectively an additional sales house for the big publishers
covering the territories they don’t cover domestically. For example, we’re selling Times Online to the Australian market, so users there will get Australian adverts, which are more apt. What we can’t sell, we place with the networks.”
Quality control is a key issue and is being answered by the mass adoption of Internet Advertising Sales House (IASH) guidelines. The Internet Advertising Bureau lays down rules for its members which are backed up by quarterly checks to ensure that networks are not compromising on quality.
“We would expect frequency capping and click-fraud to be picked up by an ad agency’s own software,” explains IASH chairman James Aitken. “We ensure networks know who their publishers are and that they are rated properly so, for example, a user-generated content site is properly flagged up as such, so advertisers know it’s potentially risky. We’re trying to stop brands from being embarrassed by where their ads go. With IASH there’s much better checking, and any network that is a member needs to have an auditing team proving to us they’re doing this work. If they fall short in a spot check, we can take their logo away from them.”
IASH membership, and the flexibility to allow an ad agency’s tracking software on a network, is a key attribute that AdJug founder Michael Stephanblome believes points to ad networks coming of age. He concedes that brands will always go direct to sites, but adds that going to a network does not mean buying blind. “If a network is an IASH member and is open enough to allow third-party tracking, agencies and brands can pretty much rest assured that they are in control, so they can get a lot more reach for their budget than if they were going direct, with very little extra risk,” he says.
Ad.com international managing director Brendan Cohen believes IASH members that offer targeted ad networks provide value for money. By using behavioural targeting techniques, networks such as his can see if a person has been on the site before and make decisions on what they are most likely to respond to. “People should go with a network that is transparent about where ads are going, who they are reaching and, crucially, one that is open with its publishers about the tracking that is put on the sites,” he says. “Privacy is a major concern and some sites find they’ve got code running on their site which is tracking users in ways they were unaware of.”
Indeed, Cohen sees a privacy storm ahead for ad networks, as Phorm readies itself for its debut this summer. It operates through ISPs, storing subscriber surfing data which is used to ensure relevant ads are served. BT, Virgin Media and Talk Talk have signed up to Phorm, which it claims will expose the technology to 70% of the country’s internet users. Phorm’s UK chief executive, Hugo Drayton, claims privacy fears are unfounded and that Phorm will provide the most detailed picture possible of individual Web users, so relevant ads are served.
Entire picture
“The data we hold is not personally identifiable. We don’t know who they are and we don’t put
them in to channels or categories – the advertisers do that,” he says. “We reckon that within the next few months we should be available to about one in four Web users in the UK, and so able to serve them far more targeted ads. Networks rely on snapshots of people’s surfing habits to offer relevant ads, whereas we’ll have the entire picture, based on all their surfing, not just when they’re on particular sites.”
Despite some concerns to the contrary, TBG head of media Dean Snook says many of the old questions over ad networks have now been answered. “As traffic online has soared, there’s lots of new inventory available, even from the big players,” he says. “So the networks do a really good job in making this available. I think standards have come a long way in the past couple of years and targeting has got a lot better.”Snook says the “only thing” to watch out for is networks serving ads at the bottom of the page, where they’re not seen, but still count as served. He says that “other than that” reputable networks provide a cost-effective route for brands to build reach.
Loading ...
Subscribe to RSS
