Search results matching tag 'IASH'

The end of the beginning for Google's Content Network?

1713999 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:04:00 GMT

Amidst all the excited talk of Spotify iPhone apps and Apple tablet devices this week you just might have missed some interesting news from our friends at Google (and no, I'm not referring to the fire in their London office)...

On Tuesday Google quietly announced on their AdSense blog that they plan to open up their Google Content Network to third party networks as a way to maximize advertising revenues for those publishers using AdSense as a revenue stream. For publishers this is definitely a boon but from Google's point of view this is a surprising move - on the one hand it will obviously generate incremental revenue as it effectively places a whole range of additional advertisers on the network without any work yet at the same time it weakens their position slightly. In effect they have taken some of that niche reach out into the long-tail that some of the other networks lacked and handed it straight over to them. You could well ask then - given that any of these third party networks will have additional reach, why advertise on Google when you can simply advertise on one of these (yet to be announced) third-party networks?

In reality, as always, things are a little bit more complicated than that. Firstly publisher sites have to opt-in to these third party networks so Google won't exactly be handing over the keys to the kingdom. As an agency we would also generally point out Google's advantages, since their network gives advertisers complete transparency and control over where they appear, where conversions come from and what the costs are. This generally means that a well managed campaign on Google probably trumps a campaign run through a third-party network (at least in terms of like-for-like performance on the same sites). The networks also have the ever growing challenge of assuring quality environments for advertisers and this move certainly won't make IASH accreditation any easier to achieve.

What makes this move interesting though is that it positions Google one step closer to taking a role as an ad-exchange, since they are now able to broker out your advertising space much more widely (and obviously place ads too should you want). As most other ad-exchanges seem to fail to effectively communicate their position this puts Google in a very strong position, particularly with their reach into the longtail... I can't help but wonder if the next move will be for them to flip this around on its head and open up the third party networks to advertisers for management through their interface.

‘Who cares about self-regulation’?

2528349 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:35:00 GMT

The recent release of the full Digital Britain report was incredibly important for the IAB in many ways – the fact it acknowledges the role of self-regulation, emerging advertising models and even welcomed our behavioural targeting Good Practice Principles.

However, there remain some in the industry who question this, (see in particular the comments here ) and refuse to see a role for bodies that promote self-regulation such as the IAB and of course IASH. In my opinion, this is a hugely irresponsible view that when at its most extreme could actually thwart the growth of the industry at a time when the spotlight is well and truly on online, as a marketing medium.

As an industry of publishers, agencies and networks, we can sometimes forget where our main responsibility lies – with the brand advertisers.

In terms of IASH and network advertising , we want to protect these brands and prevent them from appearing against content that contains hate, indecency, obscenity, guns, illegal spyware and worse. IASH Members which comprises of Networks and Sales Houses, go through stringent audits to show that they comply with the IASH Code and do not deliver ads against such content.

Without such processes in place, we run the risk of even stricter regulation, that begins to move out of our control, straight into the hands of policy makers

‘But it’s all about money, surely?’ some may argue… I doubt very much if any agency wishes to tell their clients that they had the opportunity to trade safely and securely but turned it down because of a few pence off the CPM.

The majority of Media Agencies understand the importance of self-regulation models such as IASH. They understand the lengths the Members go to in order to ensure they can trade safely. They also understand that what they are buying is transparent – they know that the ad they booked will appear against the type of content they have agreed to. Perhaps this is why the model is being adopted in Germany, and the US.

It’s this transparency that needs to remain intact, and the industry needs to be united in this objective.

In my opinion this needs to be understood, and appreciated by ALL, as online advertising moves into this next, very critical stage.

Is the digital industry welcoming newcomers with open arms or are we a closed shop?

2528349 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:22:00 GMT

I recently had the pleasure of talking to a mature sales professional who had worked in traditional publishing for over 35 years. As a victim of the recession and in particular one of the many employees cut loose from their traditional publisher, he was looking to move into the digital industry.

While I was advising him on what and how much he would need to learn, it occurred to me that we aren’t making it easy for these consummate professionals to diversify into digital. We have created a vast array of acronyms that we then change every 6 months – SEO to NSO being my favourite de jour! We invent a complicated mix of revenue streams – far beyond the DPS, half page or at best, barn door of the traditional sales arena.

We are passionate about our industry and for those of us who have worked in it over the boom, crash, boom short history of digital, expect that those that didn’t jump on board at the start shouldn’t be allowed to walk in easily.

Well, perhaps we should evaluate. We should welcome new and old blood with open arms. That in itself would be the kind of attitude that we all so proudly aspire to have.
When traditional publishers are forced to let good people go, let us be the industry that embraces that talent.

I for one, welcome the mature, seasoned and consummate professional. For one reason, sales, design, marketing or editorial are skills that are acquired over time. Digital for all its complications, can and should be taught to all - irrespective of age or previous career path. Otherwise, surely we are letting good talent go to waste?

Send in the net police: power to the people!

1919324 — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:26:00 GMT

I can’t claim to know the ins and outs, but I’m sure we’re all aware that there is an evil worm virus attacking computers the world over. It is apparently the most evilest of worms to have ever been invented and it keeps changing to make it a slippery blighter to catch. Interestingly, Microsoft is invoking mob behaviour by offering a £172k reward to anyone with a lead. It’s like Crimewatch dot com.

Microsoft aren’t revolutionaries in this regard, other companies have used the internet user base to keep other people in check for some time now. YouTube, for instance, relies heavily on the public reporting of inappropriate content. Amazon and Expedia are other examples I’ve noticed recently of self-monitored user content. The internet is too big for companies to manage the vast amount of user content and computers don’t (yet) have the common sense to pick and choose what is and isn’t appropriate.

Therefore, with a middle person to offer final judgement, employing the aid of the millions of web users seems like one of the most logical methods of controlling the internet. Indeed, the advertising industry is already adopting this method through self-regulatory bodies like IASH. Is this the way the internet is to continue moving, the ultimate form of democracy? If it is, the most important element is that middle-layer. Someone, or a group of someones, to act on the responses of the masses.

An example of the middle-layer being wrongly implemented is Wikipedia. True, there are some moderators on the site that are responsible enough, but there are a large number of other moderators that aren’t. Emphasised by the creator Jimmy Wales publicly dismissing large chunks of content on the site as inaccurate and an embarrassing episode between Gordon Brown and David Cameron over the age of Titian. Of course, Wikipedia has no real revenue stream to cover the cost of employing the efforts of a complete middle-layer. Although I work in advertising, I applaud sites that can survive without it – but can Wikipedia? I like it being free, but I would sacrifice viewing ads to enable the site to employ a decent middle-layer, thus improving its overall quality.

In actual fact, every time self-policing has the correct middle-layer, it does work. In Microsoft’s case of the worms, the middle-layer will of course be the police; they aren’t expecting a genuine mob of virtual torch wielding geeks to surround the virus creator in a massive battle in World of Warcraft. I don’t think anyway…

The point of this post is simple: people are hard to manage and managing billions in the future is going to be a little tougher. Understatement. It is reassuring to see the foundations being put in place now, at least in the UK, because in ten years time we won’t want to realise we built this house on sand.