Here are the items from the perpetually evolving advertising world that caught our eye this week…
LinkedIn opened up its network to specific company targeting at scale, with a new feature titled “LinkedIn Account Targeting.” LinkedIn has facilitated company targeting previously, but this allows up to 30,000 companies, rather than a max of 100. Additionally, it allows marketers to bring their own data sets into LinkedIn. We’re also reviewing other powerful B2B demand-side platforms with proprietary data matching. We’ve found two that can link a physical address to an IP address (kinda scary), allowing marketers to target, for example, employees of a hospital, an office park, or even the Google campus.
Advertisers can increase ROI by increasing media channels, so says the largest study in 25 years by the Advertising Research Foundation. Preach! Large media agencies with competitive silos make a truly diversified campaign difficult at scale. Additionally, outdated “best practices,” where advertisers should “own a channel” before investing in a second channel, don’t jive with the fluid way media is now consumed. – on-demand and across devices. We’ve endorsed this notion for awhile; with the example that a TV solution doesn’t just mean linear TV and a radio solution doesn’t mean just terrestrial radio. And that, really, all media is digital. In today’s world, media planning really should be renamed “audience planning.”
Speaking of Media Diversification
This interesting op-ed piece on the future of TV reinforces our notion that all media is “digital.” As further proofed by the fact that by 2017 will be a milestone year, when linear TV will no longer be the dominant contributor to US ad revenue. It’s not that TV ad spending won’t grow, it will just grow a lot slower than internet ad spending.
With the dissolution of its ad server, Atlas, Facebook is signaling the impeding dissolution of those small block ads. This change adds pressure to marketers to deploy more engaging ad units. Which, really, is reflective of the conversation happening in the online banner advertising ecosystem: How can we make online ads more relevant and interesting to consumers so they won’t do something rash, like BLOCK us? The question reminds me of the perpetual content purity/ad revenue debate. Radio stations carefully monitor listener tune out, balancing the length of ads with revenue need, resulting in more frequent 30-second spots than 60-second spots. TV networks monetize product placement, but the activation has to feel organic, lest you turn off viewers, increasingly precious to the ad-supported TV world. The front page of a newspaper was sacred ground for many years, until editors caved and allowed front-page ad exposure, now de rigueur. I love the quote that one woman’s ad trash is another’s slim body solution, meaning that not all simple banner ads are rubbish.The conversation gets really interesting when we’re reviewing CPMs and CTRs without a robust attribution model. If you’re dependent on last-click value assignment, higher priced ad units, while good for publishers and readers, can look awfully expensive.