digitalagmedia


Proctor & Gamble’s Marc Pritchard: We are 40-50% of the way to cleaning up digital
June 23, 2017, 12:52 pm
Filed under: Programmatic, Social Media, Web

I think the really interesting part of this article is how Marc Pritchard addresses whether it’s important that ads appear adjacent to good content.

https://www.marketingweek.com/2017/06/20/pg-marc-pritchard-clean-up-digital/?cmpid=em~newsletter~breaking_news~n~n&utm_medium=em&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=breaking_news&eid=3567643&sid=MW0001&adg=A1378640-0853-49A6-A6EA-F71069CF4BA6

He says that marketers now need to turn their attention to the content around which brands advertise. He believes it is publishers’ responsibility to bring a “quality and craft approach” to the content and advertising space. “There’s a lot of crap there and we need to eliminate that so we can get better content to advertise on.”

Clearly Marc Pritchard believes that it’s important that P&G’s ads appear adjacent to content that is valuable, relevant, accurate, and acceptable. This is in stark contrast to the notion put forward Canadian Google VP Jason Kee who told the Globe and Mail that “all they [advertisers] care about is reaching a certain audience.” https://digitalagmedia.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/google-is-ok-with-brand-safety-being-a-frustrating-game-of-whack-a-mole/

Marc Pritchard is right. Jason Kee is wrong. Mic-drop.



Why can’t marketers see that digital metrics are b*llsh!t? Funny stuff
June 14, 2017, 9:06 am
Filed under: Programmatic, Social Media

As long as you aren’t offended by the word ‘penis’, this may be the funniest article on digital metrics and marketing you read all year.

https://www.marketingweek.com/2017/06/13/mark-ritson-digital-metrics-bullshit/?cmpid=em~newsletter~breaking_news~n~n&utm_medium=em&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=breaking_news&eid=3539457&sid=MW0001

My only complaint with this article is that the author, Mark Ritson, considers metrics provided by Facebook and Google as “ALL METRICS”. He doesn’t mention the metrics offered by smaller publishers. He doesn’t say whether he feels metrics from smaller publishers are ‘better’ or just assumes they are also b*llsh!t. I would, naturally, argue for ‘better’; at least from a simplicity point of view. What do you think?



Google is OK with Brand safety being a frustrating game of Whack-A-Mole
April 3, 2017, 1:38 pm
Filed under: Programmatic, Social Media, Web

In Jan 2017 Google Canada’s lead lobbyist, Jason Kee, was in Ottawa convincing politicians that Canadian websites shouldn’t be protected the same way other Canadian mediums are (See “Google fights proposed tax change to Canadian online advertising” Globe and Mail). His logic, “There is no way for advertisers to know if their ads are showing up on Canadian websites or not, all they care about is reaching a certain audience.” And there you have it, right from the horse’s mouth. Put another way, Mr. Kee is admitting there is little control onto which sites ad impressions are served and moreover; it doesn’t matter.

He’s wrong. It does matter.

Maybe it’s slightly less of an issue in the B2C world, but in the B2B world it’s critical that ads are adjacent to relevant, acceptable content because branding and awareness are still mission-critical advertising activities. B2B purchasers don’t spend, they invest.

This is where B2B advertisers need to be particularly cautious buying programmatically. The social media publishers and programmatic vendors struggle to keep ad impressions adjacent to relevant, acceptable content because of (a) their gigantic volumes of semi-vetted content and/or (b) the middle men that can make site blacklists ineffective. See article below.

http://digiday.com/marketing/blocked-websites-slip-through/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=digidaydis&utm_source=daily&utm_content=170327

The question then becomes; assuming a reader’s “affinities” have been accurately identified, are B2B advertisers comfortable with Mr.Kee’s assertion that in terms of serving ad impressions, adjacency to ANY web content is acceptable? I hope for the sake of the shareholders in that B2B brand’s equity, the answer is ‘no’.



Domain spoofing remains a huge threat to programmatic
March 1, 2017, 10:39 am
Filed under: Other, Social Media, Web

What’s domain spoofing and how does it mess up programmatic buying?

“The way it works is that a buyer may see the URL for reputablewebsite.com (be it CNN or Huffington Post or any number of sites out there) but, in reality, is buying from a completely unrelated site, disreputablewebsite.com.”

http://digiday.com/marketing/domain-spoofing-remains-an-ad-fraud-problem/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=digidaydis&utm_source=daily&email=kelly.dundas@fbcpublishing.com&utm_content=170228

This is likely the most important line from this article because I talk to a lot of advertisers who think they are protected from programmatic fraud through their white or black lists of sites. “Blacklists and whitelists….wouldn’t help because those approaches can hardly verify an impression. Since a bid request has to go through many hoops (a tag within a tag within a tag), it is difficult for even verification vendors to catch fake domains….”



If you are advertising with Google, FB or Twitter, you’ll want to hear this opinion
February 5, 2017, 10:30 pm
Filed under: Social Media

“There is no sustainable advantage in a complicated, non-transparent, inefficient and fraudulent media supply chain.”
Marc Pritchard, Procter & Gamble

https://www.marketingweek.com/2017/01/31/mark-ritson-marc-pritchard-viewability-fraud-speech/?cmpid=em%7Enewsletter%7Eweekly_news%7En%7En&utm_medium=em&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=weekly_news&itx%5Bemail%5D=lynda.tityk%40fbcpublishing.com&eid=3065999&mm_5897e5c2a0080=5897e5c2a0132

Mr. Pritchard is the P&G Chief Brand Officer. He oversees the largest advertising budget in the USA at over $7 Billion USD. He didn’t just fall off a tomato truck. Worth a read. Pass it on.



Social Media Marketing, The New Toy That Could Blind Your Marketing
March 1, 2016, 9:13 am
Filed under: Social Media

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted. Very sorry. Will try to do better in the future.

Check out the analysis of social media marketing below. Ultimately the issue is the difficulty of finding a relevant audience in the B2C world.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/social-media-marketing-new-toy-could-blind-your-tony-mariani

I thank my lucky stars I work in the B2B world and not the B2C world. We are lucky that we have significant traffic in a very narrow vertical and therefore attracting a relevant audience is relatively easy (vs. B2C).

Ultimately with social media marketing, that’s the problem. By definition, it’s neither B2B nor B2C. With the notable exception of LinkedIn, is not BUSINESS media, it’s SOCIAL media. We aren’t there to make purchase decisions at all. We are there to be, well, social.



Mobile ads prove more click-worthy than social sharing buttons: report
August 26, 2015, 10:23 am
Filed under: Social Media

I suppose this makes sense. The take away seems to be that users are OK burning up their data to make a purchase, but not for sharing that act with the world. That fact that desktop shares are significantly higher than mobile shares would seem to support that.

http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/social-networks/21156.html

Furthermore in the B2B world, if I’m making an online purchase, do I really want to risk my competitors finding out by making that public knowledge; probably not?