Marketing Sherpa’s Chart of the Week this week comes from their 2008 Online Advertising Handbook & Benchmarks. In their article Display Ads Do Work and They’re Getting Better they posted the following chart.

They go on to point out that for years, online display advertising has been a confusing challenge for brand builders and the object of suspicion for the direct marketing crowd. They surveyed 577 online advertisers from a range of companies and there is a lot of no-nonsense information in their report like; “From an ROI perspective, eliminating wasted impressions, then making a good impression by serving up great advertising, is consistently the best option for advertisers.” But from the advertisers perspective I was delighted to see how well contextual targeting scored in the report. They found that 40.5% of the advertisers surveyed felt that contextual targeting yielded a higher ROI while only 36.7% preferred behavioral. This speaks volumes to how well contextual has matured as a technology in the display ad space. Search advertisers like Google have always had the luxury of having their users input keywords to tell them exactly what the relevance is but in the display space it can be much more difficult to find the most relevant ad in just a few milliseconds. To do this you have to run a rich semantic library against an intelligent rules engine to match phrases to meaning all astride a robust data crawler scarping content in real-time. Few ad networks bring this kind of horsepower to the game and usually fall back to simple keyword spotting against a flat database of user generated synsets. When you really put a potent contextual engine behind an intelligent optimization algorithm you can get much higher returns than even what Marketing Sherpa’s survey set has found. In our early case studies we found that we could easily lift eCPM by more than 70% and return a minimum cost savings of 30% by eliminating waste for the advertiser and focusing their ad spend on just the highest performing combinations of hyper-targeted micro-segments. To me this report found that basic contextual is the top targeting method. You should see what good contextual can do.

MediaPost recently wrote about Marketing Sherpa’s inaugural 2008 Online Advertising Handbook which showed that less than half of their advertisers use online display ads for branding purposes. I was happy to see that advertisers rated the ability to use behavioral and contextual targeting as an important aspect to ROI measurements though. InsightExpress reported that targeting was a key driver in effectiveness and advised advertisers that the context in which an ad is served is just as important as the ad itself. It comes as no surprise to me that context is important and targeting impacts effectiveness and ultimately ROI. What we need now is to take this a step further and understand which types of targeting work best. This is important because I have noticed that vendors in this arena tend to muddy the waters around targeting and in the end confuse the advertiser and their agencies. So I thought I would shed a little light on the difference between behavioral and contextual mentioned in the study. There seems to exist an almost unnecessary tension between the two different methods of targeting in the marketplace. I say unnecessary because when you compare the two, it is important to note that behavioral is to some degree dependent upon a contextual element; it is in part “contextual over time”, but advertisers still see it more as a black-and-white, one-or-the-other, which-one-do-I-choose situation. So it is worth investigating further. And to make matters worse I realized from this year’s Ad:Tech in San Francisco that many networks are claiming to do a mix of both but in reality they do very little contextual. No wonder there is confusion in the marketplace. Just take a look at two quotes from the industry press over the last few years. “The CPM of behavioral targeting was 24 percent less than the contextual placement, yet it delivered 50.3 percent more imminent purchasers … Therefore the CPM against imminent buyers was 50.6 percent of the CPM of contextual targeting. Behavioral targeting was twice as cost effective.” This is from a case study in TACODA’s Behavioral vs. Contextual targeting research done in 2006. Now here is another more recent quote that seems to almost contradict their findings. “The last two placements showed about a 19% lift in brand recall over the former, proving that when it comes to online ads, contextual targeting can have an effect. According to Marketing Sherpa data, 40.5% of marketers said contextual targeting delivers good return on investment; behavioral targeting was not far behind at 36.7%.” This is from Jonathan Lemonnier in Advertising Age early 2008. Ok, so is behavioral twice as cost effective as contextual or is contextual more effective? How are advertisers supposed to sort this out? To find the reality you have to compare how the TACODA case study was executed with the actual data in the research paper. If you look at the actual data in the TACODA study cited in the impressive first quote, the actual results are far less remarkable. The study is measuring the right KPI, cost effectiveness based on purchases, but the data in the study does not necessarily support the claim that behavioral was twice as cost effective. The case study assumes a certain CPM paid for both behavioral and contextual impressions and that is where the case study separates from the research data. If you look at just the research paper and don’t take into account the current market value of behavioral and contextual impressions, the subjective part of the claim, the empirical data seems to say that contextual targeting outperforms behavioral especially under a frequency cap!

(Number of looks at an ad)

(Seconds spent looking at an ad)

These images are from the actual study. Researchers measured the number of times the subjects looked at each ad on each page (looks, the first chart) and measured aggregate time spent looking at each ad on each page (seconds, the second chart). In the two charts you notice that contextual targeting outperforms behavioral until you add frequency. Only then does behavioral overtake contextual. In fact, on first exposure, contextual well outperforms behavioral for initial looks and ends up with almost similar look results at the second exposure. The story is even better when you look at seconds spent looking at a particular ad. Contextual well outperforms behavioral in seconds spent looking at an ad on the first through third exposure and it is only as you approach the fourth exposure, which is one reason why we frequency cap, where behavioral clearly begins to outperform contextual. Behavioral definitely has it merits. But this study, used to support a behavioral approach, shows why contextual targeting yields the highest returns for brand campaigns (as in the more recent Advertising Age quote). Contextual ads get eyeballs faster and they keep them looking longer especially under a frequency cap of four. In fact, brand advertisers should consider a frequency cap of three in light of this study. This is why big brand advertisers are doing so well on the LucidMedia Network and why they continue to be a strong focus for us. Contextual gets eyeballs faster and keeps attention longer in today’s world of hyper-short attention spans and overcrowded messages. The moral of the TACODA study should be; “Just don’t over pay for your contextual impressions.” Luckily for advertisers and agencies we are making the deepest contextual solution one of the most economical forms of targeting.

Rob Hof over at Business Week recently wrote about AdBrite and the launch of their new Open Targeting Exchange (OTX) in his Tech Beat column. The concept is an elegant solution to the challenge of high performance targeting for display advertising and we are excited to be AdBrite’s launch partner. AdBrite is “The Internet’s Ad Marketplace” so it is fitting that they are first to take what Rob calls “a sort of eBay for ad targeting technologies” to market. Here’s the idea, AdBrite is aggregating and integrating multiple external display ad targeting technologies under one sort of free market system that advertisers and publishers can use to target their ads more effectively. When a pageview is called on an AdBrite publisher’s site, OTX calls out at all the potential targeting technologies in real-time to determine the most effective advertisement for the given property, user profile, and location. This fosters competition among all the targeting technology providers creating what our President and CEO Ajay Sravanapudi called a “Darwinian environment” where the fittest will survive and over time prosper. Publishers benefit from increased yield and advertisers get a better ROI. The proverbial win-win scenario. We were more than happy to throw our ClickSense® platform into OTX’s Darwinian savanna of 508M impressions a day and 60,000 publisher sites to sink or swim since it has already proven more than capable of handling some of the largest web properties for years now. But at the end of the day it is the user who gets an overall better experience with a more relevant ad and that is good for everyone in this business. We’ve let the lion out so keep an eye on AdBrite’s OTX in the near future.

I was reading Mike On Ads’ multi-part series on Ad Exchanges and I got to wondering what forces came together to create the current ad exchange phenomenon? There’s no denying the emerging ad exchanges are replacing the old yield management solutions out there. They are aggregating the supply to drive new market efficiencies and a new level of transparency in the non-premium marketplace. One of the early factors motivating this was the proliferation of ad networks which have been growing at a staggering rate. ThinkEquity Partners recently reported that there were over 300 ad networks in 2007 which means the number doubled in less than two years. They went on to report that the non-premium market will grow at 28% annually from $2.2B today to $7.6B in 2011 so it’s no wonder the number and the types of ad networks exploded. Vertical, contextual, behavioral, demographic, re-targeting, geographic, site specific, there is no shortage of ad networks out there now. Because of this explosion the mantra of the crowded, long-tail, remnant world of non-premium advertising has become differentiate or die. Why? Because there was (and still is) pressure from all sides to stand out. Pressure from eroding gross margins, strain from publisher recruitment, competition over inventory, negative stigmas about duplication and a lack of transparency, and a fast and furious industry roll-up. The growing revenue base and customer demand needed another solution and the ad exchange was the logical evolutionary path. Ad exchanges are streamlining the process with a whole new level of efficiency that the ad networks tried to deliver but lost along the way. The ad exchange is basically an ad server ecosystem through which advertisers, publishers and networks all manage their advertising business. They do this together and in an open, platform agnostic way that allows market dynamics to work their magic. So now the ad networks are feeling pressure from the exchanges too driving an ever increasing need to differentiate themselves. Think Right Media and the DoubleClick Advertising Exchange as examples. Advertisers and agencies rely on ad networks for the efficiency, reach, and optimization they bring to the table and are willing to give up some editorial control for it. But ad networks tried to control the whole process through proprietary means. This opened the door for exchanges to step in because they simplified and unified the trafficking process on an open platform that was transparent to the process. And there we have it, transparency is the final piece to the puzzle that unlocked the exchange phenomenon. Transparency takes the duplication out and removes the waste. We’ve all heard the timeless advertising adage “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.” Well transparency addresses that problem. So the ad networks out there will continue to differentiate themselves if they want to survive. The winners will be the exchange-friendly networks who can deliver the same transparency that enabled the exchange phenomenon in the first place.