This weekend while many of you were sitting down to a quiet meal, LucidMedia was celebrating an historic milestone. One year ago LucidMedia processed our first real-time bid (RTB) impression. At precisely 6:45PM Eastern Time February 21st 2009 LucidMedia turned on the RTB engine in our demand-side platform (DSP) and began acquiring impressions in real-time. We have since processed tens of billions of impressions and the scale continues to grow. We are quite proud to be one of the pioneering companies behind the current real-time bid inventory acquisition wave that is sweeping our industry. And although we are a relatively new company, we are one of the first demand-side platforms operating today in what is rapidly becoming a crowded space. We saw very early, late in 2007 in fact, that advertisers needed more control and the DSP model was the future. Back then we did not call it a DSP though. It was simply a better kind of ad network where inter-mediation was streamlined, transparency was paramount, and brand safety was the dominant capability. Now it is the future of the ad network.

Reprinted from ADOTAS – 2010 is already shaping up to be the year of real-time bidding (RTB) technologies and demand-side platforms (DSP). The availability of real-time bid access into the major ad exchanges is converging with an industry-wide preference for agency-administered ad-buying and ad-trafficking platforms.

The traditional ad network model achieved many things but has yet to deliver on the promise of truly cost-effective scale. The rules of engagement changed when downward-spiraling CPM prices forced publishers grudgingly onto the emerging exchanges to improve their yield and back-fill diminishing ad revenues. The networks had to follow their publishers and a new aggregated sourcing model emerged.

Real-time bidding is the hot feature this year and a staple of the effective DSP. Now the combined capabilities of RTB-enabled DSPs built on the exchange model are replacing traditional ad networks with a new buy-side network paradigm that is more nimble, more economical and more in touch with advertiser goals.

Control is subsequently moving closer to the advertiser, intermediation is being reduced and prices are arriving at a true market-driven equilibrium. Not only do advertisers have more control over targeting, performance and safety, but buying has become more centralized and access to inventory become more streamlined.

It is no secret that LucidMedia has one of the most robust contextual targeting engines in the marketplace, but what we have achieved in the DSP space over the last year has not been widely publicized. Late in 2008 we began engaging all of the large aggregators to co-develop RTB solutions. Next we developed an advanced, proprietary ad server to give us one of the most nimble systems available for trafficking campaigns.

We also built a unified inventory management system that could dispense with the complexity of hard-wiring campaigns to inventory sources. We included an automated optimization engine that can evaluate thousands of campaign facets in real-time, project performance trends, and govern campaign targeting based on advertiser goals.

In January 2009 we deployed the platform internally, effectively making it the industry’s first production RTB-enabled demand-side platform. Named ADvisor DSP™, LucidMedia has since executed hundreds of successful campaigns on the platform and is currently processing up to 45 billion impressions each month. This pioneering experience makes us uniquely qualified to access the necessary features of a successful RTB-enabled DSP initiative.

There are certain universal features that agencies need for any successful DSP initiative. All buy-side platforms must offer multisource RTB integration and scale, an advanced ad server, page-level contextual analysis for targeting and brand-safe filtering, audience profiling for retargeting, universal frequency capping, detailed performance roll-up reporting with discrepancy management and reconciliation, flexible and intelligent bidding strategies, the ability to leverage third-party targeting data and a managed service deployment approach.

Advanced Ad Server: A good DSP starts with an advanced ad server. Core ad serving capabilities like frequency capping, day parting and targeting are minimum requirements. The savvy agency should also look for full-featured holistic campaign management features like cross-aggregator universal frequency capping, pre- and post- impression auditing, preemptive brand-safe filtering, page-level impression verification and hyper-segmented targeting based on content, demographics, behaviors, site, location, and time of day. Discrepancy management and reconciliation are also critical aspects of the built-in ad server.

Integrated RTB: Properly integrated real-time bidding is not standardized or modularized. There is still a great deal of heavy lifting development needed to bring on each inventory source, scale and balance the volume, and bid effectively. A good DSP needs to have these problems already solved.

Intelligent Bidding: Smart bidding strategies are also critical to an agency’s bottom line. The DSP model promises that agencies can claim a larger slice of the ad spend dollar, moving it further and further away from the networks. But without intelligent and flexible bidding, that slice can be lost. Look for detailed graphing of bid price and win ratios and the tools to quickly adjust bidding per source. Look for RTB solutions efficient enough to drive bid costs below the $0.001 threshold.

Retargeting: Another aspect of the successful DSP is the ability to roll up audience and link users to performance for retargeting purposes. Reaching the right audience with the right message at the right time is a core tenet of advertising and although this applies to all mediums, display always reaches its users through a proxy device.

The right platform goes beyond simply rolling up interpolated audience facets and instead segments users into actionable profiles using third party data based on their propensity toward a desired action.

Managed Services: The concept of an agency-side buying and management platform relies heavily on managed services at the inception of any in-house DSP program. The current transitional period is favoring the managed service approach to demand-side platforms as agencies step into the traditional ad network role. Managed services allow the transition and knowledge transfer to happen in the most effective manner.

Optimization: Automated optimization is a differentiator for the demand-side platforms. Historically optimization was the mystical secret sauce of the more technical ad networks but it has become a required attribute of the full-featured DSP. Look for optimization that can juggle thousands of campaign targeting facets, project outcomes, and model performance scenarios prior to launch.

Inventory Sources: Sources and scalability are key factors for every agency to consider. The right platform needs to plug into all the large repositories as well as the more niche aggregators plus the all supply-side optimizers. This kind unprecedented impression potential, scale and broad reach are requirements for large direct response campaigns, major corporate branding promotions and scaled niche segments of very specific demographic traits.

These are the major features — as well as ad network staples like brand-safe filtering, transparent reporting down to the page level and flexible targeting to content, demographics, and behaviors — that an agency should look for when selecting a DSP.

The right demand-side platform allows agencies to easily audit the networks and exchanges on their media plans, efficiently acquire page-level contextually and demographically targeted inventory, ensure brand safety across all sources and most importantly enforce a universal frequency cap. The new breed of DSP with integrated RTB gives agencies pre-impression filtering, post-impression auditing, and allows agencies to cherry-pick the most effective impressions in real time and then feed their campaigns with an optimization engine that automatically maximizes return on spend.

This is reprinted from “Data-Driven Thinking”, a column on AdExchanger written by members of the media community and containing fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Demand Side Platforms (DSP) are hot! I can tell by the huge agency interest, and even more eager venture capitalists anxious to get in on the latest craze. Traditional ad networks and newfangled technology platforms are declaring themselves to be DSPs. Others who did much of the evangelical spadework for DSPs appear to be stung by the sudden rush. There is now an attempt to define a “true DSP”. At this stage, a “true DSP” as defined by a list of features serves little purpose and is as much a disservice to the industry, as it is disconnected from reality. In fact, many of the current DSP competitors—those with the most significant solutions already in-market—are successfully violating that definition of a “true DSP” to the benefit of their agencies partners.

The truth is that a “fully self-service DSP” would be far too disruptive to most agencies at this early stage. There are far too many levers, knobs and buttons in a DSP robust enough to deliver the optimum cross-section of pacing, performance, and price for an agency to take on today. They range from mundane tasks like dealing with objectionable impressions and buys from non real-time sources to more arcane optimization tasks, RTB source integration, bidding strategies, discrepancy management, and post-campaign reconciliation.

As my own company has learned by providing DSP services to agencies over the past year, agencies are still not appropriately staffed to be full-fledged buy-side networks yet. Media buyers are already over worked and stretched to the limits and are looking for a DSP to do more with less. That means automating many tasks but also off-loading just as many (if not more). A managed service that facilitates knowledge transfer and leads to a semi- self-service approach is far more realistic today. The reality of the situation is simply not that black and white! At the end of the day what an agency really wants is to know what works for their clients and how to repeat those outcomes in the future. At least that’s been our takeaway. They want the data behind the performance, the audience segments that engage with their message effectively, and the easy-to-pull levers that will let them do it again on the next campaign. They want no more and no less.

It is also important to recognize that many of the most important DSP offerings are coming from the networks where the technology has matured and has been thoroughly field tested. Indeed, my company falls into this category. The networks already have the relationships and business models in place to support the early adopters. Real-time bidding is an excellent example of this necessity. To get multi-source RTB going at scale going takes a significant amount of relationship building and technical heavy lifting and many of the networks have already invested heavily in this. Discounting the network players with a single stroke, and leaving it all up to the agencies, is doing the industry a massive disservice.

There are many other aspects of a “true DSP” that were missing from the recent list as well. Our experience has been that no DSP should leave home without staples like universal frequency capping across exchanges and publishers, objectionable content filtering for brand safety, some sort of automated optimization for CTR, CPA, or eCPC and the ability to plug in others, an advanced and robust ad server capable of propagating campaign changes in minutes, seamless targeting of audiences with native and 3rd party data, and granular content targeting independent of site or section.

Only time and buyer requirements will define the “true DSP” and decide if networks and DSPs can truly coexist. The industry needs time to shake it all. The sector is too young to define the full product category or for one player to define it completely. I will conclude with a heretical prognostication – the next generation of ad network will be a hybrid DSP solution with a service layer.

We recently did a Q&A with AdExchanger.com about LucidMedia and our work with the Ad Exchange community.

Q: What trends are you seeing in online display advertising?

A: Trend #1 is performance.  All the trends we are seeing are towards performance-based advertising and increasing return to “do more with less”.  Advertisers are looking for new ways to increase their return with a flat budget but all the same growth pressure.  They are turning more and more to direct response, CPC, and CPA solutions to move the media risks as far away as possible and guarantee the backend performance.  Apparently our fully transparent platform with multiple optimization facets really resonates with clients in this tough new economy. 

Trend #2 is exchanges.  We are seeing a dramatic shift from networks to exchanges.  The exchange model has matured at the same time the network model has had its reputation tarnished.  The real-time bidding and open, transparent nature of the free market exchange model has finally distilled to the top as the solution of choice when efficiency and return become as important as reach and scale. 

Q: Is it fair to say that LucidMedia is the contextual solution for Right Media Exchange?

A:  Yes and no.  Yes, we are a contextual engine on Yahoo’s Right Media Exchange but that is not our core business, it’s just one of the many irons we have in the fire these days.  And our work on RMX is a two way street.  We provide contextualization services to publishers and advertisers there but we can also purchase media there.  We have many of these types of media arrangements because it is how we provide the scale, efficiency and performance that are so appealing to our advertisers.    It took years to do but we are now able to pass those benefits on to our advertisers and our agency partners.  That is a key to the current rapid growth and momentum I mentioned in the first question.

Q: Any plans to work with Yahoo!’s APT Platform?

A:  We are watching APT closely, as many are, because it holds a great deal of potential scale.  Obviously we’d like to continue our close and positive relationship with Yahoo and Right Media and integrate with APT when it is fully operational. 

Q: Can you take us through the process of how LucidMedia’s deal with Right Media works from a technological perspective?  For example, tell us how it all works for a single ad impression on a publisher’s site.

A:  Right Media has established 63 standard categories that correspond to a 4 digit contextual flag.  RMX publishers have to deploy new ad tags and then advertisers can target their inventory more effectively.  LucidMedia’s ad tags are distributed to RMX publishers instead of YieldManager tags.  Then, during ad call, the LucidMedia tag analyzes the context of the page in real-time to determine the most appropriate categories.  We a YieldManager tag with additional Query String Codes that represent the most appropriate Right Media Exchange categories.  All advertisers have to do is use Right Media’s Query String Targeting capability when they setup a campaign in YieldManager and they can access the highly targeted contextual inventory right away.  Your readers can go online to find out more about it too.

Q: Can Lucid Media’s ClickSense technology contextualize social media other than, say, the “social media” category?

A:  Sure.  Our technology does not care about self-declared categories.  Rather we deal with exactly what the content is about and categorize it accordingly.  Our solution scrapes the page in real-time to determine precisely what each inventory page is all about.  What we find is that the majority of content is improperly categorized at a high level.  We find social media can be all over the map category-wise.  Technology, Arts and Entertainment, Automotive, Sports, Pets, Family and Parenting, Health, and so on.  So we tag media at the page level for what it is about and not what it is supposed to be about.  And our performance proves out the approach.  We’ve worked with advertisers who have studied this and their findings are always the same: that context is a true predictor of intent. 

Q: How is the contextual engine for LucidMedia different than the competitors such as AdSense, Contextweb, Kontera and others?

A:  Although we all have a contextual solution in common, our focus is on providing a broad platform that encompasses a range of advertiser and agency services beyond just running media.  In fact, clients can actually utilize our platform as a compliment to some of the other contextual providers.     In terms of technology, our approach is a bit different as well.  At the core of our platform is a patented semantic solution that includes advertising industry-focused taxonomies which let us target content at a very granular level.

Q: In the future, can you see a network providing the essential services that an advertiser requires and, thereby, disintermediating media agencies?

A:  I think that is unlikely to happen.  For example, our focus is on providing a media management platform to agencies that allows them to outperform their competitors and pass on new levels of efficiency, transparency, and safety to their advertising clients.  So we are not trying to act like an agency, we’re trying to put tools in their hands that make us a crucial part of the value chain.  We feel our position between the agencies (and the advertisers) and the networks (and publishers) is the best place to do business.  This allows us to act as a media buying platform for the exchanges—and even the other networks out there—and provide our data as the new currency of performance.  It’s a very exciting place to be right now!

Q: How is LucidMedia ensuring brand safety?  And, how does LucidMedia provide access to the Long Tail?

A:  Brand safety is rising in importance these days.  Our Verified Inventory Platform (VIP) leverages our deep contextual technology to find the right content to meet the ever-tightening advertiser performance goals.  But we can also block content in the same way when they indicate something is inappropriate for their brand.  Because we evaluate the true meaning of each page for categorization, we get the by-product of knowing exactly what topics are on each page.  We have compiled an extensive list inappropriate topics that we call our Objectionable Content Filters.  With these filters enabled we can make sure that their brand won’t appear on pages about hate or pornography or even things like natural disasters or war.  And these are all customizable by the advertiser because what is inappropriate to one may be desirable content to another.

As for accessing the Long Tail for our advertisers, we deployed the concept of Media Classes within our platform to take advantage of the Long Tail.  We not only categorize the page content accurately, we also categorize the type of source it is found on like news sites, social networks, blogs, enthusiast forums, gaming sites, wikis and webmail portals.  We also categorize the sometimes undesirable media classes like peer-to-peer file sharing sites so advertisers can not only target specific media classes, they can also filter against certain classes of media if they want.  This opens all kinds of doors for our advertisers.

Q:  In your opinion, what will be some of the key drivers which will allow ad exchanges to progress from a remnant-only to a premium and remnant model?

A:  The key drivers will be their openness, a clear value proposition to the publishers, and their ability to support real-time bidding.  The exchange platforms have to be easily extensible so everyone can play.  And we’ll need the publisher side optimizers to keep advancing as well.  They play a key roll that the exchanges are not filling today and they exert a great deal of pull on the publishers drawing them to the exchange model.  I expect to see a lot of interesting changes in the next few years and LucidMedia plans to be right in the middle of it all adding value to the agencies and advertisers.

Have you noticed lately that everyone in this ad network business says they offer great, transparent, handpicked inventory?  Everyone calls it Premium.  But in the end it winds up being self-certification and adding no real value beyond perceived value.  And now LucidMedia has launched a Verified Inventory program.  We are saying our inventory is safe for brands and that we can accurately target 14,000 specific content categories. You can find out more about brand protection in this Adotas article called A Display Advertising Safety Net. So how is this any different from all the other networks out there?  The difference is in the how, not the what or the why.  The what (verifying inventory) and the why (for brand safety) is the same across the board.  Every network says their media is checked for brand safety.  And everyone has the same reason.  Get more big advertiser spend.  That’s the common what and why in the industry.  It’s the how that is unique to this new program.  We launched this program not because we do it like everyone else, we have this program because we do it differently.  To be specific, we use the most robust and patented form of natural language processing at the pre-impression page level to better determine true meaning.  But how is that different?  Most networks spot check a top level domain list as their way of making their inventory brand safe.  You begin to see the degrees of brand protection available to advertisers and the intricate subtleties that make it confusing.  There’s a huge difference in the degree of safety provided between the two methods.  And every other network usually says they categorize for accurate relevance matching of ads to content because everyone knows that engagement and relevance are directly related.  But what most other networks really do is ask the publisher to self-certify their inventory and then they push it out in those same self-certified categories.  But we look at the words and phrases on the page in real-time and tag it with a far more accurate and granular category before we serve it.  Everyone has the same what and why but it’s the varying degrees of how that makes our program different.  But we go so much further too.  We even filter out pages with objectionable concepts as defined by our clients.  We also categorize our inventory into 14 different classes of media to filter against or target to a specific type of pages like a blogs, news sites, enthusiast site, or shopping sites.  So the story here is not that we are doing the same thing, the real story is in the lengths we go to verify our inventory versus what everyone else does.  They are two very different stories.  And that is why we created the Verified Program, because we do it differently and with a much higher degree of quality.

Targeting is rapidly overtaking inventory quality among ad networks as the one aspect that their value hinges on and the one that truly differentiates them. So much so that targeting has become the new “killer app” of ad networks. According to the E-consultancy 2007 Online Ad Network Buyers Guide, targeting was only 1 percentage point behind inventory quality as the single most important differentiator. That was 2007. Since then inventory quality has normalized with every network offering all the same top quality branded sites. Think comScore 200 and you’ll have the right picture. But the ground war around targeting has raged on. Now the single most important factor left that has not been commoditized and can still differentiate the countless ad networks is their targeting. Inventory quality is still an important factor when evaluating ad networks but it has become more like a commodity. Just a check box to be filled. Great inventory? Got it. Everyone has great sites now, or has potential access to great sites which is becoming the same thing, and can whip up a spectacular site list with all the right logos in all the right places. You’ll see that comScore now calls this “potential reach” and everyone’s got potential reach. But targeting? Good, precise, accurate, performance-driving targeting takes technology which is actually hard to come by among the ad networks. Most ad networks are made up of people and relationships and that’s how they scale. Add more great sites and add more great sales people and the revenue model scales accordingly. So what’s the best targeting solution out there? What kinds of targeting will provide the most performance boost for your campaigns? That of course hinges on what your key performance indicators are going to be. Is it clicks, acquisitions, brand awareness or a combination or something else entirely? In many ways contextual targeting has a leg up on the other forms and here’s why. The behavioral crowd almost always has a contextual component driving their segmentation so contextual tends to be one of the most mature technologies out there. Semantic relevance engines have been around since the early days of Knowledge Management and go back way before the first AT&T banner was sold by Doug Weaver on Wired.com in ‘94. And contextual side steps the ugly privacy issues as it derives its relevance from the page content as the ad is being served and does not need to ask probing questions or save little bits of sensitive data behind the scenes. But most importantly, contextual targeting has frequently shown to offer both more click lift and more brand recall than any other targeting solution. A recent Marketing Sherpa study found that contextual targeting was preferred over behavioral by advertisers for the higher return on ad spend it provided. But the best approaches are the new hybrid solutions that combine the strength of both contextual for relevance and behavioral for audience segmentation. So when you are out there shopping for an ad network and everyone is pitching great sites and real transparency at the best price, stop and ask about targeting. Don’t be afraid to ask about technology either. Most likely you will find little behind that curtain besides some basic self declared channels, a little re-targeting after the fact, and a high level report for reconciliation at the end of the month. Take the time to ask for proof and see where that leads you. Can they offer proof as to why they targeted a certain impression with a specific ad? If not then there is probably little technology back there.  And if every answer seems to come back around to great sites, then I’d keep shopping.

A recent study released by the IAB from Bain & Company titled Digital Pricing Research has ignited a virtual flurry of newsworthy commentary from prominent publications like iMedia and MediaPost about the place—and need—of networks in the advertising value chain. Declining prices, channel conflict, and devalued brands are the mantra of the network bashing fervor. It wasn’t so long ago that the pundits were predicting the end of the ad network model as we know it. The latest headliner from Adotas called Can 314 Ad Networks Really Thrive is an especially insightful look at the ongoing ad network saga.  The reality is that we’re just getting started.  Look at the statistics from the eMarketer study that said more than 90% of advertisers surveyed plan to use ad networks on their media plans and 75% said they planned to increase their spend to networks.  And look at what factors differentiate the plethora of ad networks according to the agency study; you might be surprised to find that price is dead last.  The major differentiators they cited were quality of inventory (28%), targeting (27%), and transparency (11%) then service, optimization, reporting, reach and finally price.  It’s true, there are a lot of ad networks out there, and there’s a good reason too.  Niche audiences and strategic reach.  And it’s not always one or the other either; it’s frequently both at the same time.  Advertisers need massive reach to get their message across and hit their key performance indicators.  It’s just a numbers game at the end of the day.  And not only do they need the big numbers, they also need to diversify and specialize and focus depending on what they’re selling or who they’re branding to.  One day they may need laser like focus on a specific audience segment and the next they may need numbers on a Biblical scale.  Usually they need both at the same time: the “massive niche” if there is such a thing.  Actually, there is!  That’s where we come in.  Our “super-clustered” network brings both audience breadth and contextual depth for performance and branding campaigns delivering focused reach all in one campaign.  And until there are more of these hybrid networks out there that are big enough to satisfy the advertiser’s thirst for reach and at the same time give them the finely tuned depth they require for performance, we will have a plethora of specialized networks serving the market.  And it’s not just the advertisers driving the explosion of ad networks either; it’s also the publishers. On any given day the average publisher has less than a 50% fill rate. Sure they have their own sales force out there beating the bushes for ad dollars but content is exploding all around them at a logarithmic rate and there is no way they can sell it all. Frequently they don’t even know exactly what they have to sell. Sure the high quality impressions get sold first, and for a premium price, but that’s the tip of the iceberg and there’s always the massive remnant pool of impressions hanging around unsold. So they have to farm it out to the networks and the number of networks grows again. That’s where the channel conflict that everyone tattoos ad networks with comes from but it’s self inflicted and on purpose. Channel conflict only happens when things are selling. Call it too much selling if you want. Maximum yield trumps any sales force’s headache any day of the week. And maximize they do. Just look at PubMatic’s brilliantly elegant default optimization service. Their ad network optimization automates the reselling of unused inventory back to the network enabling publishers to instantly redirect to the highest paying impression every time allowing them to approach an almost theoretical 100% fill rate. What a wonderful world advertisers and publishers are living in today all care of the ad network explosion. In fact, without the hundreds of ad networks out there delivering the reach, segmenting the audiences, and backfilling the impressions, we wouldn’t have nearly as robust an advertising industry as we enjoy today. The networks might have started out as a necessary evil but they are far from that now. They have matured into the strategic reach partner of any successful advertiser or publisher out there, and they are working–hard.

I just got back from the MediaPost OMMA Publish New York event and must report on one very significant outcome.  There was an outstanding panel discussion called Publishers and Ad Networks: Can This Marriage Be Saved which I was fortunate enough to attend.  The talk was on the value and life expectancy of the ad network model moderated by the very direct but never dull Wenda Harris Millard, President of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and author of the now infamous “pork bellies” quote.  On the panel was the similarly outspoken and sometimes abrasive Jim Spanfeller, President and CEO of Forbes.com most recently in the spotlight for his preemptive eulogy for ad networks.  Forget the dripping irony that Wenda sits on the board of an ad network and Jim recently launched his own ad network, these two are regularly in the news with pessimistic views of the ad network’s value to interactive advertising and big brands going online today.  The round table discussion also included Jarvis Coffin, Co-founder and CEO of Burst Media who was incredibly refreshing and sensible, and Matthew Boyd, SVP at ValueClick Media, who together defended the ad network point of view exceedingly well.   It quickly became apparent that ad networks have a solid and necessary place in the value chain within display advertising as Jarvis and Matt, along with Ed Montes, EVP at Havas Digital, talked through the evolution of the ad network and the necessary reach, optimization and aggregation role they fill today.  We saw that the original “horizontal” network model has undergone a Darwinian evolution using things like vertical-ization, contextual technology and behavioral targeting to reach point where they are not just “sopping up” the remnant inventory, but rather adding new and unforeseen value to the big brands that need to be online with their messaging.  I could not resist the Q&A period at the end to put the question to Wenda as directly as possible in hopes of some final punctuation to the argument that has raged in the industry for weeks.  But she took the question with great aplomb and very candidly responded that—based on what was said on the panel—ad networks are more “pearls than pork bellies” to brand value and display advertising.  So I think we can now finally put this issue to bed and get on with driving the industry forward.  Thanks have to go to MediaPost and OMMA for the great venue and the “chutzpa” to host the topic and get the names up on stage.  It was a very satisfying event.

I was talking the other day with a colleague, Paul Rostkowski our new Vice President of Sales, and he came up with a term that I thought was very relevant to what we are doing here at LucidMedia. We were discussing what makes LucidMedia uniquely different in the crowded marketplace of ad networks and how we are passionately focused on the advertiser and their agencies. This is almost a 180 degree departure from the norm where the focus has historically been on the publisher and connecting them to advertisers. In that norm, however, real transparency is a pipe-dream that is never realized because the publisher network must be protected at all costs. As we were talking he casually said we are an “un-network.” The idea being that we are doing the opposite of the norm by empowering the advertisers and, unlike the blind networks, we provide transparency down to the page in the name of improved performance. I thought the idea had real legs and the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to take it to the next level. You see, traditional blind ad networks are a community of publishers and advertisers yet LucidMedia is an ecosystem of inventory aggregators built on the most robust contextual targeting engine in the business. You can look at it as almost a meta-network or a network of networks because we tie together and leverage a vast pool of ad networks, ad exchanges, vertical networks, publisher networks, and publisher optimizers. Basically we’re cutting a “channelized” swath of relevant, high performing super clusters of inventory across all the aggregated pools of inventory out there. It’s the right inventory anytime, anywhere, any way as long as it works. This is similar to the exchanges model as it’s an ecosystem of advertisers, publishers, ad networks, and advertising technology providers all happily steeping together in a free market broth. So maybe we’re a “nexchange” (pronounced nex-CHANGE); literally a network of exchanges. Isn’t that a meta-network? I like this term, nexchange, not only because it describes us in a single word but also because it is highly likely that our model will be replicated by other companies when the ad network and exchange space reaches equilibrium and has nowhere else to evolve. That day certainly has not yet arrived, as prophesied by Spanfeller in recent comments, especially with the recent explosion of publisher and vertical ad networks like quadrantOne, Healthline, and WPP. The supply of networks and exchanges will grow until they satisfy the existing demand and although they have created a sea of inventory and unprecedented reach, the demand does not seem to be satisfied yet. Advertising has always had an insatiable appetite for an audience and online display advertising, especially with its great ROI and measurable performance in an uncertain bearish economy, shows no signs of slowing. Maybe it is trite to coin a cute little phrase like nexchange for what we are doing but you watch, you will see more and more media companies taking this next logical step (if they can). More and more organizations will start cooking with the fresh ingredients of inventory across multiple networks and seasoning it with their own performance enhancing flavors. A dash of behavioral here, a sprinkling of contextual there, a smidgen of optimization, two cups of targeting, and a stick of demographic—and presto, a nexchange is born! Just remember who invented the succulent confection before you when it comes time to write the media plan or issue the RFP. When you need reach, an engaged audience, and a clean well-lit relevant ad space, at least you’ll know where to find the master chef in this Hell’s Kitchen. Dinner’s served!

Forbes.com President and CEO Jim Spanfeller recently delivered a preemptive eulogy for ad networks at Needham & Company’s Third Annual Internet and Digital Media Conference. In doing so he has stoked the already searing flames ignited by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Media President Wenda Harris Millard and her infamous “pork bellies” quote that algorithm-driven ad networks are devaluing premium brand advertising. Forget the dripping irony that Forbes themselves have recently announced an ad network of their own, albeit a “slightly different” model, when you peel back the spinning layers of this onion the death certificate seems to be lacking any sort of authoritative signature. Everyone seems happy to relegate remnant inventory to the networks and exchanges, as though it were the red-headed stepchild of the display advertising world, but their panties sure get in a wad quickly when it comes to premium advertising going through the same algorithm-driven systems. You need look no further than Forbes own healthy revenue growth, even in a recession economy, to see that the current trends are working and improving on both remnant and premium inventory for the publisher and for the advertiser. Spanfeller prophesied that the ascendancy of online ad networks is probably at its peak as advertisers and publishers struggle to monetize the growing supply of inventory created by social media exploding online. He better be ready to embrace Google’s new Friend Connect social widget! He bravely predicted that the role of ad networks and ad exchanges will diminish over time as publishers take back more control over how their own media is monetized. Yes publisher want and need editorial control but the data seems to indicate that publishers gravitate to what maximizes yield and not what maximizes control. The question is really whether or not algorithm-driven media buying will have a negative long term impact on media buying. I have to give props to Tameka Kee over at MediaPost and my colleague Paul Levine, Vice President of Marketing over at AdBrite, who countered recently with a great deal of pertinent data which seems to prove the doom sayers are missing the mark with their dark prophesies. The roots of this debate spring from the early wild-wild-west days of the ad networks. Back in the early formative years of the ad network’s puberty it was almost an “anything for revenue” attitude and the trust got broken. Just look at how Spanfeller describes how the Forbes ad network is different from us unwashed masses. He depicts his solution as a “clean, well lit place” for monetizing the rapidly expanding long tail. How is that different from the new breed of algorithm-driven ad marketplaces out there? Take a look at the Certified Ad Space within the Rubicon Project. With the stellar reputation of the Rubicon folks, their approach seems like a cleaner and even better lit ad space. Or take a look at how LucidMedia provides brand safety through the most rigorous contextual scrubbing solution on the market creating a guaranteed Ad Safe Environment for premium brand advertisers. And yes, they all are in part algorithm-driven solutions. But these are good for the premium brand advertisers (and good for the publishers) and are not devaluing the brands they serve. Actually the opposite seems to be happening as these brand safe zones buoy up premium CPM rates wherever they occur. What the Spanfellers and Millards of the world are really saying is not that this is bad for the premium brands; they are actually signaling that the new breed of competition is an unwanted threat to their profit margins. The amount of angst created by the wonderful new breed of algorithm-driven advertising spaces on ad networks and exchanges like AdBrite, PubMatic, Rubicon and LucidMedia is a very clear indication of how positive these solutions are for brands going online. If they were truly bad then the Spanfellers and Millards would not care and subsequently draw this kind of attention to them because it would not be threatening their margins. I say that while the ad networks and exchanges must evolve to survive and continue flourishing—Levine’s comment about reach versus engagement for example—they are working just fine and are here to stay for the foreseeable future.