U.S. relief organizations are urgently appealing for emergency assistance to aid the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Caribbean nation of Haiti recently. The quake, which registered 7.0 on the Richter scale, triggered a tsunami warning for neighboring countries situated in the Caribbean Sea. The earthquake was centered about 14 miles west of the capital city, Port-au-Prince and the news has been reporting wide spread devastation. Funds are urgently needed to provide safe water, temporary shelter systems, essential medical supplies etc. Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and has a population of 9.6 million inhabitants, of which more than half are under 21 years old. U.S. relief organizations like UNICEF have been working for years in Haiti developing long term solutions to current problems caused by poverty and lack of basic health care, education and sanitation services. The country has been suffering from long-term political strife and a severely depressed economy as well. In recent years the effects of the global food crisis and particularly strong hurricane seasons have left the country dangerously vulnerable and this catastrophe is only serving to exacerbate the already critical situation for the people of Haiti, especially women and children. LucidMedia is actively participating in raising relief funds for this emergency. To donate to the ongoing emergency relief efforts in Haiti and the Caribbean region, please visit www.unicefusa.org/haitiquake or call 1-800-4UNICEF.

The new TNS Media Intelligence Report is out and Adotas has jumped on it with their Display Advertising Shows Signs of Life e-newsletter today. The reports indicates that for the first quarter of 2009, the total measured advertising expenditures they track dropped 14.2% versus a year ago, down to $30.18B. This follows a 9.2 percent decline in Q4 2008 as the advertising recession accelerated in the new year. While that may not seem like good news, consider they indicate that internet display-specific advertising spend is actually up 8.2% over the same time period last year which I believe is better than expected considering all the frozen budgets, wait and see attitudes, and narrowed lines of sight. Although it is lower than the original double-digit growth predicted last year, it is still growth—and very healthy growth at that. Wipe away all the historical (and semi-hysterical) predictions of double digit growth ad infinitum and look at 8.2% growth on its own—among a sea of declining numbers—and you have a very clear sign. So why is display standing out like a shining star pointing the way ahead in our rocky sector of space? A lot of the growth they are reporting is being driven by the new free market exchange models that are moving onto the plateau of productivity and at the same time relegating the old ad network models to the trough of disillusionment. From this emergence, not only is publisher yield inching back upwards, advertisers are finally smelling the real meat of return on their spend. That alone has been happening for almost a year now and is not the whole story behind this successful metric. The promise of data has recently begun to materialize through all kinds of platforms with their new insights and relevant analytics. It is this confluence of forces, the emergence of the exchange model and the promise of data being realized through the platforms that is drawing advertisers to invest in display at a healthy clip. And when the exchange playing field congeals a bit further, and at the same time a few of the platform players begin to dominate inside the agencies, we will see a whole new display advertising sector. Gone will be banners and CPMs and premium and remnant. We will have a truly value priced free market exchange of media in real time that rewards the publisher and empowers the advertiser. We’ll have less layers and less middlemen and less latency. We’ll have more return, more clarity, more accountability, and real transparency. If one thing is certain, it will be nothing like the display business of last year.

The article How About a Little Revolution in Display Advertising by Martin Betoni is a good, hard look at how display dollars break out of the total ad spending in 2008 according to the latest IAB annual report. Of the $187 billion spent on advertising in 2008, $24 billion were online dollars of which only 17%, or roughly $5 billion, went to display ads. In other words just 3% of the total ad spend in 2008 went to display. His point is that the banner has not progressed much and I find it hard to disagree. All the best optimization in the world is still completely reliant on the creative to engage the user. This is why I think technology around the creative, things like our new AdMatch capability which provide a dynamic creative directly from the advertiser’s database of products or services and matches them in real-time to the highest performing content, have the greatest opportunity to increase the display share of ad spend and tip the scales away from search or even draw dollars away from the larger pool of traditional media. A campaign is only as good as it’s creatives and as Martin points out we are still basically working with the same 728 pixel by 90 pixel rectangle from 1994 to get the job done.

We will be covering this year’s ad:tech San Francisco April 21-23 on Twitter. So start following @LucidMediaVIP now for all the inside news from this big industry event.

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 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!

It’s no surprise that the context in which an ad runs has a significant impact on its effectiveness. And that’s especially true for brand advertisers who are going online with their campaigns. I’ve looked at this phenomenon from plenty of different angles around here with posts like Advertisers Say Contextual Offers Best ROI and Contextual Targeting Yields Highest Return for Brand Advertisers. And now to finally put the question to bed, a new study by OTX Research has been written up by Jonathan Lemonnier in AdAge that seems to prove the point conclusively. They found brand recognition could be increased 19% just by running ads in context. By in context, or contextual targeting, they mean running ads on non-endemic content that happens to be relevant to the products or services being advertised. That is not the same as site targeting which is running ads on sites that are inherently relevant due to the overall genre they serve. This is significant to note because it opens doors for advertisers to dramatically increase their reach. No longer must advertisers find vertical endemic sites specific to their industry, they can now reach out to a much larger general audience to find specific content pages talking about related topics and actually drive greater brand recognition. This can even mean dipping back into the remnant pool for high performing inventory if you have the means of categorizing pages to determine true meaning. And that is sort of the rub here; it is not easy to discern meaning from the chaotic web and especially the unmanageable long tail. And when you step outside the well-lit confines of the premium world you immediately face the challenge of brand safety. How do you guarantee your brand will run alongside appropriate content when you are out there in the wild-wild-west of the web’s seedy underside? Real meaning and real brand safety take granularity. I am always surprised when I look at the contextual targeting solutions on the market today and realize how shallowly they categorize. Everyone seems to offer 20 or 30 top level channels and that makes good sense on the surface. That accurately reflects how advertisers generally see the world. But a high level channel only puts you in the ball park and does not significantly drive up targeting-based effectiveness. Knowing that a page is about Automotive is a good start but that will not significantly impact clicks considering this level of broad channel-ization has already become a commodity within our industry. It is when you can discern manufactures of cars from types of minivans that you really begin to be relevant to the end user. And when you can determine a page is not only Automotive in nature, and not only related to subcompacts, but also that it is about Toyotas, Hybrids and Fuel Efficient Alternatives, and Hydrogen technologies, then you have deep targeting that has a significant impact on relevance and performance. But sadly there are very few systems that can go beyond a rudimentary understanding to determining the page was really about hydrogen fuel cells on environmentally friendly vehicles. Without this level of granularity you are stuck running an Automotive ad or if you are lucky maybe a subcompact ad and settling for average click rates. The real performance comes in when you know the true meaning is environmental in nature and you can target eco-friendly ads that will have a significantly higher recall rate. I’ve seen semantic engines with only a few hundred total categories across only two superficial levels into which they must classify all the eligible content from the more than 20 billion web pages out there. To really understand meaning in the sea of available ad space you need a solution that is far more granular. You need at least thousands, if not tens of thousands of categories if you really want to certify that a page is brand safe with the goal of maximizing effectiveness and subsequently increasing ad revenues, ROI and page yield. This is why LucidMedia has more than 13,000 fine-grained subcategories behind our contextual engine. It allows us to determine the true meaning of a page before an ad is served and makes sure the most relevant ad can be shown to the user. In some of our earliest tests this deep categorization yielded a 76% jump in clicks in the average direct response campaign versus the typical run-of-network buy. When you want relevance on the web for advertising you need depth and breadth. Having just breadth only gets you half way there.

Shira Ovide wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal’s On Technology section about self-service display advertising. I agree that the display side of the business needs to get easier for it to move to the next level but there is one thing in this article with which I am struggling. I am having trouble with them equating search-based text ads to display advertising because while self-service may work for direct response advertising (DR), they are forgetting brand advertising in this equation. In branding, display is inherently tied to the creatives and that does not lend itself to a self-service model. I know I disagreed with Spanfeller and Millard in the past, and I still do, but I’ll get to that in a moment. Shira’s analogy is like saying branding on the small screen would grow if it had a self service portal because Google did it with AdWords. That never happened in five decades and trillions of dollars went under that bridge. How could the average advertiser create an engaging 30 second video spot? Not on YouTube. Yes, a guy like Dunn who was mentioned in the article, can use Facebook to upload a photograph of his great pants and take clickers to his e-commerce portal page. He’ll likely hit an acceptable performance-based metric as in their example but the big brand crowd will not have the same luxury. It is different with search and text because search has the key words provided up front for some minimal relevance and almost anyone with a QWERTY keyboard can produce a decent performing monochromatic text ad in 30 minutes. They can even spit out a decent thumbnail image when pressed. But the performance, and subsequent return, of brand advertising hinges on many factors including the engagement of the creative and, when there is a call to action, the quality of the conversion process (as well as the context in which they are served). The best brands in the world go unnoticed with terrible creatives and the best creatives in the world fail miserably with non-intuitive landing pages. Basically I am saying that engagement and emotion don’t lend themselves to a self-service model like AdWords. And I’m not talking about Punch The Monkey here, I’m talking about creating real brand affinity, brand recall and purchase intent online with display. This gets us back to what Spanfeller and Millard were recently pontificating. While I still disagree with their prophesy that the ad networks are a dying breed and are devaluing the brands they serve, I agree wholeheartedly with them regarding the need for the human creative element in the process. This is why we have the great agencies we do. Maybe if there was a simple and free global library of real-time customizable rich media creatives in all IAB standard ad spot sizes using text-to-speech technology to create automated professional voice-overs then the big brands would dip more than the current toe-in-the-water online but we are a long way from that happening. It never happened with TV and now the big and little screen ads are evolving into even more protected methods like paid placements and integrated endorsements moving further away from a self-service potential. I think self-service is highly applicable to DR but I don’t think it’s the magic elixir that will pull more big brand dollars online. To do that you need context but I’ve already beaten that drum enough for now.