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.

As soon as Charter Communications voiced concerns about the controversial behavioral targeting issues, two other internet service providers (ISP) immediately distanced themselves from behavioral.  It has become the “hot potato” issue around targeting for internet advertising.  The privacy issues surrounding behavioral targeting are nothing new either and go back as far as 2005 or even earlier.  What I don’t understand is why organizations would even try to tackle this subject when there are great contextual targeting solutions out there that perform as well (or even better) than behavioral when it comes to performance lift for both direct response (DR) and brand advertisers.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-behavioral—far from it—but if the privacy issues rear their ugly head there is definitely a safe harbor from them in contextual.  Marketing Sherpa’s 2008 Online Advertising Handbook surveyed 577 online advertisers from a range of companies and found that 40.5% of the advertisers surveyed felt that contextual targeting yielded a higher ROI while only 36.7% preferred behavioral.  So while I’d prefer the industry found multiple ways to target for efficiency and performance, including unintrusive behavioral methods, which we certainly are doing, there has long been targeting solutions that completely side-step the subject of privacy.  Contextual is sublimely elegant in this aspect as it draws its relevance directly from the impression in real-time (at least our ClickSense approach does) to match the perfect ad to the user based on what they happen to be reading at the time.  This avoids saving any bits from the user’s historical actions yet serves up an even more relevant ad at a time when they are interested in learning more about the subject and they are most receptive to your message.  So if behavioral is got you down why not check out the contextual advertising solutions on the market today.  You won’t be sorry you did.

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.