Reprinted from iMedia Connection

Overview:

DSPs are really just networks in disguise, they will make networks obsolete, and are a fad with no real staying power.  All false.  In just a few short months, the term demand-side platform (DSP) has become ubiquitous in the online advertising industry. It has become synonymous with all things real-time bid, exchange-sourced, display advertising — in many cases replacing the mainstay term “network” as the model of choice for advertisers. All kinds of media brokers are now scrambling to offer a DSP solution, relegating words like “network” and “optimizer” to the dustbin of display terminology. But as more platforms wade into the opportunity waters, it seems like an equal amount of fog is being injected into industry discussions. So I thought it would be an opportune time to lift some of that fog and expose several of the bigger DSP myths being perpetuated today.

Myth 1: DSPs are really just networks in disguise

False. There are some real differences between DSPs and networks, but recent trends have blurred those lines and given birth to this popular myth. At a fundamental level, traditional networks rely on a large stable of direct publisher relationships to deliver premium placements, easy reach, and ample scale, while owning the media risk and performance responsibilities. Many of these traditional networks live on today amid the DSP wave, successfully delivering campaigns along the way. But networks have begun to rely on exchanges as easy aggregation points for quick scale, and that is what started the move to DSPs. Then when the networks began to layer on automated optimization and advertiser-facing controls alongside their exchange-sourced media — either managed or self-service — they started to look like a lot like DSPs. This is how the whole DSP phenomenon began to accelerate. As networks began to rely heavily on exchange-sourced media while automating the trafficking process and exposing levers and knobs to the advertiser, some essentially became demand-side platforms. With the scale of the real-time bid exchanges and external facing controls, yesterday’s traditional ad network becomes today’s “hot” DSP. But there aren’t going to be as many DSPs as ad networks — read on for why.

Myth 2: DSPs will make networks obsolete

False. It will remain so until all available inventory is transacted on the exchanges. That said, DSPs are creating a “sofa bed” problem (neither a sofa, nor a bed) in the network business. At one end are networks — and publishers in some cases — delivering high-value inventory perhaps with custom or innovative creative. At the other end is the pure performance network that shoulders the media risk and runs cost-per-action performance campaigns. In this scenario, the exchanges are a fabulous source of cheap inventory for the performance networks. In the middle of this are the networks with a rapidly eroding publisher base. It is these networks that are in the greatest danger of obsolescence.

Myth 3: Using a DSP means you get brand-safe campaigns

False. It seems like brand safety is being treated like transparency in our industry. Everyone offers it in one form or another, but like transparency, brand safety means different things to different organizations. Just like transparency, everyone defines brand safety differently. There is one thing that separates effective brand safety from all the other forms of impression analysis and delivery verification out there today: preemptive filtering. Is your flavor of brand safety truly preemptive? Or is the “brand safety” you are getting really just post-impression analysis? Is it reactive?

Automatic brand safety is another of the industry myths perpetuated by networks rushing a DSP to market. Real brand safety, meaning a demonstrably safe environment for a brand advertiser to promote its message online, comes from truly preemptive brand safe filtering. But in practice, pre-impression analysis for relevance and safety is difficult to do. Evaluating a billion impressions a day for applicability takes a robust platform and intelligent integration with all of the real-time sources – and this requires investment in technology and people to do it right. But preemptive filtering pays huge dividends in efficiency and thus returns. With truly preemptive brand safety, you only buy what is safe and there is no waste. No wasted targeting, optimization, time, or ad-spend.

Myth 4: There are dozens of DSPs today, and there will soon be hundreds more

False. There is no shortage of organizations claiming to be a DSP. But you can count on one hand the number of solution providers able to deliver a truly successful DSP campaign (perhaps even minus a couple of fingers). In the heyday of networks, there were reportedly more than 300 ad networks out there, but few had a significant amount of their own proprietary technology. It is the large, technology-rich networks that have successfully transitioned to become real DSPs. The rest are scrambling to rely on relationships for their technology, as they had little or no technology of their own to expose when the DSP tsunami hit our industry’s shores. Because of the technology required, there will be far fewer successful DSPs than there were ad networks. Dozens? Maybe somewhere down the line. Hundreds? No way.

Myth 5: DSPs are a fad and will not have real staying power

False. Far from a fad, the DSP trend is about control, efficiency, and profitability. Advertisers never wanted to outsource all of their control; they did it for the quick scale and reach that networks provided. Now that the exchanges have matured and have exposed real-time bid APIs, control can move back to the advertisers, while retaining all of the scale and reach that networks can offer. Once we go down this road, there will be no turning back. The DSP trend is causing a fundamental change in the nature of how display media is used.

With any significant new trend, there is bound to be some confusion. Hopefully this clears the air around some of the more prevalent myths in our industry. There are sure to be more myths and many different viewpoints, but this is a start. What is certain is that the trend toward the self-service DSP model is going to have some staying power. It has already made an irrevocable impact on how display media is brokered and continues to drive upheaval. It was way back in 475 BC that the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “The only constant in life is change,” and those words are just as true today. The display advertising industry has gone through constant change since Hotwired ran the first banner ad in 1993, and the nimble organizations will be the ones that continue to flourish.

Nearly every online marketer is concerned with transparency and brand safety.  These seem to be the biggest roadblocks to brands embracing display.  A quick search on AdExchanger reveals a dozen articles on both subjects in the last few months.  We’ve all talked about it yet there still seems to be more misconceptions than fact surrounding what is possible when it comes to real brand safety.

In April of 2010 Winterberry Group LLC reported that “transparency and brand safety have conspired to inhibit billions in potential online display ad spending.”  Brand safety continues to undermine a broad investment in display advertising by brand advertisers despite the obvious efficiencies being delivered by today’s ad networks.  This is because truly preemptive brand safety is difficult so most have settled for simple post impression verification and are therefore not getting a truly brand safe environment for their message.  But the DSP trend changes all that.

With the advent of contextual display advertising, a host of new advertising opportunities opened up for marketers across every industry.  Whether contextualization is done at the site level (i.e. ESPN.com is about sports) or at the page level (i.e. automotive content on CNN.com), the ability to target ads around content—in addition to demographic and behavioral profiles—is pretty powerful stuff.  But with these big opportunities comes an equal amount of risk.  Imagine an automotive ad next to a news story about a horrific car crash or an ad for a vacation package next to tsunami news coverage of the same destination.  We see it in contextual search as well as display.  It’s enough to make any brand marketer anxious about any sort of online advertising.

The good news is that advances in targeting technologies and demand-side platforms (DSP) with real-time bidding (RTB) are creating truly brand safe environments for brand advertiser.  But like transparency, everyone defines brand safety differently.  There is one feature that separates effective brand safety from all the other forms of impression analysis and delivery verification out there today.  It‘s preemptive brand safety.  Is your trusted flavor of brand safety truly preemptive?  Or is the brand safety you rely on from your DSP really just post impression analysis disguised as safe filtering?  This is another great myth in our industry often perpetuated on purpose only because preemptive is difficult to pull off.

Real brand safety, meaning a demonstrably safe environment for brand advertisers to promote their message online, comes from sanitizing the ad space before the ad is served.  Of course pre-impression analysis for relevance, performance and safety is very difficult to do so it’s the least prevalent form out there.  Evaluating billions of impressions a day for relevance takes a robust platform and deep integration with all of the real-time bid aggregation points.  But it pays huge dividends in both safety and efficiency by guaranteeing quality impressions and eliminating the need for pass-backs.  With truly preemptive brand safety you only buy what is safe with no waste in the equation.

But when pages are not categorized for meaning in advance, ads get served next to inappropriate content and the advertiser simply gets a report indicating that it has happened again.  That isn’t preemptive brand safety, that’s reactive reporting.  It’s the equivalent of closing the gate after the cows get out (and wander down the middle of the highway disrupting traffic and endangering your brand investment).

Everyone knew it would take third-party providers to deliver real brand safety.  Back in March, Jonathan Margulies at Winterberry Group acknowledged as much right here on AdExchanger.  It isn’t in the publisher’s best interest to exclude their own content from advertising—for a publisher the more bidders the better.  The interest in such technology falls on the demand side but most advertisers lack the engineering infrastructure to build such a solution.  In the display advertising landscape, providing preemptive brand safety is the responsibility of the demand-side platforms.  Various platforms provide this ability in varying degrees – from zero to truly preemptive.  Ask the question.  Make sure you are getting the truly preemptive kind that boosts efficiency and return on spend.

Reprinted from AdExchnager.com Data-Driven Thinking column, a media community blog containing fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media. Follow LucidMedia on Twitter @lucidmediaVIP and follow AdExchanger.com @adexchanger.com.

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.

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 preemptive 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 14,000 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.

I am happy to announce that this week we will officially become LucidMedia. We are changing our name from Entrieva to LucidMedia to mark our revolutionary new approach to contextual advertising. If you take a look around our new website you will find a lot more than just a new look too. Don’t worry, we are the same great people with all the same great technology and the strong focus on customer satisfaction as before, we’re just taking ClickSense in some exciting new directions.

What you will see on our new site is that our new ad network uses the deep categorization of ClickSense to deliver more than 14,000 micro-segments for content targeting far deeper than anything available before. This new level of insight is delivered through our detailed Proof Report which is, for the first time in history, putting complete transparency and accountability under the advertiser’s control. With ClickSense cataloging every impression we can show advertisers exactly where every ad dollar is being spent. This is the kind of complete transparency that makes real brand safety and quality control possible.

Because of all this we decided to become LucidMedia, the small media company with a big answer to the challenge of lifting display ad revenues. If you look around our new website you will still see our famous 31 industry channels and deep micro-segmentation, but you will also see us talking about our new contextual ad network with transparency and brand safety at its core. So let me be the first to welcome you to the LucidMedia Network!

Sincerely,
Ajay Sravanapudi
Founder, President & CEO
LucidMedia Networks, Inc.

Google recently announced a new service that Web publishers can use to manage their online ad sales and serve up ads to consumers. This news is extra interesting now that Google has DoubleClick/DART legally in their stable. I am waiting to see how much transparency they will be turning over to the advertisers and how much overlapping functionality they will have with their other technology acquisitions. I bet they parade this out with much fanfare as a beginner solution with plenty of easy links to upgrade and the upgrade solution is DART. It really comes down to how “advertiser-centric” you can be when you are talking about ad serving. What this industry doesn’t need is just another ad network. What this industry does need is to lose the opacity that has plagued it since the earliest days. Advertisers need brand safety today and brand safety depends on transparency. You can only rest assured that your brand is being represented properly in the Wild-Wild-West that is online advertising when you know where every single impression is going. Not to mention detailed categorization. If anyone can provide the industry with useful contextualization it’s Google but I doubt they will. I want to see some proof reports showing how well they target and every impression URL from this new offering before I make the call whether or not this is a good thing for our industry.