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.

We recently announced that we have teamed up with Right Media and Yahoo! to contextualize the world’s largest ad exchange. This was no small achievement and has been in testing for scale, robustness and accuracy since May of 2008. But the effort has been well worth it and industry publications like MediaPost, Adotas and ClickZ are recognizing this as a significant milestone within the interactive advertising industry. Even more general media like CNET News and DMNews decided to cover the story. So how does one set out to improve on the world’s largest advertising exchange? And what does it take to integrate with a live exchange currently juggling 50,000 active traders with over 175,000 live creatives in circulation across 6 billion daily transactions? For us it took almost 10 years of active development, testing and versioning to bring our hosted contextual platform—called ClickSense—to fruition. And that was only after cutting our teeth with the likes of AOL Search through their Web Offers program and in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical organizations, Government agencies, and even other large ad networks. And then there was the accuracy side of the equation that had to be rock solid before it would get the green light. Driving real eCPM lift (and maximum yield) for publishers and at the same time creating significant ROI lift for discerning advertisers means you have to provide real-time, almost instantaneous, categorization that is backed up by tangible proof. This then becomes the data providing mechanism that advertisers need to develop their optimization strategies and publishers need to expose their inventory in the most profitable manner. In the end we got it done and it is working far better than we had ever dreamed it might. So if you are already on the exchange or wondering how this all works, visit our new Right Media section and get started using our contextual targeting today.

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.

It’s hard to believe it has only been three months since we launched our new ad network. What a difference a quarter can make! Today we announced two strategic hires that are central to the execution of our ad network business model. Not only did we announce Paul Rostkowski will be joining as our VP Sales, but also that Abderrezak Kamel would be returning to LucidMedia as our CTO. Together they are a great indication of the remarkable adoption rate of ClickSense as the contextual advertising engine of choice for the display ad industry. We are almost struggling to keep up with the overwhelming demand for our contextualization. Not only are we currently powering AOL’s Web Offers strategy, we are rapidly expanding our work with some of the great brands in the ad exchange community to provide contextual targeting services. This puts us in a unique position to offer our deepest granular targeting capabilities—31 channels and 14,000 micro-segments—directly to advertisers and their agencies. And this is where Paul comes in. His depth of knowledge and breadth of ad agency contacts will help us emerge as the premier ad network; the one with exceptional lift potential, hand-on customer service, and deep technology. To take that powerful technology platform, already a strength of ours, to the next level we jumped on the chance to bring Abderrezak Kamel back to LucidMedia where he will continue his groundbreaking work on our ClickSense® engine. And what a great story that is by itself. We first joined forces with Abderrezak back in 2002 when LucidMedia, then Entrieva, acquired Semio Corporation. As the Chief Architect at Semio, he was the brains behind the brilliantly elegant Semio algorithm (with multiple patents) that won rave reviews at almost every major pharmaceutical company and federal agency. Since then he continued to do cutting edge work at Autonomy until his momentous return “home”. We already know from our customers that we are in a class by ourselves. One of our largest customers picked us from over 17 other competitors because we ranked #1 in technology, customer service, and innovation. With the return of Abderrezak to the fold, expect to see more groundbreaking innovations to get the most from your media dollar. With the addition to Paul to the team, we are now putting the “media” in the LucidMedia name. Now the fun really begins!

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.

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

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

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

(Number of looks at an ad)

(Seconds spent looking at an ad)

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

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 13,000 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.

Turn Networks has been making a lot of noise in the press recently with some additional capital and the launch of their fully automated ad network. I perused their literature and demo and really like some of the ideas they are taking to market. I especially like the fully automated nature of their targeting based on multiple factors including a mix of contextual site analysis and past behavioral. I also have to give them credit for what looks like a good pricing model for everyone. I would be very interested to see some data on how well their targeting works through their automated approach. All too often I see ad networks talk about contextual targeting and providing relevant ads but in the end I usually find out they are using just caveman-like site or network level targeting to get the job done. That means most networks will sell you categories of automotive related content or health related content but the determination of what content is about which subject comes from looking at the publisher’s overall theme. Cars.com is automotive content and Health.com is content about health. That sort of thing. The reality is that much of the content on these sites is not about cars or health. It can be about almost anything especially when it includes socially-driven content from things like forums or community features. The only way to truly target for relevance is to look at each URL and analyze the content you find there and not lump it into a broad, site-level grouping. Only then do you find that your ads really start performing and your KPIs go through the roof. In a recent case study we found that eCPC rates went up 76% over the typical run-of-site campaign when thorough contextual targeting was employed. That’s how you really lift your ROAS.