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.
