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.

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.

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.

Dave Morgan, TACODA’s founder and Executive Vice President of Global Advertising Strategy for AOL, just hit the nail on the head with his blog commentary on the stigma surrounding ad networks. He points out that the ad network brought a pork bellies commodity attitude to online advertising in the lean, post-bubble days when any revenue was good revenue. He goes on to point out that this is changing and bravely outlines a few solid reasons why. What drove this home for me was his conclusion that networks are going to have to continue to deliver solid value, with high-quality ads and rates, to begin to offer something that publishers will never be able to deliver on their own because of their focus on the content. He highlights the need for networks to deliver effectiveness over efficiency. Bravo. This is really the crux of the situation and a very real opportunity for ad networks to step up to the plate. And this is exactly where LucidMedia is strongest, in bringing increased effectiveness—and the proof report down to the impression-level to prove it—instead of just new efficiencies through scale, technology and focus. We saw this void back in 2004 when we launched ClickSense, our robust contextual engine, and have recently applied it to lifting the effectiveness of our customer’s campaigns in the LucidMedia Network. This new effectiveness is inherent in our deep categorization which puts publisher’s content into our 13,000+ industry categories to allow for far more granular targeting than has ever been available in the past. When publishers can sell their inventory with 6 levels of categorization to pinpoint the meaning of their content there is a very real lift in conversions. This assumes all the underpinnings are in place like engaging creatives and streamlined landing pages but when it all comes together there is a tangible return. Hopefully other ad networks will do the same and bring real increases in effectiveness to the table in the future and begin to erase the negative connotations around the ad networks.

Adotas recently posted an interesting, albeit oddly written article on the value of the ad exchange. The real story seems to be the value of the vertical ad networks—with which I cannot agree more—but their analogy between mutual fund managers and ad exchanges is a fascinating one. They equate the ad exchange to a specialized mutual fund manager who can add real value to your portfolio and that is very true for the new breed of ad exchanges out there today. The scenario buy that they walk through truly highlights the value that an ad exchange can bring to a media planner. They point out that when an advertiser wants to maximize ROAS they need their media buyer (their agency folk) to create a balanced “portfolio” mixing direct investment in large targeted sites with the specialized engagement of the vertical ad networks and the broad reach from the many low cost remnant networks. The share of voice and audience is highest on the expensive premium sites, highly relevant on the vertical ad networks (vertical search sites for instance) and yet there is massive reach to be had across the broad remnant networks. It is the mix that is critical to getting the job done. This is how you nail the ROAS for a big branding campaign where audience engagement is a critical factor—and this is just what the exchanges are good at delivering. They have the mix all ready to go, you just need your media planner, your mutual fund manager, to recommend and execute that perfectly balanced portfolio and your investment will pay off. What an exciting time for interactive media!

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.

The LucidMedia Network is an interactive online advertising network based on our patented ClickSense technology for precise impression-level targeting designed from the ground up to boost advertising revenues. The LucidMedia Network uses advanced, custom developed linguistic resources to categorize inventory into 31 industry channels and more than 13,000 micro-segments. This is all based on open APIs for easy integration into any ad management system, network or ad exchange. The LucidMedia Network is the right choice for advertisers and agencies who are looking to boost online revenues and get more out of their ad spend. The LucidMedia Network is also the right choice for OpenAds users, Facebook developers, Right Media Exchange members and bloggers offering everything from brand safe campaigns to contextual feeds including solutions for RSS and email campaigns. When you join the LucidMedia Network you get not only precise, impression-level contextual targeting but also real transparency and real accountability down to the impression-level. Being on the LucidMedia Network means 100% targeted impressions with no waste. It means a new level of quality control and brand safety applied to every one of your campaigns and every single impression. The LucidMedia Network lifts your online revenue across the board and increases your Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) by transforming run-of-site, remnant inventory into premium-like inventory.