WWDC 2024 was a mixed bag for digital media and advertising, delivering promising advancements and unexpected omissions. Apple introduced “Apple Intelligence,” a suite of AI-powered features designed to enhance user experience by leveraging personal context. Highlights included a more intuitive Siri, text-to-emoji generation, and a collaboration with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into Apple devices. These updates promise to transform app interfaces and streamline interactions, offering brands new ways to engage with users.

However, the absence of the rumored Web Eraser feature — an AI-driven tool, leveraging Apple’s language model Ajax, would allow users to erase unwanted web content, from ads and text sections — left many in the industry with bated breath. This feature, expected to debut with iOS 18 for Safari, could significantly impact digital advertising, raising concerns among publishers and advertisers about revenue and content accessibility. Despite its omission, the ad tech world is buzzing with questions and predictions.

Experts like Vegard Johnsen Chief Product Officer at eyeo suggest that similar ad blocking solutions are on the horizon. As Apple continues to prioritize user control and privacy, the industry must prepare for the potential impacts on their digital strategies. In this exclusive Q&A, Johnsen shares his insights on why he believes Apple’s Web Eraser is still on the horizon and what it means for the future of web browsing and digital advertising.

Lynne d Johnson: So, Apple didn’t end up announcing Web Eraser at WWDC and it doesn’t appear to be releasing in iOS18. Can you explain why the industry was so concerned about Web Eraser and what a service like this could mean for publishers?

VJ: Clearly, total ad blocking has been and continues to be a problem for the industry. Most publishers, in particular, small and medium-sized ones, are not in a position to demand a subscription, so total ad blocking leaves them without any good options for revenue.

There are also negative consequences for consumers, since it forces publishers into an adversarial position, putting up barriers (required registrations, etc.) to pay for operations, as well as the content creation that sits at the heart of their businesses. If Web Eraser were to remove those as well (presumably something it might be capable of) then even the conversation about the value exchange is shut down, and we’d be at an impasse.

LdJ: How much do you think the pushback from French publishers and advertisers, as well as UK news outlets, had to do with Apple’s decision to delay this feature?

VJ: It’s common for Apple to have features in beta that they don’t announce for a variety of reasons. Maybe they needed more time in the presentation for other things like Apple Intelligence or the feature just wasn’t quite ready.

Historically Apple tends to stake out a path and stick to it fairly consistently, despite industry concern. We saw this with ITP – they definitely took on feedback and made improvements, but they remained committed to its launch.

LdJ: Given Apple’s Privacy Push in recent years with products like ATT and Hide My Email, amongst other privacy-first features, do you think we can still expect to see a similar service in the near future?

VJ: While Web Eraser isn’t technically a privacy feature, we increasingly see users turning to ad blocking as a key way to help control their privacy online. In general, though, the trend is very much in the direction of features that give users more control over both their privacy and online experience. I would expect to see more of this, not just from Apple, but others as well, like Google, lest it be seen as too far behind (e.g. ITP vs Sandbox).

LdJ: What other ad blocking issues do you think publishers should be concerned about in 2024 and what strategies should they be implementing to mitigate these issues?

VJ: If the user experience continues to deteriorate, ad blocking usage will continue to grow. (Ad blocking has seen an average YoY growth of 30% worldwide since 2011 and there are already almost a billion ad blocking users today.) A significant portion of this usage is actually ad filtering rather than total ad blocking, but it could be seen as indicative of the potential for complete ad blocking to take further hold.

If publishers want to mitigate total ad blocking, they should be looking into user-centric solutions, ones that respect the user experience but can still be monetized. Research has shown that users don’t outright hate ads. They just don’t want to be bombarded with them. In fact, a recent IAB study showed that the overwhelming majority of consumers would react negatively, including being frustrated, disappointed, angry, confused, or sad if they had to start paying for the websites/apps they currently use for free. There is a middle ground for an ad-supported internet, as long as we put the user first.

The post Expert Predicts Apple’s Web Eraser Ad Blocking Tool Is Imminent appeared first on AdMonsters.

Brian Murphy has been in the digital ad-tech industry since the 1990s, working at various companies, including DoubleClick, Yahoo! and Google. In 2020 he joined OpenX as Senior Vice President, Buyer Development, getting involved in the ad tech company’s path to net zero. 

To say the experience changed his life is an understatement. Opting to focus on lowering the carbon footprint of the digital advertising industry, Brian left OpenX to launch the Alpine Project, a consultancy that helps advertising agencies, ad tech platforms and publishers create and implement environmental sustainability strategies. 

The goal is to help everyone in the industry future-proof their businesses, unlock new revenue opportunities, and leave the planet in a better state. 

AdMonsters spoke with Murphy about Alpine Project’s progress, how brands and agencies can measure the environmental impact of their ad spend, why ad tech companies should start operating on cloud-based platforms, greenwashing and so much more.

AdMonsters: The internet, including digital advertising, accounts for approximately 3.7% of carbon emissions. You launched Alpine Project to help advertising and technology companies measure, reduce and remove carbon from their operations. How are we doing?

Brian Murphy: We’re making progress but there is more work to be done. A good indicator of how any industry is doing is the number of companies that have publicly reported their verified emissions data and validated their science-based emissions reduction targets. Those are the first two important steps to any corporate climate action plan. If we look at the biggest ad-spending brands, many of them have taken these steps. And the six largest ad agency holding companies have done so as well. 

But if you look at ad tech, it’s a much different story. There are only a handful of pure-play ad tech companies listed in the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) database as having set an emissions reduction target and even fewer with publicly reported verified emissions data. So ad tech has some catching up to do. 

Another good indicator for the ad sector is the support of Ad Net Zero, the non-profit organization that started out of the UK’s Ad Association three years ago and launched a US chapter in early 2024. There are now over 100 Ad-Net-Zero-supporting companies in the US, including many major brands, agencies, and ad tech platforms. There are five Ad Net Zero working groups, and this is where real education and action is taking place. It has been really encouraging to see so many companies join this important organization and get involved in these working groups. 

AdMonsters: Don’t you co-chair one of the Ad Net Zero working groups?

BM: Yes, I co-chair Working Group 1, which focuses on measuring and reducing emissions from the business operations of advertising companies. This working group tackles the fundamentals of any corporate climate action strategy. We bring in guest speakers and address questions such as: how does an advertising agency or media company conduct a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory? Why is third-party verification important? What is the best way to report emissions data? And what are the steps required to set and validate a science-based target? And of course, how can companies in the ad sector make real progress against reduction targets and become more environmentally sustainable businesses?

AdMonsters: Is setting a target to reduce carbon emissions a requirement for Ad Net Zero?

BM: The leadership at Ad Net Zero has asked that all supporting companies set a science-based emissions reduction target and validate it with a third party such as the Science Based Targets initiative, and provide regular updates on progress against these objectives. 

Setting a science-based target takes work. It requires at least one year’s worth of GHG emissions data, so the company has a baseline year from which to reduce its annual Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions across its business operations and value chain. One of the topics we cover in Working Group 1, is how to begin that process and what standards to follow so it’s being done the right way.  

AdMonsters: According to the ANA, carbon-heavy sites like MFAs are on the rise. We also know that generative AI is pretty carbon-intensive. What do these trends do to the greenhouse gas inventories these companies have reported?

BM: It’s an interesting question of where those things will show up in a company’s GHG inventory reports. The good news is that the ad industry doesn’t need to start from scratch. The GHG Protocol provides a reporting template for any company to disclose its scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions data. But, the reporting template was designed for companies from “heavy” industries that might have factories, warehouses and delivery vehicles. Ad tech companies typically don’t have these types of assets. But we do have office buildings, data centers, business travel and commuting, etc., all of which will appear on a GHG inventory. 

If an ad tech company is using AI, the energy to power will have significant emissions associated with it.

If an ad tech company is using AI, the energy to power will have significant emissions associated with it. But how it gets reported can be tricky based on whether the tech runs on data centers (typically scope 2)  or with a cloud provider like Google Cloud Platform (GCP) or  Amazon Web Services (AWS) which would usually be reported under the scope 3 subcategory 1: Purchased Goods & Services. 

Ad tech companies that move their tech infrastructure from physical data centers to the cloud are seeing a massive reduction in their emissions numbers. In addition to just being more efficient, GCP and AWS in particular,  are doing a lot of work to power their platforms with renewable energy. Both also provide dashboards to let their clients measure the emissions that come from their usage of these platforms. In addition to helping with reduction strategies, this also makes the GHG reporting process a lot easier. 

Without a doubt, AI is a major contributor to the overall electricity use of the broader digital economy. At the same time, AI is really good at solving problems. I believe that AI will play an important role in helping to solve the climate problem in ways we haven’t even thought of yet. But it’s too early to tell if the carbon reduction solutions we see from AI will outweigh its broader carbon impact.

AdMonsters: Last year Google and Boston Consulting Group released a report saying that AI has the potential to mitigate 5-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

BM: That’s right. We can’t assume that these new technologies will be all bad for the environment. It’s important to go to the source and ask the right questions, which brings me back to ad tech. We hear so much talk about how the industry needs to cut out MFA, and unnecessary ad-tech integrations, and that’s true. But at the same time, there are more and more platforms that have moved their infrastructure to the cloud, and then within that, optimized towards data centers that are powered by wind and solar. If more companies did that, we wouldn’t be talking as much about the carbon footprint of MFA sites.

I’m not saying that the industry should ignore things like data waste, advertising waste and non- viewable ads. These things absolutely need to be addressed. But if more DSPs, SSPs and other ad tech platforms start operating on cloud-based platforms that are powered by renewable energy, data waste becomes less of an emissions problem.  

But if more DSPs, SSPs and other ad tech platforms start operating on cloud-based platforms that are powered by renewable energy, data waste becomes less of an emissions problem.  

AdMonsters: That’s totally fair. An analogy I’ve read is that if you’re heating your house with a heat pump that’s powered by solar panels, upgrading your insulation isn’t really a carbon imperative.  What would you like to see happen in 2024 within the ad tech sector?

BM: Really, I’d like to see more companies do what Duration Media is doing, which is reducing inefficiencies in programmatic advertising to create “greener” media solutions. Full disclosure, I’m working with Duration Media on these projects.

Duration Media focuses on understanding and reducing data waste in digital advertising and there are three key sources of this. The first is bid requests. According to Jounce Media, a single digital display ad impression requires upwards of 135 bid requests. That’s a lot of data transfer just for one impression! On top of that, we have cookie syncs (for now) and up to 30% of ads that are never even viewed by an end user. 

Duration Media has done what I hope others will do, which is build green media solutions that help publishers reduce data waste in a way that helps them generate more revenue and helps advertisers buy more viewable, effective, and efficient advertising. Reducing data waste can actually make advertising more effective, helping both the demand and supply sides of the industry – all while reducing emissions from the media supply chain.  

AdMonsters: How can brands and agencies measure the environmental impact of their media spend? 

BM: That’s a very important and timely question. Right now, as an industry, we’re in what’s commonly referred to as the “pre-competitive collaboration” phase. This is where people from various companies within a specific industry collaborate on finding a common framework for emissions measurement, so we’re not all doing it our own way and creating confusion for our economic buyers.  

There is great work being done through a collaboration between Ad Net Zero and The Global Alliance for Responsible Media to create a framework by which we can all quantify the environmental impact of all forms of advertising, from TV to print, and of course, digital. We are expecting a series of announcements on that later this year. Once we’re all following the same framework, advertisers will have a much clearer understanding of the emissions that come from their various media investments. And some brands and agencies have said publicly that the carbon footprint of various media options will influence how they make investment decisions. 

AdMonsters: We hear a lot about greenwashing in advertising when brands make false or exaggerated claims about how environmentally sustainable their companies or products are. Is greenwashing a problem in ad tech? 

BM: Greenwashing is a real problem in ad tech. We’re obviously not marketing our products and services to consumers but we still need to deliberate in how we make public assertions about our sustainability initiatives. And there are plenty of ad tech companies making clams that are textbook greenwashing. 

A good rule of thumb to follow: make sure every claim is verified, validated, or certified by a well-known and trusted 3rd party. If you report your GHG emissions data, make sure it’s verified by an emissions verifier, accredited under the ISO 14065 standard. If you set an emissions reduction target, get it validated by an organization such as the Science Based Targets initiative. And if you make a claim like “Our company has reached Carbon Neutral status”, certify that by following something like the CarbonNeutral Protocol. If you’re doing business with a company making claims about their sustainability achievements, follow the old mantra: “trust but verify”.

In Ad Net Zero’s Working Group 1, we provide supporting companies with a Communications Guideline to ensure we’re all using the right terminology and backing up with the proper verification, validation, or certification. 

AdMonsters: Is there a message you’d like to send to the entire industry?

BM: I’d like to see our industry solve the carbon challenge both for the campaign and the company. What I mean by that is that we can’t just talk about making advertising production or media buying more sustainable. We need to be running more sustainable companies. 

Right now there is a lot of talk and focus on the campaign. There’s the IAB Tech Lab Sustainability working group as well as Ad Net Zero’s Working Group 3 which focuses on media buying and planning. There are a lot of conversations happening in these groups, on stages, on podcasts and in articles around how we can make media, and digital media in particular, more environmentally sustainable. That’s great. These conversations need to happen.

What we’re not talking about enough is how to make advertising companies — agencies, ad tech platforms and media companies — more environmentally sustainable businesses. The Chief Sustainability Officers at many of the world’s biggest brands require their supply chain partners to disclose their emissions data and reduction targets. When those brands start to ask their ad tech and media partners for the same level of transparency— which they will — we need to be ready. And with new rule changes from the State of California, the SEC and the European Union, some ad tech companies will need to disclose emissions data as a regulatory requirement.

So it’s time for all companies in our industry, big and small, public and private, to take the first step and measure, verify, and report their emissions data so the real progress towards reduction can begin.

__

Brian Murphy is the founder of Alpine Project, a climate consultancy that helps advertising and technology companies create and implement their sustainability strategies so they can future-proof their businesses and create new revenue opportunities. He is also a working group co-chair of Ad Net Zero. Brian is a 25 year veteran of the ad tech industry. He launched the international sales operation at DoubleClick and went on to various leadership roles at Yahoo!, AdMob and Google. He also led Buyer Development at OpenX, the first company in the advertising, technology and media industries to achieve the SBTi Net Zero standard. Brian’s work on this important initiative inspired him to launch Alpine Project as a way to help other companies in the ad sector launch their climate action plans. He is a graduate of St. Lawrence University and The Yale School of Management’s Corporate Sustainability Management Program.

The post Greener Companies, Greener Campaigns: A Dirty Industry’s Quest to Change appeared first on AdMonsters.

A seismic shift, prompted by the pandemic and solidified by the growing trend of co-viewing, has dramatically reshaped how content is consumed and monetized. And it doesn’t look like this transformation is letting up anytime soon.

Gone are the days of isolated viewing on tiny screens. Consumers are returning to their living rooms and indulging in the big-screen experience as a full-blown family affair. Plus, thanks to the writer’s strike ending, we’re now swimming in a sea of great new content.

At IAB ALM, playwright, screenwriter, and film director, Aaron Sorkin highlighted the fluidity that streaming services bring to the ecosystem. We’re no longer stuck in a 22-week schedule, which provides writers with more freedom and binge-watchers with more options.

The industry is experiencing a transition towards a more sophisticated, standardized method of content delivery. The chaotic, unregulated early days of streaming (aka the Wild, Wild West) are making way for a more structured, viewer-focused approach. This maturation, though challenging, has resulted in an industry actively working towards addressing issues and enhancing the overall viewer experience.

Vikrant Mathur, co-founder of Future Today, said it perfectly: “As the industry matures, we anticipate a rise in standards, frameworks, tools, and technology evolving to improve user experience, combining digital’s promise with the luxury of premium, lean-back viewing.” 

Exploring Future Today’s Influence: Shaping Streaming’s Future

Since its inception in 2006, Future Today carved out a unique niche in shaping the streaming world. They’ve been all about optimizing user experience, from creating slick, user-friendly app interfaces to establishing best practices and setting industry standards for launching apps successfully across platforms.

“One segment of our business focuses on our owned and operated media brands, and the other is a B2B technology platform where we help third parties, media companies, and content owners launch apps and channels,” revealed Mathur. 

Future Today even collaborated with Roku and other OEMs in joint pitches to bridge the technological gaps faced by content owners. Their unique business model, though often imitated, has remained unduplicated and unparalleled in efficacy.

Future Today’s Co-Viewing Vision

Future Today excels in recognizing and leveraging the value of its audience, serving as a model for how brands should innovate in targeting kids, families, and co-viewing. Beyond conventional platforms like Hulu, HBO Max, or Disney Plus, Future Today advocates for a broader perspective in targeting these audiences. 

It’s a myth that family programming only reaches kids. The entire family is a part of the co-viewing experience. Co-viewing is about the whole household, not just the kids. Streaming buyers should consider the family as a holistic unit, shaping parental perceptions through co-viewed content rather than narrowly targeting adults through conventional segments. Think about how you can sway parents’ opinions in this co-viewed setting.

Parents watching streaming content with their kids are more engaged because their children often have questions about the products or services they see during an ad break. Jennifer D’Alessandro, Head of Ad Sales and Marketing at Future Today, shares a unique perspective: children are essentially “CEOs of the household.” Their opinions heavily influence family decisions, from dinner choices to car purchases. 

“Anything that a family decides together is fair game. Brands need to move beyond the notion of ‘I don’t buy kids’ and embrace the powerful influence of this audience segment,” she explained. 

Family programming is an untapped audience, rich with opportunities for marketers, and Future Today is leading the charge in harnessing this potential. By understanding the dynamics of family viewing habits and leveraging these insights, the industry can unlock new avenues for engaging content and effective marketing.

The post Family Matters: Unlocking the Co-Viewing Goldmine appeared first on AdMonsters.

There’s nothing quite like a $5 billion settlement to make you update your privacy and tracking warning — a unique experience that Google is dealing with while trying to settle a class action lawsuit. 

The Big G is updating the warning on Chrome’s Incognito Mode to inform consumers that they and other websites can still track digital users even in private mode. That’s an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. 

They added the warning on Chrome Canary, a nightly build for developers. It directly addresses one of the major complaints in the class action lawsuit, which accused Google of not making it explicitly clear that Google collects data from users in private mode. 

There is plenty of scrutiny around Big Tech’s privacy tactics, especially Google, which seems to draw lawsuits often. But they are also a champion of privacy ethics, especially with the release of its Tracking Protection feature. Is there a bit of cognitive dissonance at play? Can we trust a company to lead the charge on privacy while having their compliance skeletons in the closet? 

The History of Google’s Incognito Mode Class Action

The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Google in 2020. The complaint claimed that “millions” of users who had browsed the Internet in Incognito Mode since June 1, 2016, may have been affected. They allegedly used tools such as Google Analytics, Google Ad Manager, website plug-ins, and smartphone apps to gather data, regardless of whether users click on Google-supported ads. At the time, Google tried to throw out the case, stating that they informed users of their tracking practices. Four years later, they’re singing a different tune. 

The plaintiffs claimed that Google violated federal wiretapping laws with this discrepancy and sought a minimum of $5 billion in compensation. The facts are that all modern browsers include a private mode. Google has always clarified that websites, school or business administrators, and ISPs can still see your browsing activity in incognito mode. They explicitly said that Chrome does not save this data. 

Although, as Brady Snyder of Android Central put it, “the fact that Chrome does not track you while in incognito mode is a master-level technicality.” Chrome, the browser, does not track users while in incognito mode. On the other hand, Google — the tech and advertising giant — will still track your browsing history, even in incognito mode.

A Masterful Technicality 

The stable version of Chrome’s Incognito mode states, “You’ve gone Incognito. Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity.” In the Canary version, the warning changes to “browse more privately.” 

Both warnings in Stable and Canary mention that browsing activity may still be visible to “websites you visit,” “your employer or school,” or “your Internet service provider.” However, only the Canary warning specifies that Incognito mode “won’t change how websites collect data you visit and the services they use, including Google.”

Wired asked Google when they planned on adding the warning to Chrome’s stable channel and whether the update was related to the class action lawsuit, and this is what they had to say: 

“We’re pleased to resolve this case, which we’ve long disputed, and provide even more information to users about Incognito mode. Incognito mode in Chrome will continue to allow people to browse the Internet without their activity being saved to their browser or device.”

Ad Tech’s Privacy Champion? 

While Big G is under significant privacy scrutiny, it also positions itself as a privacy champion. When they announced that they were officially deprecating third-party cookies after years of delay and the launch of the Privacy Sandbox, the ad tech industry’s response was mixed. 

Some applauded Google’s attempt to be more privacy-compliant. Still, others questioned its motives. Even the major DSP, The Trade Desk, called Google’s privacy initiatives “self-serving.”  Can Google be ad tech’s privacy champion with all its data compliance issues? Is it allowed room to grow past its history of mistakes? Cases like this make you second-guess whether to trust its privacy ethics. Are we missing any master-level technicalities in the Privacy Sandbox? Time will tell. 

The post Google Admits That Chrome’s Incognito Mode Doesn’t Truly Camouflage Users Data appeared first on AdMonsters.

Like millions of consumers everywhere during the pandemic, I beefed up my number of streaming subscriptions. Binging on whole seasons of shows became the other national pastime we could indulge in at relatively little cost. But that’s changed, and understandably so. The cost of content has increased, and streaming services need to respond. Consumers don’t fully appreciate that reality.

When Amazon Prime announced at the beginning of the year that its subscribers would need to pay an extra $2.99 to continue an ad-free experience, consumers grumbling about ever-increasing subscription costs began earnestly. 

It’s worth exploring their complaints so everyone with a stake in the CTV industry can address them head-on. In many ways, the situation parallels what digital publishers went through as they lost revenue from print and needed to fund more of their operations with digital revenue. Consumers believe the internet is free and want free or low-cost access to content and apps without ads. That’s not reasonable, of course, and publishers have had to painstakingly explain to readers why ad blockers hurt their ability to create content.

This is why I believe streaming companies have a PR problem and that they need to explain to consumers how advertising helps them overcome challenges and ultimately feed the content-creation process. Let’s look at some of those challenges.

The End of Peak TV

One of the critical challenges is the general attitude that less new and compelling content is available now. I don’t hear this from consumers but from the press itself. I can’t even count the number of times the New York Times has declared that Peak TV is over. Just this past week, John Koblin, who reported on the Emmys, wrote “Congrats, and Goodbye to Peak TV,” noting that studios and streaming giants are cutting back on new scripted TV shows for adults. Since 2019, the number of new scripted TV shows has declined by 40%; in the second half of 2023 alone, new shows fell by 24%.

Then critic Peter Biskind, whose guest essay, “How Hollywood Lost its Nerve,” appeared this week, wrote that today’s streaming companies are chasing the same consumers to build the biggest possible audiences. But large audiences require bland content not to offend anyone, which is the antithesis of what made Peak TV so innovative, with its focus on the antihero. “Today, beleaguered programming executives are hampered by cost-cutting and cowed by market upheavals. Almost no one is looking to be a disrupter anymore,” he said.

The Times isn’t the only publication lamenting the end of Peak TV. Hollywood Reporter, the Wall Street Journal, and many others have also said that the golden age of TV that began with “The Sopranos” and ended with “Succession” is now behind us. 

Many Facets of Consumer Discontent

According to the digital ad-tech industry, consumers are delighted with CTV. A year ago, eMarketer predicted that consumers’ time watching CTV would grow from one hour a day to just over two hours sometime this year. Then, Hollywood writers and actors went on strike, and streaming services began raising their rates. But it’s worth asking: Does that increase in consumption minutes mean that consumers are happy?

We know that consumers are canceling their subscriptions. Streaming companies are working hard to find ways to retain them, including offering low-cost AVOD subscription models and bundles with competitive streaming services. Most articles say consumers cancel services to lower their monthly outlay, but that’s not the whole picture. I say this because I interviewed several consumers nationwide about the number of services they subscribe to and how they feel about their available options.

First and foremost, many of the consumers I interviewed resent paying for multiple services. “I only have one streaming service outside of Xfinity. It drives me nuts to pay so much for “cable” and still need additional services,” Peggy W, a retired Silicon Valley marketer, told me. 

Andrea D., a flight attendant, agrees. “The internet connection drives me insane. It costs $104 a month just to subscribe to a streaming service.” 

Another concern is the number of subscriptions required to watch what content they find interesting. To wit: This past January 13th, the Miami Dolphins played the Kansas City Chiefs. The game was the first-ever exclusively streamed playoff game. Consumers who aren’t Peacock subscribers were out of luck, which angered legions of NFL fans. 

Not surprisingly, consumers are finding creative ways to watch TV while simultaneously cutting their subscription costs. “For any shows that might be on a service we don’t have, we pay for the month, binge, then cancel,” said Elizabeth W, a marketer who lives with her husband and two young children. I heard this a lot from consumers and people from within the industry.

Rick P., a psychologist in NYC, said he wishes all TV and movies could be “purchased a la carte.” He and his wife find it more cost-effective to buy whole seasons of shows they want to watch from Amazon Prime. This approach should concern streaming companies because consumers like Rick no longer “graze” content libraries searching for other shows and series to watch and recommend. Rick told me that he and his wife have cut back on the amount of TV they now watch, relying solely on recommendations from friends or colleagues rather than discovering them on their own.

Numerous consumers told me they select their subscriptions based on individual shows. “I have Netflix, but I definitely don’t get my money’s worth. I watch The Crown once a week,” Karen R. said. She and her husband maintain the subscription because they share the password with their college-age daughter, who shares it with her friends. “Sometimes, when I want to watch The Crown, I can’t because too many people use my account. I have no idea who they are, but a quick message to my daughter, and 15 minutes later, we’re in business.”

All of the consumers I interviewed felt strongly about the presence of ads in paid subscriptions. As Rick said, “If I pay, I shouldn’t see ads.” For many, the SOVD model was an essential appeal of CTV, and now it feels like streaming platforms are rescinding a promise. There is some history here. The desire for an ad-free experience is one of the reasons many consumers opted to ditch cable. This is a particularly challenging problem for streaming companies that offered SVOD plans during lockdowns and now want to convert those audiences to ad-supported plans.

The one exception is Amazon Prime, which many consider a freebie because many consumers use it to get free delivery on the products they buy. 

Is SVOD a Relic of the Past? 

Streaming providers will counter that their ad-supported subscriptions are up, a fact that no one can argue with. What’s more, actual viewing time is also up. According to MNTN Research, CTV viewers spent 48% of their time with ad-supported content in 2022, marking a 55% increase over the previous year (I couldn’t find numbers for 2023). Still, that leaves half the viewers watching ad-free, and an untold number wish they had more SOVD options.

While consumers want SOVD, it may become a relic of the past. Streaming services are carrying a lot of debt due to investing in original content and licensing fees to expand their content libraries to keep subscribers watching. According to the Hollywood Reporter, “Executives at every streaming giant with both an ad-supported and an ad-free tier (including Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery and NBCUniversal) say that total revenue per user is higher on the ad-supported plan than it is on the ad-free plan.” So, while consumers think they shouldn’t have to see ads if they pay, the economics say otherwise.

Streaming companies must explain to consumers that rising production and licensing costs require advertising. They can look to the online public industry for inspiration. For instance, many have sliced and diced their content to create new products that attract new audiences. They also need to do a better job explaining the role of advertising and find ways to make ads an integral part of a positive viewing experience.

The post Streaming Companies Have a PR Problem appeared first on AdMonsters.

In 2023, Generative AI was the new kid on the block, and everyone wanted to see what all the hype was about. There were ups and downs with experimentation, regulation, and practical use, but industry experts predict that digital media can use AI to its full potential if we learn to use it responsibly. 

However, if publishers and advertisers want to take full advantage of what generative AI offers, they must put in the work. As Jeremy Haft, Chief Revenue Officer, Digital Remedy, said, “2024 marks a pivotal year as the buzz surrounding Generative AI transforms into tangible actions within the advertising industry.” 

There are still some kinks to work out. The New York Times just sued OpenAI for copyright infringement and we are still trying to get a hold on these chatbots. 

Will Generative AI initiate an iRobot-style takeover? Most digital media experts don’t think so. However, more brands plan to integrate the tech into their workflow. Here’s how experts say it will happen: 

AI Will Evolve Marketing Roles vs. Taking Them Away

Trend # 1: When Generative AI first popped on the scene, fearmongers predicted that they would take our jobs. But here, our experts predict that it will enhance them. 

“Brands and agency leaders will leverage this technology actively. Generative AI’s increasing integration across the programmatic supply chain is poised to enhance operational efficiencies, reduce performance lag, and minimize spending waste. Its true impact enables brands to extract and act upon more robust real-time insights. With emerging AI tools, advertisers gain unprecedented flexibility in querying and applying insights, unlocking new possibilities beyond the capabilities of traditional machine learning.” – Jeremy Haft, Chief Revenue Officer, Digital Remedy 

“AI enables marketers to evolve their organizational roles by streamlining workflows and enhancing efficiency. While AI is a powerful tool, it still requires human oversight. For example, we’ll see content creators transition into more of an editing and curation role, collaborating with AI to easily produce content that resonates with target audiences. Meanwhile, roles like SEO managers will integrate AI as a core responsibility, leveraging Generative Search Experience technology for improved search visibility and user experience, ensuring efficient and effective strategies. This relationship between AI and human expertise will define the future of marketing roles.” – Monica Ho, CMO of SOCi

“In 2024, agency roles will undergo a significant transformation shaped by AI and technology. This shift necessitates completely reconfiguring skill sets and structures across industries and channels. Agencies embracing AI and automation will thrive by leveraging these technologies to analyze vast amounts of data, predict trends, and craft targeted strategies that auto-optimize across channels, KPIs, etc. Meanwhile, brands aiming to conquer contentious terrain will blend technology with deep cultural insight and empathy. The key lies in merging technological insights with authentic storytelling, allowing agencies to embrace innovation and forge meaningful connections with target audiences.” – Oz Etzioni, CEO and Co-founder of Clinch 

“AI is in its ‘Napster moment’ and is here to stay, so Publishers should learn how to weaponize it rather than fight it. The NYT just hired a dedicated editor for all things AI. I am excited to see how a ‘model digital news publisher’ like the New York Times sets the pace for AI. There have been some negative headlines, but I believe ‘AI for good’ exists in our industry. I am excited to see how the NYT will evaluate and implement it to enhance user experience while empowering staff to do more while maintaining journalistic integrity. There is a lot of busy work behind the scenes that AI could be adopted for while making life easier for staffers in multiple departments, whether it’s rev ops, ad ops, video creation, program analysis, consumer marketing, or sales intelligence. ” – Adam Hua, Co-Founder, Aeon 

AI V. Fraud: Who Comes Out on Top? 

Trend #2: The digital media industry has been fighting against fraud for decades, but will AI be the new tool to hinder these bad actors from carrying out their treacherous plans? Last year, we saw companies like IAS and DoubleVerify using AI to detect MFA sites, and our expert sees this trend continuing.  

“AI will continue to be a valuable content tool for advertisers, scaling dynamic content creation and enabling unprecedented content marketing. The rise of new-gen AI tools like ChatGPT and Anthropic has made creating content more cost-efficient and manageable overall, especially for global brands. The challenge is that we see the flip side of that value proposition, with bad actors leveraging these tools to build content farms and MFA sites, posing a significant problem for the digital ad supply chain and media quality. Fortunately, AI serves as a counterweight here, enabling more AI-powered review and classification of content to scale verification and ensure media quality and performance.” – Dan Slivjanovski, CMO, DoubleVerify

Brands Need to Give up Some Transparency to Realize AI’s True Potential

Trend #3: We always discuss transparency in ad tech, but are we ready to be vulnerable with AI technology? Our next experts believe we must be more transparent with AI to utilize its full capabilities. 

“The industry has grappled with many transparency-related issues, from brand safety concerns to outright fraud. So, it’s understandable that increased automation – through the adoption of AI – would raise concerns. But right now, those concerns are holding back progress – a realization many brands will need to come to in 2024. Just as consumers accept that self-driving cars work without exactly understanding how brands and agencies will have to accept some opacity to elevate their ad strategies and harness the true power of AI. That doesn’t mean brands should abandon due diligence or testing, but marketers will eventually have to relinquish the concerns of not seeing the AI ‘think.’ Advertisers that can embrace this testing methodology and evolve their adoption of AI will separate themselves from the pack.” – Patrick Gut, VP, US, Adlook

“At Forbes, we’re focusing on three core ideas around AI: how it can help engage readers, improve journalists’ workflow efficiency, and power new products across all of our various platforms. Most recently, we released our AI-powered search, Adelaide, which allows our audience to use conversational AI to search across the site.

The importance of a human-led approach to AI will also build in 2024 as we collectively continue to learn that using AI to better our current business practices (and people), rather than replace them, is paramount. As brands develop AI-powered experiences in content and advertising, using AI efficiently will build trust and bolster retention, with both users and brand partners benefitting. Advertisers will want to align with AI contextually and holistically, having it integrated into the products and experiences they are purchasing. Transparency will be critical and draw partners to those with a thoughtful, human-centric embrace of this game-changing technology.” – Alyson Williams, SVP, Digital Operations & Strategy, Forbes

AI or Not AI? That is the Question

Trend #4: Everybody wants to be AI nowadays. At least, according to our next expert, who sees a trend where brands are labeling basic automation as AI. Although he’s not alone, in preparation for CES in Las Vegas, Dipanjan Chatterjee, VP and principal analyst at Forrester, raised the same concerns. 

“In the whirlwind of AI developments this past year, the rise of generative AI has left skeptics scrambling to catch up with the tech-savvy crowd. Critics dismissed it as a mere gimmick, but it has become a hot commodity, with individuals and companies alike eager to ride the AI wave for a boost in sales. Some have even taken creative liberties, labeling their basic automation processes as cutting-edge AI. Prepare for an onslaught of “AI capabilities” becoming the latest buzzword for ad tech companies, whether genuinely AI-driven or just a touch of tech glitter.”  – Jared Collett, Senior Director of Ad Operations, Major League Fishing  

*This content was written by Jared Collett and edited using Chat GPT*

The Year of Responsible AI

Trend #5: Since generative AI is relatively new, in 2023, we saw it go through some learning curves. For example, OpenAI has a pending New York Times lawsuit that called them out for using copyrighted material to train AI models. Our expert predicts that in 2024, AI ethics will be all the rage. 

“If 2023 was the year of Generative AI, 2024 will be the year of Responsible AI. Amid all the excitement, experimentation, and more than a few warnings about an AI-driven extinction event (bah!), few marketers had the time to pause and ask the hard question about the risks of AI for their company and their customers. That’s about to change as more marketers turn their attention to Responsible AI – and that’ll be a good thing for individual brands and the entire industry.

In practice, I’d expect marketing organizations to put a premium on guidelines, governance, and standards. Ethical stances and brand safety will be front and center, as it hits home that the marketing end-user – not the model or app provider – is the last (and maybe even first) line of defense regarding the responsible use of AI technologies. As more brands stand up and scale up marketing AI programs, ad hoc experimentation will give way to objective-driven, strategic implementations. Companies will deploy AI in ways that deliver value to them while reflecting the values of the company and (this is critical) respecting the consumer’s rights. In the end, 2024 will be the year marketing AI starts growing up – and responsible AI practices will be at the center of this vital evolution.” – Greg Verdino, Principal Analyst and Founder, CognitivePath Research, Inc.

“Perhaps even more impactful will be the role of governmental regulation and legal challenges on grounds of intellectual property infringement. While fair use precedents and the nature of the technology behind generative AI make it unclear how claims like the recent New York Times lawsuit will pan out, it seems inevitable that AI companies that profit from the intellectual property of others will need to figure out licensing deals to continue to operate legally. Such changes will eventually impact the consumer, whether in increased prices or reduced availability of some types of generated content.” – Kyle Alan Hale, Solutions Architect, Rightpoint

“In 2024 synthetic data will replace a majority of the human-generated, human-labeled data that is currently used to train AI models. That’s because it is faster, cheaper and easier to generate synthetic data to train a model than it is to source, curate, clean and label real data – and since it’s synthetic there is no private data embedded in it, making it automatically compliant with GDPR, HIPAA and a host of other regulations.” – Dave Matli, CMO, Nurdle AI

Let’s Get Personal

Trend #6: The digital media industry is always looking for better ways to tailor content to consumers’ needs, and our next expert believes AI will do just the trick. 

“We can also expect to see publishers creating endless personalized content, accounting for the nuances of tone and style. Forget one-size-fits-all content. Generative AI will enable publishers to personalize articles, videos, and newsfeeds. Publishers can also serve content to the narrowest, most valuable audience segments, building readership and making a sticky user. Imagine a world where all the content you read is written in your preferred style, tailored to your specific location and current events. This level of personalization has the potential to redefine reader engagement and loyalty.” – Michael Persaud, Head of Programmatic, a360media

The post The AI Takeover: AdMonsters 2024 Generative AI Predictions appeared first on AdMonsters.

“2024 is shaping up to be a crazy year for the advertising industry. Who knows what will come out of cookie deprecation and greater focus on generative AI.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director, Advertising Technology, Fortune.

2023 was a trying year for the programmatic supply chain, at least from a PR point of view.

It began with Bloomberg News saying it had enough of the open markets and to improve its user experience it would eliminate the channel entirely. Then Digiday published a series of articles, saying open programmatic markets are in a tough spot as the “lowest quality” publishers flooded the auctions. Publishers who continued to rely on them saw a decline in CPMs.  

But the real bashing came in June when the ANA released its Programmatic Supply Chain Transparency Study, claiming that inventory from MFA sites comprised 21% of the open markets.  

Transparency, a perennial issue for the open markets, continued to be a concern, and publishers sought to form direct relationships with SSPs to create a better, more privacy-centric, seamless user experience. 

But despite the challenges, the open markets are still a vital lifeline for publishers that can’t afford to maintain a dedicated sales force, and its revenue is still predicted to grow.

What will the next 12 months look like for the programmatic supply chain? To find out, we asked 4 experts about the issues — good and bad — that the sector will face. They are:

• Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director, Advertising Technology, Fortune
• Justin Wohl, Chief Revenue Officer at Snopes.com and TVTropes.org
• Scott Messer, Principal & Founder, Messer Media 
• Chao Liao, SVP, Insider Advertising

Let’s dig in.

MFA Conversations Continue in 2024

Trend #1: Made For Advertising sites (MFAs) will continue to spark conversations, particularly around how trading desks spend advertiser’s budgets. Despite efforts in the second half of 2023, there is still a lot of confusion around what an MFA site is and whether they’re inherently bad. In 2024, both the buy-side and sell-side will need to work at articulating what they like and don’t like about MFA sites.

“MFA is the newest catchphrase in the industry. Sites stacked with ad slots have been around since the beginning of programmatic. All it goes to show is that more effort is needed by trading desks to ensure they are landing on reputable properties. There is nothing automatic about programmatic, and throwing your entire spend into the open markets to achieve scale isn’t going to cut it.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley

“In the 2023 MFA analysis and discussion, I never quite heard enough about the actual content itself, on the MFA sites, just the methods of traffic acquisition and the inventory representation to the buy-side. For further MFA scrutiny and cleanup, I implore the industry to start looking at the difference between buying traffic to sponsored/branded content, for example, versus misleading clickbait MFA.” — Justin Wohl

“There will certainly be more discourse, and more people (not me) complaining that Made For Advertising is a misnomer. Yes SSPs will continue to tout their MFA-free supply and DSPs will announce their ability to anti-target MFAs, but that’s just a lot of smoke and sledgehammers.  MFA is such a complex issue, that I think the Industry will only be able to trim the most egregious edges of MFA.  I encourage buyers to define precisely what they want to avoid, without using the amorphous term of MFA.” — Scott Messer

More Industry Consolidation on the Horizon

Trend #2: Industry consolidation in 2024 seems inevitable, driven by ongoing concerns about inventory quality, the deprecation of third-party cookies, and a demand for greater transparency.

“We’ll continue to see consolidation because it takes money to build the technology needed to be more transparent. Smaller shops are putting themselves on the sales block in order to raise money to continue to innovate.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley 

“Surely [consolidation] will be the case with the cookie-alternative providers, the identity vendors who have been jockeying for superiority since 2020. TTD’s UID2 and LiveRamp’s RampID hold the most promise.” — Justin Wohl

Digital Advertising Will Survive Cookie Deprecation

Trend #3: Despite the fret, the digital advertising ecosystem will survive the deprecation of third-party cookies. What will change is rather than one approach (i.e. cookies) to targeting and measurement, many will be deployed. Google will benefit (naturally), as will Amazon TAM in certain scenarios. Meanwhile, publishers may spend 2024 reorganizing their partnerships and shifting some advertising-related processes to server-side environments for better results.

“I venture to say that the advertising industry is one of those industries that is too big to fail. No one has consolidated around a replacement solution. Agencies are continuing as status quo and publishers are working to find individual solutions that will work for their data environments.  Although Google has hypothetically drawn a line in the sand, they are doing it in a way that will allow them to pull back if the results are not acceptable.  We won’t crash and burn.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley 

“Walled gardens will get stronger and money will depart the open web overall. Cookie deprecation will have its own slow-death effects in many areas, but solutions like Protected Audiences API (PAAPI) are poised to make tectonic shifts that will reshape supply chain topography entirely.” — Scott Messer

“The current distribution of buyers that publishers are familiar with is going to change with third-party cookie loss in Chrome, and the introduction of the Protected Audience API audience. I fully expect Google’s own Ad Exchange to be the emergent winner in Chrome, with AdX taking a much larger share (50%+) of inventory, in that browser, in 2024.” 

“If other SSPs don’t take their demand elsewhere, and start winning larger volumes than they did in 2023 in Safari and Firefox, I expect publishers will begin to lighten their prebid participants, or move more client-side bidders that aren’t driving meaningful contribution into server-only environments like prebid server and/or Amazon TAM.” — Justin Wohl

Programmatic Transaction Models Are Expanding

Trend #4: Programmatic transaction models are expanding, as The Trade Desk’s Open Path illustrates. This transformation is driven by dissatisfaction with the traditional programmatic exchange. As a result, buyers and sellers are looking for new ways to transact. 

“There are three trends that are closely related. The first is the SSPs going directly to buyers, the second is DSPs going directly to publishers, like The Trade Desk and Open Path. The third is publishers offering completely self-serve access to their inventory. We can look at these as three separate trends, but really, they’re tied together. What we’re seeing is that certain sectors of the industry are not happy with the game of programmatic exchange or the current types of setup with programmatic transactions. So they’re trying to create new ways to transact by cutting out intermediaries that may not be adding value.” — Chao Liao

Curated Marketplaces Equal Brand Suitability

Trend #5: With heightened concern over inventory quality, curated marketplaces will be seen as a strategy for ensuring brand suitability. But it’s not a panacea as the Programmatic Media Supply Chain Transparency Study makes clear. While 19% of ad spend in the open markets goes to MFA inventory, private marketplaces aren’t far behind at 15%. PMPs still have an element of “buyers beware” that will need to be addressed in 2024.

“Curation is certainly a major theme of 2024, but we won’t see any standards emerge here. Sellers can do a better job providing meaningful curation and measurement, but it’s unreasonable to think that there will be any standards for PMPs developed.” — Scott Messer

Sustainability as a Differentiator

Trend #6: More brands will start to ask about sustainability and the carbon footprint of campaigns in their RFIs in 2024, and the prevalence of MFA inventory will complicate those discussions. According to research by Ebiquity and Scope3, MFA sites generate around 26% more carbon waste than non-MFA sites due to the constant refreshing of ads, and numerous connections to various SSPs and resellers. 

“MFA sites are maximizing ad requests per page view as well as arbitraging traffic and cookies, which generate a lot of carbon. Brands that have set a goal of improving sustainability will be very keen to avoid them as a low-hanging fruit. I don’t necessarily see it as solely the SSP’s job to streamline the supply chain. This needs to be done in collaboration between the sell side and buy side.” — Chao Liao 

SSPs Reduce Scope1, 2, and 3 Emissions

Trend #7: More SSPs will follow OpenX’s lead by looking at their internal operations to see where they can reduce their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions. 

“This year, people will ask, what does sustainability mean for me as an operator, and how do I improve my operations in terms of efficiency and sustainability? I think a lot of SSPs will look at OpenX as an example in the different ways they improved their sustainability and bottom line.” — Chao Liao

Final Words of Advice

“My advice is for publishers to heed the Ghost of Cookies Past.  Publishers must keep an eye on when and how to switch their deterministic identifiers into private marketplaces. For the past two years, publishers opened the floodgates of IDs in the bid stream, which was great for adoption and testing but is now a growing threat to the balance of seller power. Publishers cannot allow vendors to commoditize deterministic identifiers. These are coveted components of the digital supply chain–and ID owners should be rightly compensated for their investments and relationship with readers.” — Scott Messer

The post What Will the Next 12 Months Look Like for the Programmatic Supply Chain? appeared first on AdMonsters.

With hints of arbitrage, a dash of low-quality inventory, and a sprinkle of a bad user experience, digital media companies are working to rid the ecosystem of MFA sites like the bubonic plague. The issue is that the industry is still trying to nail down the exact definition of an MFA site. But are they all bad news? 

According to Sharethrough, MFA sites make up one-fifth of global programmatic ad spend because advertisers are under a lot of pressure to maximize their ad spend, and publishers are under pressure to reach their impression goals. This is why some believe that Black-owned sites are unfairly labeled MFA sites, but the industry is working to nail down a standard definition and how to move forward. 

After we published our article about Black-owned publishers’ concerns about being designated MFA sites, we spoke to some of these industry experts to understand how they define them, how to distinguish a bad site from a benign one, and to see if the industry’s standards label Black-owned publishers as MFA sites unfairly. There are some mixed opinions and some overlap in classification, but the industry has one goal—creating a sustainable ecosystem. 

What is an MFA Site? Industry Experts Weigh In

We’ve established mixed definitions for MFA sites, but what is the industry saying? 

“The term ‘Made for Advertising’ has created significant confusion within the industry,” said Jack Smith, CPO at DoubleVerify. Smith further asserts that while of course, MFA sites with misinformation and poor content are problematic, there are some ad-heavy sites that may attract the audiences some advertisers want to reach.

According to Scott Pierce, Sr. Director for Product and Fraud at Integral Ad Science, MFA sites have varied definitions, dating back to the early days of programmatic advertising. While they’ve been called spam sites or ad farms, MFA has recently gained popularity.

“MFA sites offer a low-quality ad experience, often performing well on vanity metrics but delivering minimal value to marketers,” said Pierce. “Our findings, in line with research by Jounce Media and the ANA, indicate that advertising on MFA sites lacks meaningful campaign results, such as conversions and brand lift, making it a wasteful use of ad spend.” 

On the other hand, Jounce Media’s MFA Evaluation page defines MFAs as “inventory that achieves superficial KPIs like viewability by creating a user-hostile advertising experience.” However, Jounce Media specifies that a “user-hostile advertising experience” is subjective. Sometimes, it’s unclear where they draw the line for which RTB-traded websites meet MFA standards. 

How Do You Flag an MFA Site? 

IAS’s Approach: The media quality company’s approach focuses solely on performance, tying site characteristics to meaningful outcomes like conversions and brand lift. MFA sites are highly optimized to perform well against traditional campaign metrics such as click-through and viewability rates, but they don’t deliver actual value. 

“At IAS, we leverage AI to identify MFA sites. The model assesses various characteristics, including traffic sources, network associations, templating, and AI-generated content,” said Pierce. “Key focus areas involve ad clutter, evaluating factors like the ad-to-content ratio, total ads on a page, presence of auto-refreshing ads, refresh rates, autoplay video ads, and pop-ups.” 

Jounce Media’s Approach: Jounce performs a daily battery of tests across every RTB-traded website to evaluate three hallmarks of MFA supply: 

• Paid Traffic: MFA publishers heavily depend on clickbait ads from social networks and content recommendation platforms, making paid traffic their main cost driver.
• Aggressive Monetization: They manage these costs using aggressive monetization tactics like high ad frequency and rapid auto-refreshing placements, creating a user-hostile advertising experience while seeking arbitrage opportunities.
• Superficial KPIs: Despite achieving high viewability and video completion rates, our research shows that MFA publishers’ products do not influence consumer purchase decisions.

In addition, Jounce is now working with the DSP, Basis Technologies, to identify MFAs and steer ad dollars away from them.

Basis will integrate Jounce’s MFA site block list into its DSP, automatically applying it to all campaigns, but marketers and agencies retain the option to opt out. Ian Trider, Basis’s VP of product, highlighted that using a dynamic definition allows sites to make improvements that could reclassify them positively.

DoubleVerify’s Approach: DV created its exclusive MFA analysis process by combining human and AI auditing. Customers can directly activate this solution within their brand safety and suitability profile for measurement and monitoring.

“With the rise of AI tools that can rapidly spawn MFA sites, DV’s AI tech can assist global brands in identifying, measuring, and avoiding problematic MFA content in real-time and ultimately drive better marketing outcomes,” said Mark Zagorski, CEO of DoubleVerify.

More specifically, they look to see if:

• Ads dominate the page with high density, frequently refreshing to maximize earnings per visit. 
• Monetization relies heavily on paid traffic like social and native ads, lacking organic traffic. 
• The content aims to keep users endlessly engaged within the site, often duplicating verbatim across multiple sites and occasionally generated automatically by AI.

Myth or Fact: Are Some Black-owned Publishers Unfairly Labeled MFA Sites? 

There have been many facets to the MFA site conversation in ad tech, but a prominent concern developed when some Black-owned publishers became labeled as MFA sites. There are some mixed opinions about the validity of this claim. 

There is a history of stigma around traffic buying, but some Black-owned publishers purchase traffic to expand their platforms through SEO and editorial promotions. Of course, some agree that there are better practices outside of arbitrage, encouraging them to grow organic SEO engagement. 

Jounce Media acknowledged that brand safety standards have often suppressed diverse-owned media but stood on the fact that the MFA reformation does not marginalize diverse-owned publishers. “It is 100 times more likely for a non-diverse publisher to be classified as MFA than for a diverse-owned media company,” said Chris Kane, Founder of Jounce Media. 

However, there is still some concern from diverse-owned and small publishers that the MFA scourge will hurt their businesses. Dévon Christopher Johnson, CEO and founder of BleuLife Media Group and co-founder of non-profit organization BOMESI, said that telling Black-owned publishers not to buy traffic is “like telling a developing country ‘Don’t use fossil fuels’ after Americans used fossil fuels for 150 years to grow its economy. It’s kind of a slap in the face to do that.” 

However, just because you buy traffic does not automatically make you an MFA site. 

“I’m aware of concerns about MFA labels impacting black-owned or DEI sites. The industry must not penalize small publishers, including DEI publishers, using content recommendation platforms to build an audience,” said Scott Pierce. “Sourcing traffic from a partner doesn’t inherently make a site MFA. At IAS, we focus solely on how a site performs for marketers, emphasizing the importance of ad clutter and overall performance over traffic sources.” 

Redefining the Stigma Around Paid Traffic

Recently at our PubForum New Orleans conference, Justin Barton, SVP, Digital Strategy & Partnerships at Black Enterprise spoke about how he recently joined the 4A’s MFA Working Group which includes the ANA, IAB Tech Lab, Jounce Media and other publishers. This will allow publishers and parties from all sides of the industry to voice their concerns. 

Barton is focused on highlighting the significance of paid traffic and how that affects publishers being tagged on MFA lists. He believes that marketing through paid means shouldn’t be restricted for publishers, despite certain research organizations associating paid traffic with negative outcomes in native ads.  

“My aim is to normalize paid traffic for publishers by advocating transparency. This means ensuring that publishers engaging in paid traffic disclose their actions properly, refrain from excessive ad loads or aggressive video players on pages, and maintain transparency to avoid being labeled as MFA,” said Barton.

The post Ad Tech Industry Experts Weigh In On the MFA Scourge and Black Publishers’ Concerns appeared first on AdMonsters.

The gaming industry has seen an unprecedented surge in popularity, reaching a broad spectrum of demographics and geographies. Gamers are not just the stereotypical nerdy kid secluded in their parent’s basement. Gaming’s allure has transcended its niche origins and evolved into a widespread cultural phenomenon, captivating a diverse audience.

As the gaming industry skyrockets, advertisers are rubbing their hands in glee at the advertising potential. Picture this: engaging with consumers right in the heart of immersive gaming environments. It’s like entering a world where ads are part of the adventure. But hold your horses; there are challenges on this wild ride.

During a recent panel discussion, Getting Into Gaming: Building Ads For Immersive, Interactive Experiences, at ProgIO, industry experts from Roblox, Activision Blizzard, and Super Awesome offered valuable guidance to publishers and advertisers seeking success in gaming advertising. Here are five takeaways from the session: 

Level 1: Prioritize Audience Safety and Privacy

In gaming, prioritizing audience safety and privacy is paramount. 

Richard Sim, Senior Director of Product Monetization at Roblox, emphasized, “We built Roblox on the foundation of safety and stability from the beginning. We take it very seriously, recognizing that we wouldn’t be where we are had we not applied those principles at Roblox.”

A sizable portion of Roblox’s user base is under thirteen, but the gaming platform has a policy against serving ads to this demographic. The company is committed to handling younger audiences with utmost care and responsibility, setting the stage for a secure and responsible advertising ecosystem. As the industry crafts impactful ad experiences within gaming, transparency and privacy are fundamental pillars for creating a great user experience.

Level 2: Innovate Ad Strategy

Advertising within the gaming sector demands innovative strategies to integrate with the gaming experience seamlessly. Publishers and advertisers must reimagine ad strategies to align with the gaming environment. If not, level one will trap them. 

Sim said, “When I talk about building the immersive ad system, I do talk about reimagining advertising, trying to avoid a lot of past missteps such as privacy and transparency.”

Advertising strategies must evolve with the gaming industry to incorporate innovative approaches that respect user privacy and seamlessly integrate into the gaming narrative. You can’t press play without going all in! Advertising in gaming isn’t just about flashing billboards; it’s about becoming part of the gaming saga.

Level 3: Address Measurement and Metrics Challenges

Oh, and measuring success? That’s a whole different boss level. Traditional metrics don’t cut it in these immersive gaming realms.

Jonathan Stringfield, VP of Business Research & Marketing at Activision Blizzard, emphasized the challenges in measuring ad viewability in 3D immersive spaces, indicating the need for more nuanced metrics to provide insights into brand impact and ROI.

“While we work with all the standard ad measurement vendors, we recognize that gaming is newer for advertisers. Therefore, the burden of proof is on us to ensure we have the most empirically accurate measurement,” said Stringfield.

Gaming experiences require reevaluating how success is measured. Advertisers must embrace innovative measurement methods that reflect the depth of engagement and the influence these immersive environments exert on the audience, painting a more accurate picture of advertising ROI.

Level 4: Explore the Metaverse Beyond Gaming

The Metaverse, once primarily associated with gaming, has transcended its initial boundaries, encompassing a wide array of experiences. It now includes music, educational exploration, meditation, and more.

For example, Mattel built Barbie’s dream house in Roblox. Artists like Travis Scott, Ariana Grande, and Lil Nas X created virtual concert experiences. The opportunities are limitless, and the digital media industry should take advantage of it. Barbie’s movie campaign alone is a masterclass for creating an advertising campaign. 

As gaming expands beyond its traditional realms, advertisers must recognize the diverse opportunities within this broader space. The Metaverse has evolved into a dynamic medium beyond gaming, opening avenues for engaging consumers in multifaceted experiences.

“Defining the Metaverse as just a gaming opportunity is an oversimplification,” said Sim.

Boss Level: Integrate Brands Seamlessly and Consider Future Prospects

Successfully integrating brands within gaming and immersive experiences was a focal point of the panel discussion. Kate O’Loughlin, CEO of Super Awesome, emphasized that brand partnerships were integral to connecting with consumers.

“We’re working with Athleta, and we measured how the favorability of a brand increased after they did this cool piece of content,” said O’Loughlin. “Then we also tagged on measurement of purchase intent from shoppers.”

Brand integration is a promising avenue, showcasing the potential to effectively engage a broader audience within gaming and the evolving Metaverse. This integration is not limited to gaming but extends into a wider spectrum of experiences within the Metaverse. Advertisers have the exciting opportunity to craft strategies that seamlessly integrate their brands into these diverse experiences, amplifying brand engagement and forging meaningful connections with consumers.

If publishers and advertisers conquer these levels, they will beat the final boss!

The post Press Play and Level Up: The Future of Gaming Advertising Lies in Immersive Brand Experiences appeared first on AdMonsters.

Those of us who’ve been in the industry for 20-plus years remember when ad clutter was a significant issue with programmatic. Back then, ad networks and open exchanges maintained media quality teams who were tasked with eyeballing sites that wanted to do business with them. 

What Goes Around Comes Around

I remember speaking to one such media quality team member who told me that a human reviews every site in their network to count the number of ad placements. If there were too many ad placements the publisher was barred from selling its inventory through her company’s exchange. This was a key selling point.

And it wasn’t a one-and-done exercise. Her team spot-checked sites even after they had been approved. This was an imperative exercise as sites with ad clutter were widely viewed as inferior, and the ad exchange didn’t want to get a reputation for low-quality inventory. 

Then in 2007, Paris-based Alenty, one of the industry’s first ad-visibility platforms, introduced the concept of viewability. By the mid-2010s, new viewability reports, such as RealVu and Google’s Active View for Google Ads hit the market, and advertisers began to advocate for a way to determine if their ads are in view before they’re displayed.

While ad clutter and viewability are separate issues, there is an undeniable correlation between them, as excessive ads can affect viewability rates and slow down page loads. Consumers with little patience click away from the site, blowing the advertiser’s chance to get in front of them and the publisher’s opportunity to earn some money.

Viewability became an urgent issue in 2013 when comScore released a report showing that 54% of display ads weren’t seen by consumers, but advertisers still paid for them. In response, advertisers said they’d no longer buy impressions that were not viewable, and publishers, fearing a significant loss of revenue, began optimizing their sites so that more of the ads could be seen by users. Those efforts had a downstream benefit: reducing ad clutter. Once viewability took hold, concerns about ad clutter went down.

But today it’s back with a vengeance, though it has a new name: Made For Advertising (MFA) websites. The implication of some in the industry is that MFAs are inherently wasteful to marketers as consumers are repelled by sites that are littered with ads. But is that a safe assumption?

America’s Long History with MFA Media

Growing up in the 1970’s I remember the excitement around Pennysaver, a weekly circular that was delivered to our doorstep. In addition to coupons offered by local stores, the circular was the place where things like guitar lessons and gymnastic classes were announced. My brothers wistfully read the classifieds for the things they weren’t allowed to have: dirt bikes, lawn darts and BB guns. In the 2007 movie, Juno, Juno finds the couple who will adopt her baby in her local Pennysaver. 

The truth is some people just like advertising. The ad circular was the first section a former boyfriend of mine reached for when the Sunday paper was delivered. As a postdoc in physics, he couldn’t afford to buy a lot of electronics, but he enjoyed reading the ads because he had a strong interest in technology.

Kerry Rosenthall, a musician, aerobics teacher and avid gardener who lives in Vermont, still likes to read the local circulars. She — like 44% of U.S. shoppers — consults them before doing her weekly shopping.

And it’s not just printed circulars that attract consumers. BeFrugal, a site that offers cashback and coupons for over 5,000 stores sees 1.4 million visits each month, according to Similarweb.

And in 1982, Roy Speer and Lowell Paxson showed the world that Americans would watch advertising as a form of entertainment. That’s the year they founded the Home Shopping Network (HSN) in St. Petersburg, FL, and by 1985 it had expanded nationwide. Today, HSN reaches 94 million households via broadcast TV. Its site, HSN.com, ranks in the top 30 of the top 500 internet retailers and features 15,000 product videos, according to an HSN press release.

Confessions of MFA Shoppers

Rosalie Zuppardo, a researcher who lives in Spencer, MA, likes advertising and even subscribes to Ocean State Job Lot, a weekly online circular. “I have found things that I normally wouldn’t have seen [but were] presented to me in ads, and I think, oh that could be a good idea.”

Zuppardo doesn’t hesitate to click on articles she sees in her Facebook feed if they feature topics she’s interested in, including pet rescue, home decor and skating. Many of those sites are ad-heavy and meet the industry’s definition of MFA, but if the content is compelling, she’s undaunted by the number of ads. If inspired, she’ll buy the products advertised.

Eric Benjamin, a 56-year-old owner of a real estate group in Tucker, Georgia, also likes advertising and freely admits to liking sites that are cluttered with ads. “If I’m online, I definitely look at the ads. If I have time, I’ll definitely go down rabbit holes,” he said. “For me, it’s a time issue, not an ad clutter issue.”

Based on conversations with Zuppardo and Benjamin, one can make the case that there are genuine MFA shoppers out there and that brands that advertise with MFAs may find enthusiastic audiences. However, there are limits to their enjoyment of ads.

Shopper Rules

While some shoppers like advertising — and seek it out with online circulars and clicking on sites the industry calls MFAs — there’s also a lot they really don’t like. All three consumers interviewed for this article say they don’t like pop-ups. Rosenthall likes to cook and the Web is her cookbook of choice, but she says, “If there’s any annoyance or interference from the ads, I get away from the site immediately no matter how good the recipe is.”

Zuppardo and Benjamin say the same thing: advertising should educate and entertain, not get in the way of what they’re doing. “Sites that have too many pop-ups, too many redirects, or slow down my computer are obnoxious. When this happens advertising isn’t helpful. It sets me back and I get annoyed,” explained Zuppardo.

Both she and Benjamin are hyper-aware of the level of fraud and ad scams that appear on advertising-heavy sites and have developed their methodologies for assessing legitimacy. When Zuppardo is interested in an ad, she’ll click, but she’ll always check the About Us section to see if the company’s description relates to the product offered. If it doesn’t, she’ll assume the site has been hijacked and its ads are scams. She also doesn’t trust sites or ads with bad grammar.

Benjamin is wary of any ad that is “clickbaity” or makes promises that are too good to be true. “Sure an ad may promise to buy my house for cash, but how much cash? It’s probably a ripoff,” he said. He’ll click on ads on smaller publications that lead to lesser-known eCommerce sites because he’s found interesting products that way, but his scam radar is always active.

Zuppardo makes a point of reporting all the scams she encounters to Facebook, where she typically sees scammy ads or articles that lead to sites with fraud. And she’ll go back to the post where she saw the article or ad and warn other Facebook users in the comments section. She seems exasperated that Facebook has shown little interest in the file of scams she’s amassed, and has consequently taken it upon herself to educate other consumers, even if she doesn’t know them.

At this point, it may be too early to make any broad pronouncements regarding the worthiness of MFAs. Many sites are scammy, but at least some deliver benefits for consumers and the brands that want to reach them. It’s also clear from my admittedly small survey of consumers that any legitimate MFA must abide by the rules that avid shoppers demand, namely get rid of pop-ups and other annoyances, and be hyper-vigilant about keeping fraud and scams off their sites. And, they must take care to develop content that is worthy of their attention. The MFA shopper doesn’t need a lot of content, but it needs to be quality.

New Guidelines for Defining MFA Sites

In an ideal world, all of these MFA consumers’ rules will be translated into a new set of media quality metrics that help SSPs determine if a site is one they want their ads to appear.  

Recently, the ANA, 4A‘s, WFA, and ISBA came together to create guidelines to help advertisers identify MFA sites so that advertisers can avoid them. Sites that can be categorized as MFA, are those that have one or more of the following characteristics:

• Ad placement and density
• Generic or low-quality content, non-specific content, or content that appears across multiple sites.
• Ads that refresh automatically and frequently
• A high percentage of paid traffic sourcing with little to no organic audience
• Templated and poorly designed website

Add excessive pop-ups to the list above and these guidelines may get the MFA shopper’s seal of approval.

The post MFA Sites: Are They All Bad? appeared first on AdMonsters.