Moderator:
Randall Rothenberg, CEO, IAB
Panelist:
Tim Armstrong, President, Advertising and Commerce, North America, & Vice President, Google Inc.
Jonathan Nelson, Founder & Chairman, Organic, Inc.
Mark Read, Director of Strategy, WPP, CEO, WPP Digital
Jim Spanfeller, President & CEO, Forbes.com

RR: there has been a lot of consolidation..is the line btw agency and publisher blurring or will it settle. where is it going

MR: it was busy 8 weeks…is there anything left to buy? there are some things..the lines are fuzzy but not being completely crossed…you will see more encroachment from the tech publisher side to the agency than the other way

JN: we are focused on our portfolio..we have some of the best independent companies…as well the larger networks…all of them going heavily digital. we are focusing on re-org assets..getting the trad guys online..we watch the google developments closely…there is a blurring..a lot more technical..a huge future of the ad business

RR: are you going to be publisher…

JN: stay on the buy side only is what we are focusing on

RR: are you becoming an agency (Google)

TA: assumptions are being based that on things will stay static…the ability to get the publishers to serve content and ads well is key..agencies be able to serve content and get data for clients….if you went to an internal meeting at any of these companies…pubs, clients, agencies…they will talk about very different things, it is hard to see a future where a Google like player mixes in an agency environment,…diff environments. hard to see a publisher could provide the full value for any one client..there may be some overlaps..but see the industry staying on same lines but everyone getting more data and more data management

RR: do you see you taking on agency like capabilities?

JS: there is a vortex of change…accelerating a little…it still relatively separate businesses..a user consumers a service or content and we share their eyeballs with advertisers…value proposition not going to shaken a to anytime soon…a lot of change is happening..as soon as client/agency has some kind of direction the media companies will adjust accordingly…there is not one source for all consumer info

RR: tim, why is it good for agencies…

TA: in general, as consumers behaviour….that is the fundamental…consumers behaviour changes. You see consumer services dumping billions into the infrastructure…and it goes to ad targeting as well…we think ad agencies should get more access to more data (privacy protected) to target. consumers prefer relevance…benefit for agencies and clients after that

RR: Mark, any thing that came up yesterday is the self interest in the ad networks/media buyers etc. How do you get beyond the self interest charge

MR: we approach from clients out to consumers….if our business was big idea on 80s media on 90s an dnow it is the technology…we are trying to build tech resources inside ourselves to use for clients….

JS: transparency is what it comes down to. pre-now, there was a long slide btw action and the ad..but now the gap is smaller and smaller.

MR: having tech and data is much more important than it sued to be

RR: consumer insights? amongst companies there is now a battle of consumer insights.. those with the best is a winner

JN: it’s going to be shared..no one will own it outright…we know clients…Jim knows audience…they will come together those that have the data and turning into wisdom is going to be a winner….we are trying on the agency side to match a proposition to an audience

RR: more collaboration?

JN: yes..absolutely

RR: still conflict btw buy and sell?

JN: any marketing place there has to be..but they come together in a model of trust to work out deal….we are talking about a market

MR: holding companies,,,,has the whole lot…

TA: if you lose the trust….that what you are buying and selling is what you should be selling/buying…there is natural tension point..user trust and client trust..violate them and you will real damage done

RR:looking at MadMen..I’m struck by so much of that could not happen today! transparency brings up other things..one of which is audience measures….is there an issue for clients…

MR: moving from survey system to an actual measurement

JS: it is an issue comparing online and offline and that will get a bigger issue as more dollars go online. eventually it will be the best v business of offline folks to get an system that works….online will become completely measurable and offline not…

RR: Jim, you think that offline metrics have been pushed online and you are opposed

JS: offline…idea of proxies for actions…you measure things you can measure that are indicative…what happens now is that as we move online,.we take the same concept of proxies and drag it with us..but we have direct info of efficacy of a campaign..so when I get hot about engagement is that time spent often gets conflated with engagement not with action. Not sure if that is a great metric…be careful of what we adopt.

RR: all grapple with that question of how the different platforms can be measured…how problematic is this?

TA: we work across multiplatform.. it is interesting to sit back and take a look, these markets are massive. something that always comes up…this is the holy grail..the other types want to be measured..a single platform

Post from: EveryJoe

MIXX and four leaders and their predictions

Moderator:
Steven Levy, Chief Technology Writer, Senior Editor, Newsweek
Panelists:
Matthew Carr, Display Product Marketing, Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions, Microsoft Corporation
Todd Juenger, VP/GM of Audience Research and Measurement, TiVO
David Clark, Executive Vice President, Global Advertising General Manager, North America, Joost
Jason Hirschhorn, President, Sling Media Entertainment Group

SL: starting with Mathew, getting ads on these devices, how broadly does MS look when creating platforms for advertising?

MC: MS position on ad tech is straightforward..we want all to find audiences. we want to extend AdCenter to game, video, mobile, it’s extensibility, development, make it broader. It is about having a seamless way to buying across the platforms.

SL: you are involved in selling ads on Facebook. Anything different there? Easier to do that now?

MC: we do display inventory..our sales force has that inventory..we collaborate with the FB team on the bigger stuff..we step up to with our tech and salesforce. We have a great relationship and hope that will continue.

SL: are there efforts for targeted search like ads…

MC: Content ads has been launched and we will talk to FB about extending..ultimately it comes down to advertisers, the best experience. the balance between contextual and display..not too much..just a different ad type.

SL: how is Joost?

DC: we have 40 advertisers on the platform. it is an interactive tv platform over the internet, a lot of players. aot of content out there..only a little has moved in line..early days still…a lot of experimentation..we think we are in a good position. We look at the 3 constituencies and try and figure out how their lives changes when marrying TV reach with targetability of the web..how to pull it together in one experience that scales…a big, big task but we are excited about it

SL: Tivo..ability of Tivo to measure by the second..how does that work

TJ: we have 2million subscribers…people thought it would bring about the end of the 30′..but it has not ness. 60-70% zap through most…the variation on that number is huge..depends on creative and how good it was targeted…lost of things..demo, time, network, category. A by-product, wonderful, now we can measure commercials second by second..we are the only people who have commercialised this..the biggest reason why this matters. We have a relationship with IRI..I can measure if people watched the ad, and IRI can measure purchase..we can do a design to see who has bought, with the only difference is the TiVO. We can measure the impact of ads…on purchase intent

SL: are we entering an era where advertising is something that people want? Measuring, targeting helps this..

JH: look at it as content… if good, if targeted, more likely to watch it. this scares me a little..targeting means you may only see things that an advertiser thinks you want then you will see only certain things…same with content..you will see only certain views, ie political views, you will never be open to other POV

DC: advertisers and consumers have a deal for 50yrs…TV..the deal has changed..consumers want to do it on their own terms. Ratio of time content vs ads will change. the 30′ spot is an elegant way to tell a short spot. but serving 30 * 30 in an hour is not good..let them stand on their own..the right 30 at right place..with somewhere they go after that..it’s going to be fine. Now we serve midroll ads and marry them with interactive components…

SL :are they using the interactive?

DC: response rates have been terrific..but the caveat is that this is always the same for new designs of ads. There is lot of experimentation that still needs to happen. When it comes to video, you have to think about the pricing model..there are a lot of things that need to be sported out.

JH: the content needs to be sorted..there is content, metadata, commerce..different layers. The elements in the show can take you into interactive components.. a problem is that how do the CPM work. they need to test and try things to work out…

MC: there will still be the need for a broad reach..but the targeting and niche..increasing. users are opting in and providing more information…get ads in a more constructive way. Targetability will expand to broader setting

SL: will it change..no longer buy ad against content but buy by target. Help me understand target and get them across the platforms

JH: still buys that are blanketed..mass media buys..the choice will there as it has never been before.

SL: no networks here so let;s have some fun..do they get it?

JH: CBS get it. a recognition with recent changes that there is an audience beyond their shores. They have been able to create more content than the one channel allows..we will see some interesting stuff. Disney is interesting…Viacom interesting in what have done on convergence.

DC: they have a little bit of time to figure this..my view is that the broadcasters OK long term if they understand the core asset – storytelling – create and market. If they think they are unique because they have this talent..there is a lot of new entrants..if they take the talent..apply to niche audiences..can they go global..get global distribution..apply talent to different ways..monetise the libraries..there are all sorts of things they can do.

JH: rights issues are a problem..the user base does not care about this..you see this in the negotiations now…as they open to distribution and want to do niche audiences the cost structure is a problem,you cannot spend 3mill/episode

TJ: there is a trend in their favour to increase an audience for TV. DVR people, create bigger audiences for the shows..that is the first time it has happened for a while..but the bigger audience fast forwards..so how do I monetise that? becomes a lot of good thinking about using a digital platform like Tivo to let users get the info from marketers in their own terms. Telescoping experiences, optins at different times..swapping out ads in the recorded shows…

SL: how much is there to watch shows with no ads at all…it should be a revenue stream to sell there stuff. so NBC wants to distribute..put ads in it

JH: I want to say that the best case is they are experimenting…anytime you pull back access in this world you are asking for trouble…

SL: you prevent them watching on the most popular portable device,…

JH: you can suggest a price but apple can sell for what they want. Content is a loss leader for hardware for apple…we think they should distribute all over and let the user decide. this is arguments about power and windows and price tags and the users are just running away with the value.

TAJ: there is a market. it poses a challenge for marketers…there will be a segment of society that will may to avoid adds – subs or PVRs…the other society segment, who cannot afford to avoid are the ones being exposed to the ads.

DC: we have done a lot of research on this…ad supported or subscription…if you offer users the opportunity to get ad free, then you remove the most valuable customers, potentially. But a lot of research say that people will often go for free ad supported…it’s about getting the ad model right.

MC: if you think it can go to ad supported it will go to ad supported….majority will chose ad supported over subscription…

SL: I used to write for Video Magazine…I did a story about advertising on cable..it was novel to have ads on the network..HBO kept their promise form 20 years ago. Normally you would end up paying and get the ads. you get a slice pf people who get the DVD…prefer to see it without ads.

TJ: the higher rated a show, the more timeshifted it will be on a tivo…up to 70-80% of the show on a timeshifted basis…24, Lost, have most timeshifting and most fast forwarding…

DC: there are few programmes that people really care about…if I miss 24 that is a problem for me…I get them.

SL: you may watch somethings live…to watch it first….

JH:most is timeshifted…to fit into time

MC: tonight most people will be playing Halo 3, not watching TV

SL; there’s no ads in there.

JH: there will be…when you are killing people you want a gatorade!!!!!!

Post from: EveryJoe

MIXX and Convergence of Advertising and Business

Fitting in Today’s Digital World of Misfit Content
Consumer control and an avalanche of misfit content – content that just doesn’t fit the established media world of yesterday – are wreaking havoc in the advertising and media economy of today. Marketers and media companies are struggling to adjust to the social and user-generated content landscape the Internet and other digital technologies have thrust upon them. However and while not easy, there are signs that is beginning to change. Innovative marketers and media companies are demonstrating successful new strategies and efforts that are "fitting-in to misfit content." Learn how and more from a distinguished panel of marketers, agency representatives and media players.

Moderator:
Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Panelists:
Brady Gilchrist, Executive Vice President, Strategy, Fuel Industries
Garrick Schmitt, Vice President, User Experience, Avenue A | Razorfish
Rip Warendorf, SVP of Sales, Zango
Matthew Wasserlauf, CEO, Broadband Enterprises

AC: definitions? niche..unmonetisable content??

MW: does not think there is..the way the market is shaping is opposite to the way TV was shaped so many years ago. you only had a few that were defining what content looked like and they defined the standards..an editorial filter. On the web you have filters all over the place, advertisers do not know and do not trust. the content is not understood, there’s no misfit content, we have a lot of work to shape this, to provide structure and standard so advertisers can spend as conformable

RW: it’s a misfit model and misfit advertisers. no linear model there anymore..not strictly video..lots of things. we as an industry are trying to figure out how to monetise…how the business models will work. fighting the models of the old world. Look at NBC etc..they have a vested interest in the old ways and at Zango we have a different model, timeshifting ads away form content.

GS: it’s not so much…so what is the role of mainstream content. the conversation is about how to take trad content….and make that effective online but to me there is value in this conversation but you cannot ignore the shift in the landscape..how dramatic the landscape is with content produced by ‘non-professionals’ its about how do all of these things co-mingle.

BS: we use the term persistent stuff. its only misfit if does not fit into your world. there’s no such thing. Everyone is building on the web. Persistence is where it gets complicated…look at broadcast content, it gets shown and then goes away. online, it is there ‘forever’ it grows more everyday. So how do you make money when scarcity is dead. There is open access to all bits and pieces..content is just what people want to consume

AC: to monetise then presume you need to be able to classify one piece of content over another.

BS: we talked about this yesterday; I hate segmentation…the new segmentation is motivation..find out what they are after and monetise the motivation. Not the demography..but what they looking at. everyone is unique now..defined by your browsing history. we do not break up markets on this.

MW: a lot of sites…are those aggregators, early networks. when buying content on any level, with no rating, you are starting to put a level of trust in the aggregator. can out a little bit of faith in that they are supplying some form of filter.

RW: we are trying to provide some of the fertilizer for the growth and provide money for those who create. we pay the creators and our ecosystem grows every day.

AC: I don’t disagree with bottom up approach..but not everypiece of content is suitable for all.

BG: It’s not defined by programmers..we have this grey areas in the middle

AC: what types of things are holding this back?

RW: measuring too much and too little.

AC: we preach measurable and hold ourselves to this standard…

GS: there are trad marketers and brands that questions the value about metrics…when we bring it back to misfit content, specifically video..is it awareness or conversion or intent? Awareness..pre-roll…effectiveness is number of streams. look at broadcast/cable they are not doing enough streams to justify awareness. Look at conversion, that is a better place, the real tipping point. need to understand the drivers and then it becomes more monetisable now it is all about awareness and replicating TV…vs the more relevance question about sharing appropriate content

RW: fear keeps coming up. there is a fear factor in putting brand out there and trying something new.

AC: a bad metric could be better than no metric. brand advertisers have not seen any metric..how do the brands get more money to invest?

MW: we have the metrics. ComScore is doing great stuff. they have as robust a system as Neilson does in TV. they have looked at GRP..look at our sites and the metrics are there. 130mill viewers a month..9bill streams a month. consider the notion..tv is a sample based rating system that does not guarantee your ad was watched. we only charge when the impression is watched..we have an accountablity..P&G have been doubling their budgets every year with us..we tell them how many ads were watched and how long people watched it.

Q: in 2009, when TV stations are digital, will that level the playing field? (RC; I’m confused with this question – tuning the analogue TV signal into the digital signal will not change anything as it is still not measurable. Adding monitoring to set top boxes or going IPTV is more so)

MW: tv adds a tonne of value that is not going away, online starts to be more accountable…

BG: we have an industry that spends billions that is based on ‘ i think they are watching it’…we have this issue that we can change..we can’t prove it. if you are a small business you are very tight…if you are major your shareholders are not saying ‘improve your efficiency’…1.75% recall is not a good number. the pressure is not there to change the thing..it is coming..you will have to make your messages more effective. Look at disconnect btw hours online vs hours TV. No one changes anything until they feel uncomfortable and no one is there yet

GS: TIVO has this service, Stopwatch, it measures the least skipped ads…and all sorts of things happen. Direct sells. Infomercials are watched. Starts to play with conceptions…other good ads are are movie trailers. put the accountability over the assumed wisdom, changes what you think about it

RW: it’s ‘presumed’. put users in control and it gets scary. put the 30′ spot and it does not work in this world..users do not like it. let it go and the whole game changes.

Q: Rip you are into timeshifting ads away from content..did you mean that?

RW: yes I meant that. we have a huge library of content..our content, licensed etc etc..for consumers to get free unfettered access to our content they have to download our client…they do not get ads in the content…but later on, on the desktop..so when looking for car insurance etc, then we watch the search, see the intent and target an ad at you. our premise is that you are having a better content experience and advertisers get better stuff as it is targeting. content creators get paid for sharing the client.

AC: YouTube are heading towards the preroll..what is going to be the model?

GS: conventional wisdom says all video content needs a preroll but it does not make sense to me. we advise clients to maximise the preroll as you get the max CPM..we are playing with technologies. Flash overlays…as you see the ability to have text links etc..do not think the prerolls are effective. They are a nice bridge…can transfer spots online. But content for one channel does not translate well across channels.

MW: we are going to get better on the creation side. See mismatched 30′ ads in front of misfit content. It will get better. Better advertising in front of hi qual relevant content

BG: the rules beng developed here become important…on-demand timeshifting is what people will get delivered..the current model wil not exist in 5 yrs. we have to adapt thinking…condition clients..someone else will come out of woodwork and replace us.

Post from: EveryJoe

MIXX and Misfit content