This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

About this blog

M&M’s Blog goes behind the headlines to offer a running commentary on the business dynamics within the international media and marketing industry. The M&M editorial team joins forces with industry experts and local market heroes to balance a bird’s eye view of global trends with the importance of local insight.

RSS feed Subscribe to blog feed

Go Back

Ad Spend

  • Ad exchanges explained - at last!

    28 January 2013

    I wanted to share this little gem from the M&M Global blog archive – (it was first posted back in June 2011!) But what I find so interesting about this is that despite the industry coming on leaps and bounds since then – and with so many more players now in the market – the fundamentals are still the same and they have a much bigger part to play in the digital marketing mix. But do we really know what an ad exchange is and how it all works? Do we really understand RTB? If you’re still unsure about how it all works, then I strongly suggest taking a look at the below:

    Some areas of media are understandably more glamorous than others, and its a sad fact of life that ad exchanges are not a sexy topic of conversation. While other media types are propping up the bar in Soho House, the geeky ad exchange is sat at home in a darkened room, probably watching Battlestar Galactica.

    But geek is the new cool and ad exchanges are a big part of the online media business world. Most of you by now will have either had clients ask about them, read articles about them, seen them mentioned in pitch requirements, or heard mentioned internally. You may have even met someone in the space.

    This article then from MediaMind is for the ad-ex novice, and introduces the key terms and concepts in this area so you can get up to speed with the essentials of ad exchanges. 

    What are ad exchanges also known as?

    Audience-based buying
    Data-based buying
    Exchange-based buying
    Trading

    Who are the main players?

    Ad exchanges – Represent the inventory/supply side. This is where the impressions are bought from. The impressions are put into Ad Exchanges by publishers and ad networks primarily as a way to monetise unsold inventory.

    The largest Ad Exchanges are Google Ad Ex 2.0, Yahoo Right Media, Pubmatic, Rubicon, AdMeld, and OpenX.

    Demand Side Platform (DSP) – Represent the demand/buy side. Agencies and advertisers use DSPs to connect to multiple Ad Exchanges, view the available inventory, evaluate how much they are willing to pay and take part in the bidding process. The best comparison for a DSP is a Search Bid Management technology for Display.

    Popular DSPs are Invite Media, MediaMath, Turn, X+1, Triggit, and DataXu.

    Third Party Data vendor – Aggregate data from sites to build profiles which can be used to target audiences. The data is derived from leading web publishers in the social network, dating and shopping sectors that deliver highly qualified, registration-based targeting information. Buys can use this data to target:

    1. Demographics – eg. Females 18-24, earning $40k +, living in NY
    2. Interests – eg. Cooking
    3. Purchase intents – eg. Recently searched for flight to London.

    How is media bought in Exchanges?

    It works on an auction model. Each party makes their bid, highest wins, pays $0.01 more than the next highest bidder. Here’s an example which illustrates this:

    Bidder 1 $0.50
    Bidder 2 $0.60
    Bidder 3 (winner) $0.80

    Price Paid $0.61

    The actual bidding process which takes less than 100 milliseconds looks like this:

    1. The Exchange makes a call to the DSP with an available impression.
    2. DSP checks to see if they want this impression – it could be someone in their retargeting pool, or in a desired audience segment according to a third party data vendor. If yes …
    3. DSP makes a bid for it based on how much they think it’s worth or can afford to pay
    4. Exchange sells the impression to the highest bidder.
    5. Ad is delivered by the winning bidder.

    I’ve heard Real time bidding mentioned – how does that fit in?

    Real time bidding (RTB) is the name given to the process I outlined above. Instead of buying impressions in buckets of 1000, RTB enables buying on a per impression basis – allowing it to be extremely targeted and at the price you think that impression is worth.
    Here’s a nice visual aid:

    http://www.slideshare.net/DapperWebinar/what-is-real-time-bidding-in-30-seconds

    How much is it worth?

    Estimates have the total US market spend by DSPs in 2010 at $850m – meaning 10% of display ad spend.

    Why is this type of buying becoming popular?

    Five main reasons below, with the overall attractiveness being agencies can actually make money in digital now! Trading offers opportunity for media arbitrage – buy the impression for X and sell at X + 50%. The agency can decide how much margin to place before passing on to the client.

    1. Buy Audience instead of Media - Agencies traditionally bought Media or Content as a proxy for audience. Eg. I want to reach Females 18-29 then I should buy onto sites with a high concentration of them. Exchange world allows an agency or advertiser to buy actual audience for the first time at scale.

    2. Buying Process for digital media is inefficient - There is a plethora of choice available to agencies. A single online display campaign can take 5x as long as an offline campaign to plan and buy. Exchanges offer an automated buying solution with similar efficiency to search.

    3. Reduce Intermediaries - As valuable as the Ad Networks are at aggregating audience and providing agencies alternative buying strategies (CPC, CPA, cheap CPM), agencies are envious of the large margins enjoyed by the networks. 4. Achieve CPC or CPA targets – Sure you’ll hear people talk about advanced audience targeting strategies, but the majority of buys right now are on direct performance goals – hitting a CPC or CPA target. Exchange inventory is cheaper and is in abundant supply so it’s easier to hit existing goals or greatly reduce them.

    DSP v Trading Desk

    All the major agency groups have set up Trading Desks. These are centralized teams within the agency who handle all Exchange-based buying. They are not DSPs - they would utilize a DSP as the technology to execute the buys on the Exchanges.

    Note 100% of an agency’s trading buy may not happen through their trading desk – individual planners/buyers in an existing account team may buy from an Exchange – we expect the trading desk to aggressively aggregate as much of the spend as possible.

    Why are agency groups setting up Trading Desks?

    Trading Desks can add value by aggregating all of the activity run by all advertisers across the agencies in the group. This could let them do things like build their own audience targeting segments (eg. People who responded to Auto ads) or create private exchanges by leveraging buying power with premium publishers (ie. Give me your inventory and I’ll decide in real-time what advertiser to use it for).

    Of course, an attractive business model helps too. As they get squeezed by their clients, agencies see themselves squeezed by some of their ad network partners, and want the ad network margin for themselves.

    The individual agency, is in control of the media spend and as well as (or instead of) putting budget to publishers and ad networks they set aside budget for their trading desk, to buy inventory on the Exchanges.

    Self Serve v Managed-Service

    Managed-Service is the dominant model provided by DSPs today. Most claim to have full platforms, but that is not the case. In the short term managed-service happens to be a more profitable business model for DSPs because they do not have to be fully transparent about media costs (ie. say how much they actually bought the impression for) and can arbitrage.

    Just about every client you speak to will say they want a platform solution which they can manage themselves and be responsible for. They love the thought of pulling all the levers and pushing all the buttons. The reality is, that’s not what they want, or certainly not what they can successfully handle today.

    They need a managed service model currently because:

    1. It’s a complicated space, and to run effectively you need expertise.
    2. This expertise is hard to find.
    3. Current self-service tools are in their infancy and hard to use.

    So DSPs appear on media plans as simply another line item. The agency may never actually touch the technology nor know the actual cost of the media before the DSP marks it up. Wait, doesn’t this mean a DSP is an Ad Network or even a Media Agency by another name you might ask. Well, on the managed-service model yes – and that’s a growing source of friction.

    Immediately there is opportunity to offer a managed-service solution with transparent pricing. This will give the agency all the help they need whilst charging fair value for it.

    We expect to see a long term shift away from managed-service to self-serve technology as agencies reject the arbitrage business model run by DSPs, see them as increasingly competitive, grow their own expertise and capacity, and the technology innovates to become useful and effective.

    Pricing models

    In a managed-service play the actual fees may never be known to the agency. If the agency is paying an Ad Network $5 CPM, and the DSP delivers at $3 CPM then the agency is happy. However the real cost to the DSP may only be $1 CPM – so the agency is actually paying a hefty fee. This is why DSPs are so profitable today and why there is an explosion of them in the market. Typical margins range anywhere from 20% to 80%.

    However as the market evolves to a technology play the fees are far more transparent. They range anywhere from 10% to 20% of the media cost. Eg. agency puts $100,000 through DSP – fee would be $10,000. 

    MediaMind is a global provider of digital advertising solutions that optimise the use of media, creative and data for enhanced campaign performance.

    This post was spotted on Right Brain, Left Brain Blog on Cream. It was originally posted in June 2011.

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Juliet P. d'Arguesse

    Tags: Ad exchanges, Demand-side platforms, Ad Spend

  • R.E.S.P.E.C.T

    04 December 2012

    Off the back of its recent study looking at consumer attitudes to mobile advertising, Millward Brown has identified seven key points for marketers to help optimise the effectiveness of mobile ad spend, all of which can be summed up in the words of Aretha Franklin: RESPECT.

    Relevance: Mobile content needs to be tailored specifically to the target audience and in the correct context ie. No-one wants to receive a Ben & Jerry’s voucher when it’s raining outside.

    Engagement: In moments of downtime, mobile can provide the opportunity to engage deeper with consumers. The key is to signpost these opportunities clearly and aim for long-term repeat engagement.

    Surprise and delight: Every mobile connection a marketer has with a consumer should put a smile on their face, keeping in mind that you don’t want to intrude.

    Play to strengths: Not only is one of mobile’s strengths that it is... well mobile, but it can play an important part in the overall media mix and can be linked with many other channels. Bear in mind, it is not suited to heavy duty content.

    Exchange: As feedback from the survey showed, consumers are willing to give marketers access to their mobile and share personal information, but only if they are getting something of value in return.

    Competence: Simplicity is key. Mobile marketing should be clear, functional and focused, more so than any other media.

    Time and place: Location, location, location. Mobile ads should be delivered when and where they are most likely to be consumed. That’s the beauty of mobile.

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Jenni Baker

    Tags: Mobile, Advertising, Ad Spend

  • Why are major US brands increasing their spend on TV?

    10 November 2011

    For years we have heard how TV’s power is being eroded by digital video recorders (DVRs) and alternative digital media. So how come The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) reports that 47 percent of major U.S. brand owners have increased their TV advertising budgets in the last two years?

    I continue to believe that TV is unique in its ability to combine the compelling nature of video with broad reach. And it seems like I might not be alone.

    Quoted in the ANA’s press release, Bill Duggan, Group Executive Vice President of the ANA states:

    There was much chatter in the past about the television medium and 30 second spot being dead, but this survey has shown that TV advertising is very much alive - perhaps even more so than in the past. Even with the risk of competition from other media platforms and the use of DVRs, there are still many opportunities for marketers to optimize TV into their marketing mix.

    As my colleague, Dede Fitch, points out in her latest POV, DVRs have definitely not had the disastrous impact on TV viewing that was expected five years ago (and I take some pleasure in having said so then). In part, this is because fast forwarding through a commercial pod requires you to attend to the screen far more diligently than you would while watching normally.

    But there is another more important reason. Like Dede, I think the proportion of time shifters and commercial zappers is far higher among the advertising and market research industry than the remainder of the population. Most people watch TV in order to sit back, relax and be entertained. If nothing else, they have to find the remote before they can zap the commercials.

    Digital Video Recorders

    This raises another question about the supposed demise of TV. Are alternative digital channels really a threat? Dede suggests that rather than worry about DVRs, advertisers should be more concerned about smart phones and tablets providing even more distraction to the viewing experience.

    She may well be right, but I can’t help feeling that good old fashioned laziness is going to keep most people in couch potato mode. And besides, if these devices help promote a more social viewing experience then it can only be a good thing for broadcasters and advertisers alike. That’s why Twitter’s announcement that its users will be able to vote for contestants in The X Factor is so interesting.

    So yes, there are threats to TV’s supremacy out there, but I think they are overstated. I think TV plays very well to a major proportion of the viewing audience who just want to chill out and be entertained.

    On that count, Hulu and Netflix might be a bigger threat than social media, but I think the biggest challenge is the need for broadcasters to provide compelling and interesting content. And the same applies to advertisers. If you want people to watch your ad on TV, there is no substitute for a compelling piece of creative: something gripping, something enthralling or something funny, or something so engaging people not only want to watch it again, they want to tell their friends about it too.

    So what do you think? Is TV going to take the majority of ad dollars for the foreseeable future? What alternatives will challenge its position?

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Nigel Hollis

    Tags: TV, Ad Spend

  • It is no longer about costs. It is about costs.

    14 September 2011

    Are agency rosters getting harder to manage or easier? 

    (the picture is not a clue btw, honest)

    Earlier this month I heard again another very senior marketer ask a room of people (other very senior marketers) how to best manage a large roster of agencies. This is a big question, and in our experience becoming increasingly frequently asked. It's advisable (for sanity's sake)to consider this a simple problem rather than a complex one. 

    I believe the issue has two elements, firstly to get agencies aligned and focused enough to be able to collaborate in a constructive way that does not become a distraction for the business, second to avoid serious duplication of resource and therefore duplication of non-working marketing budgets (that is the bits that get paid in fees rather than actual marketing to customers for example).

    The first thing that strikes me is that as a general rule, we still hear more negative than positive remark about agency-land. Perhaps much of that is unjustified but however much evolution, collaboration and modern thinking exists in agencies now compared to five years back, there are still some fundamental, huge issues which sit on marketers desks and are not being addressed by their (often handsomely paid) agency execs.

    For many years marketing clients have been working through a process of rationalizing costs, whether by interrogating production budgets (and agency production income) or by leveraging down mass media costs and overall agency fees. For many marketers that process has reaped many positive rewards and costs have been reasonably managed to an appropriately competitive level (usually based on volume). However now the language is more commonly about value creation (or variants thereof) which is charged directly at a specific agency "we want more value from our contract with you" or at the roster as a whole "you guys need to work better together to create greater value". Both are valid. 

    We believe that marketing will be the next frontier of corporate productivity gains. Those gains won't come from cost cutting, they will come from a strategic approach to sourcing marketing services partners ("what do we need, who can supply that, how will we measure success and how shall we pay for that success"). Its about cost-management rather than cost-cutting. In the coming months and years we expect to be advising clients how to cut (yes, I said that out loud!) their marketing budgets by designing and organising their roster more efficiently around a business marketing strategy. 

    So, in short I think the recent era of cost-cutting in marketing (the naughty procurement) will be replaced with an overdue era of diligent cost-management (the smart strategic procurement), based mainly on a roster's ability to demonstrate value delivery.

    See, I told you it was simple....

     

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Tom Denford

    Tags: consulting, Agency/ client relationships, Business models, pitches, Remuneration, Measurement, ROI & effectiveness, media costs, Ad Spend

  • 2012, new business and the shape of my Jacuzzi

    07 September 2011

    This month we've seen what some are calling the beginning of a double dip recession, although nobody has actually dared say that out loud. America's credit has been downgraded for the first time and they’re pulling money out of Europe, the Eurozone is causing nervousness by not adequately addressing the issues in Greece, Portugal et al putting huge pressures on Germany and France economies and their confidence to the point where the Euro itself is at risk. Alongside this, various agencies have also naturally scaled back their growth forecasts for this and next year and some large brands are starting to review their agency arrangements more than usual for a traditionally quiet summer for new business.



    In 2003 Sorrell famously predicted a “bath-shaped” recession. I’m thinking its going to be more of a "Jacuzzi-shape" this time (see kindergarten quality diagram) and we are on the edge of our seats (ahem) waiting again to see how this will play out in adland.

    As we hurtle towards Q4, naturally brands start to consider budgeting for next year and will be re-evaluating their marketing investments in light of the insecurity of consumer spending and growth potential in the market.

    Is this all sounding rather familiar? True, but how might it affect our industry this time around? Will 2012 be any different to the madness of agency reviews we saw in 2009.

    I think we may be seeing the beginnings of another round of 2009 style agency reviews. GM’s recent announcement of a $3bn kick-start to this inevitable process rocked media agencies around the world. At the time we said 2009 would be the year of the pitch and indeed it was with a collection of behemoth global FMCG and telecom reviews. I expect that 2012 is shaping up to be the same, with a likelihood of many agency reviews commencing across Q4'11 to Q1'12  

    Over the coming days and weeks I want to consider the implications of this scenario for some of the key stakeholders; namely clients, agencies and media owners. Some of who are still battling with the legacy left from 2009 reviews where deflationary pricing triggered some very aggressive reviews and promises made in media.

    I'm going to share with you a chain of related posts that I've been writing for the past few months in somewhat anticipation of this scenario happening.

    Keep an eye open and stay out of the Jacuzzi for now…

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Tom Denford

    Tags: consulting, Agency/ client relationships, auditors, pitches, Ad Spend

  • Making your media money work harder

    30 August 2011

    by Bob Nash

    ‘Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half’. So said the American advertising pioneer John Wanamaker nearly a century ago – and today a modern version of this problem is causing today’s marketers bigger problems than ever.

    The trouble is this: as we all develop ever-more complicated multi media campaigns, it becomes exceptionally difficult to assess exactly which elements have the biggest effect on the campaign as a whole.

    Finding a solution for this problem can make a huge difference. Because, if you can assign a value to your spend on each channel, based on the response it drives not only by itself, but also as part of the overall campaign you’ll be able to maximise the response volume you can generate from a finite overall media spend. Granted that few organisations are keen to switch off their marketing efforts in each key channel completely just so they can work this out, sophisticated statistical analysis has to be the answer.

    WPN working with Mike Colling and Co. recently took on precisely this challenge for client The Salvation Army. It resulted in a significant improvement in the way we can plan major campaigns to optimise the media budget and generate the maximum responses.

    The process started with detailed analysis, looking at three year’s worth of results across TV, radio, online, warm DM, cold DM, door drops, press and inserts. Univariate analysis was applied to understand the key drivers of response to each channel. It’s also important to look at the ‘lagged correlation’ – that is, the effect spend today has on response tomorrow or in the following days.

    Some fascinating insights started to appear. For instance, although TV has the greatest impact on the overall effectiveness of the campaign, radio was found to have a very significant effect on TV response. Press, Inserts, Online, Cold Reminder DM and Warm Reminder DM were also  found to have a positive influence on TV Response – an increase in any of these resulted in an increase in TV Response.

    Online response, was quite different; whilst online spend had the biggest immediate effect on online reponse, the influence of spend on other media was far greater than on TV. Press, TV and radio all had a greater influence on overall online response than online spend did.

    As a result of this analysis we were able to build two marketing models using multivariate analysis to forecast donation volume by day...for varying levels of media investment...and allocated in varying proportions across different weeks.

    Obviously, the results cannot be discussed in detail. However, we can reveal that the Christmas 2010 campaign went on to become The Salvation Army’s most successful ever.


    This post was written by Bob Nash, creative director, Watson Phillips Norman, as spotted on Right Brain, Left Brain on Cream Global

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Juliet P. d'Arguesse

    Tags: Ad Spend

  • From Hollywood to Madison Avenue

    22 June 2010

    Views on the first day at Cannes from Jimmy Maymann, founder and executive chairman at goviral

    First up was of course our own seminar, a tale of how brands are increasingly beginning to acknowledge the role online video can play throughout the funnel and how creative agencies simultaneously have lost the monopoly on creating content. Nokia joined us on stage to share their experiences shifting video from being an occasional viral campaign into what they call a dandelion approach to content with weekly editorial meetings.

    Creative agencies need to realise that content can come from many sources, that we are moving from months to days in execution, and that the users are driving brands to produce multiple assets instead of one – within the same budget.

    To see a video clip of the seminar click here.

    Comments (0) | Permalink

    Posted by: Josh Colley

    Tags: Content, Ad Spend