One of the key slides was a comparison of Social Ad Networks current capacity which we see here. Across the top are the features offered to advertisers with the name of the network down the left hand side.

All advertisers offer standard display units, some offer Integrated (where you can see social network features such as a photo of a friend who is using the product), very few offer targeting (demographic by age and gender, geo by location or profile data by what people have in their profile interests) mainly because of terms of service restraints by the platform. 

The most interesting column is feature sensitive (or deep integration) where the ad networks provide a commoditised way of purchasing features that are intrinsic to the apps (a Resident Evil version of Zombie, a Mike and Ike sweets gift icon on Gifts or an Indiana Jones Fedora hat on Where I've Been). This is the gold seam for social network advertising.  

The only network really targeting this at the moment is Social Cash with its emerging Point Cash technology which allows apps to sell in game points (eg. coins on My Aquarium for example) to advertisers to offer as rewards to users who click on its ads.

This sheet is based on a review of their web sites and marketing documents. Since then I've met with a few ad networks to understand their offerings in more details and am building a picture of which have the winning technology.

Please do add any comments to this post and I'll try to update the framework with the most correct information about the various feature sets of the social ad networks.

I am incredibly excited to discuss the first in a series of posts about the topic of the next generation of online media analytics.

Why is there a resounding silence and echo when I say that? Why is the industry not jumping at the opportunity to apply a more sophisticated model to our efforts?

Folks - this is the future standard!

I'm excited! This is one of the biggest improvements in online advertising since the release of centralized post click/post impression tracking 10 years ago!

Bringing More Precision to DR Accountability
I have recently had the pleasure of receiving a demo on Atlas  Engagement Mapping, which is essentially their application of the "multiple attribution protocol" - essentially providing partial credit for each ad exposed or engaged with prior to a conversion event. For direct response marketers this is the panacea that further fulfills the the promise of accountability that digital media has promised for such a long time.

I have been yearning to apply this type of methodology to the tracking of client campaigns for many years. I sat on a Doubleclick advisory board for about 5 years or so and have always wished to have the ability to easily mine Doubleclick log files to apply multiple attribution to each conversion. It can be done - by using a third party like Theorem or Blackfoot, but it's not an easy, turnkey or affordable process.

Particularly as search became the lion's share of online ad spending over the last several years, marketers have been seeking better analytics on the inter-relationship between search and display ads., while agencies have been in desperate need of a deeper ability to generate insight that led to more intelligent optimization. The industry data just scratches the surface on that one...until now!

Atlas beat Doubleclick to the punch and has set the ball in motion, and all I can say is - "thank you for forcing the industry to progress"!

According to Atlas research, due to the "last-click standard" we have been using to-date, we have been ignoring 94% of the "engagement touch points" (influence) before each online conversion, and that 66% of converters are exposed to ads on multiple sites before the conversion occurs. Up until now we have only been giving credit to the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, if you will.

Atlas Engagement Mapping allows the agency to apply weighting to criteria such as recency, ad format, and ad size, and you can change weighting for active (engagement) versus passive (exposure) variables. All of this adds up to a conversion credit %.

So why has Doubleclick not formally released a similar product? I know this has been on their radar for a number of years now. Well, I can only speculate that a major factor lies in the potential hit to search marketing credit and potential revenue for [parent] Google.  In fact, in the case study released by Atlas, search took a 60% hit in conversion credit compared to  the current last-click standard.  However, Doubleclick cannot, and I must imagine will not, sit idly by as this evolution creates a big value difference between the analytics provided by DART versus Atlas. At any point in time either of these two leading ad serving and analytics systems offer one or two features that the other doesn't, and it's normally not a "make or break" feature. However, this new development is a game changer, and I look forward to seeing the far reaching ramifications.

Note: I did reach out to Doubleclick but have yet to be provided with the official position on where they stand with their application of the Multiple Application Protocol, but I will update the blog with that info as soon as I have a chance to chat with my friends at Doubleclick.

Not A Perfect World, But More Perfect Than Before
Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect closed loop tracking system.  Will MAP be the solution to all of our problems? No, of course not. The attribution of a subjective percentage of post-impression conversions  as it relates to the isolation of online media from other media has been questioned, for years and this argument will re-emerge and take new shape. But multiple attribution tracking brings us a lot closer to the complete picture than we have been up until now, at least within the confines of the digital ecosystem.

A big question I have been asking myself relates to frequency. We have learned as an industry up until now that high frequencies are not necessary to drive response, conversion nor branding effectiveness. This fact indicates digital media's role in an integrated media mix. But it also is somewhat counter indicative of the need for multiple attribution...with one exception, which I mentioned earlier - the mac daddy exception, if you will - the manner in which search and display work cooperatively and the resulting attribution shifts.

Next Stop, Brandville
When this type of systematic approach to multiple attribution credit is overlaid onto branding effectiveness data such as Dynamic Logic, we will see another seismic shift in our ability to hone in on what works best for any particular client. Imagine partial attribution of increased awareness, brand favorability and purchase intent, a dynamic that nobody denies.

A Widening Digital Divide Among Marketers?
If you're working in media planning, buying & management, I would definitely advise you to check out the demo of the new Atlas Engagement Mapping visualizer. If you're an Atlas client already, give your rep a call and try it out. If you're a Doubleclick client we'll have more news for you soon, but you can always inquire yourself. If you are not using either system you may be out of luck for now, but eventually this will have to become the standard for everyone or the industry will continue to polarize the "data haves" and the "data have nots", which is not not a pretty picture. The press has used the term "digital divide" to describe consumers with or without access to the internet. There is a greater digital divide between the small to mid sized bsuiness and the larger businesses who can afford the tools and data to glean insights that make running a business that much more efficient and profitable.  The reality is that data storage and bandwidth costs have  dropped significantly, and there is no reason why these tools cannot one day become affordable for all marketers. Sure certain features will be set aside for the "data-elite" who can afford them, but ultimately it is important that most marketers have access to these sophisticated tools.

Stay tuned for more on this topic!

]]> http://luisestaire.wordpress.com/?p=40 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:43:12 +0000 lestaire http://luisestaire.wordpress.com/?p=40 ¿Qué ocurre si la mayor plataforma de anuncios de texto online para PYMEs compra a la plataforma de publicidad online preferida para grandes corporaciones? Pues que puede surgir lo que es conocido como monopolio. De eso exactamente acusaron a Google cuando en abril de 2007 anunció su interés en la compra de DoubleClick por 3.100 millones de dólares (unos 2.000 millones de euros). Después de tener que enfrentarse a la inspección de los organismos reguladores antimonopolio de varios países, empezando por EEUU y acabando por la Unión Europea, finalmente consiguió apoderarse de DoubleClick en marzo de 2008 sin mayores obstáculos.

¿Y ahora qué? Ahora Google pone en marcha Google Affiliate Network, en añadidura a las consagradas plataformas Google Adwords para anunciantes y Google AdSense para webmasters. Google quiere incrementar la presencia de grandes anunciantes en su red y a la vez controlar más la calidad de las páginas web que reciben ingresos por publicidad. Ya hay varios anunciantes de renombre dentro de esta nueva red de afiliados de Google en EEUU como Target, Barnes & Noble, y Bank of America. Lo que quizás aún no hay tantas son webs para anunciarse. Aquellos que tengan una página y quieran ganar dinero con Google tendrán que ser pre aprobados incluso si ya son miembros de la red de AdSense.

Personalmente, me empieza a resultar un poco molesto y me preocupa que Google tenga tanto dominio sobre la publicidad por internet, pero de eso hablaré otro día... De momento, let's Google!

One of the things that constantly comes up in web analytics/web marketing these days is where to spend money, what is the optimal mix, and what things can we cut because of poor performance. A couple of years ago the easy answer was to kill everything that had a low ROI or low E/R (expense to revenue). The problem with that approach is you would always knock off upper marketing funnel activities like display advertising (aka banners) and non-brand search terms, not to mention traditional stuff like TV and newspapers (which are difficult to track anyways). By cutting upper funnel tactics you'd squeeze your funnel and only invest in lower funnel activities like affiliate and brand-term paid search. Your E/R would look impressive but you are actually adversely affecting your business as you are not reaching a big enough audience to grow the amount of visitors at the top of the funnel.

When online marketing budgets get cut, invariably the first target for elimination is Banner ads. Why? Because generally speaking people don't click on them. There are obviously exceptions, and companies are getting increasingly clever to devise banners/gadgets in ways to increase visitor interaction (which is a rant for another day). But in general, people don't click on them and come to your site and buy. If you use a strict definition of click to conversion, banners are always amongst the worst tactics you can throw out there. So how do you prove that banners are worth investing in? Enter the lovely measurement called 'Post-Impression' and its other aliases such as 'View-Through'.

Introduction

First, a little bit of an introduction into what post-impression means. Essentially, it is the idea of tracking a visitor who has been presented an ad (but didn't click) and measuring to see if they ever show up at your website. DoubleClick/Google, Atlas, and other ad-serving vendors have this ability. You can track whether or not those visitors that were presented an ad on another site came to your site and did things like purchase, optin, downloaded info, or any number of success events you have concocted for your site.

Example...say we put up some banner ads on CNET and you ventured over to CNET and one of our ads was presented to you in the right hand corner. Basically you have a cookie now that the ad was served to you. If you came to our site in the next 60 days, we can see that you were presented that banner ad. If you buy something, we can attribute that purchase to having served you that ad.

Sounds cool aye? You can now run out and say we can prove banners work because we have revenue attribution! Well, not so fast there. On to my problems with Post Impression...

Cautionary Tales of Post Impression

The biggest hurdle in post-impression is you actually don't know if a visitor saw your ad. It is the billboard effect. Just because you have a big billboard on I-40 saying 'Eat at Joe's' you don't know if anyone saw it and actually put that information into their brain that you exist.

So no, we can't prove that a visitor saw the ad, which is why I wouldn't subscribe to taking a full-attribution of revenue when talking about Post-Impression revenue. There is also another reason you don't want to do that and goes back to something I've written about many times here. There is an interaction effect of all campaigns amongst each other. If you took 100% of post-impression revenue blindly, you'd actually be double counting because often these same visitors come to your site through other means like Affiliate and Paid Search. We've actually been using a calculation of attributing 15% of post-impression revenue as true revenue, and that is actually just a guesstimate. A better way, which I plan on implementing, is using 100% of all the Post-Impression that shows up as 'None' under your campaigns in Omniture, as that would alleviate the double-counting problem.

How to use Post-impression responsibly

I stress this to folks all the time, so much so that people inside of Lenovo probably tune me out. In any case, I do propose 2 major uses of Post-Impression:

1. With the Omniture/Double Genesis integration you can see the influence of banner ads on other tactics you are doing. For example, with the Genesis integration you can determine what percentage of visitors that come to your site via Paid Search had been previously exposed to your banners and ending up buying something. In this case, banners are acting as an 'assist' to help other online campaigns. Essentially, you are subsidizing other programs by doing banner advertising. The idea being if you stopped doing banner ads, your Paid Search will definitely be affected in a negative fashion. The key point here is you can no longer look at tactics in a vacuum by themselves, they all work synergistically together to create sales. In fact, some of the tools we use for web analytics need to embrace this ideal even further to help marketers understand how all of their tactics work together and how to optimize the mix effectively.
2. The second major thing I'd suggest using Post-Impression for is to show revelancy of where you are placing ads. Because Post-Impression shows you that someone was exposed to an advertisement and bought, you now effectively know where all your customers are hanging out on the web. This knowledge has some interesting benefits to allow you to maximize your marketing efficiency. Addtionally, post-impression tracking gives you the insight into poor performing sites so that you can test different creatives to see if you can generate more traction (ie sales) for your brand to visitors of sites that traditionally didn't buy your product.

Post-Impression 2.0

As mentioned, one of the biggest problems with Post-Impression is the lack of true knowledge as to whether or not someone actually saw the ad. Hard to prove that they glanced at something on a page unless we start doing some retinal-tracking (which I assume might violate some privacy agreements).

So what is a better way? Gadgets and interactive banners are the best way I can think of. Marketers are increasingly embedding more information into banners that visitors can interact with. By interacting with the banners, you now know for a fact they saw the ad because they are engaging with it.

The biggest problem I see so far is not that we can't track it, but that there isn't something in place for DoubleClick and Omniture to pass that information. Instead of metrics like 'view-throughs' and 'post-impression' I think the next logical step is 'post-engagement'. But right now that doesn't exist within Omniture nor DoubleClick (as far as I know). It needs to be there as more and more savy marketers are going down this path in order to provide rich content and truly measure banner effectiveness.

Ya es harto sabido y conocido por todos que Google posee el buscador más avanzado a nivel mundial.

Simultáneamente, la empresa de Page y Brin es un coloso en el ámbito de la publicidad online gracias a su sistema AdSense y su subsidiaria DoubleClick. Esto le da a la compañía grandes posibilidades de obtener información del usuario, que luego puede ser usada al mostrar los anuncios.

Hasta hace poco Google se abstenía de hacerlo, pero ahora comenzó a probar parte de esta información para adaptar anuncios para los usuarios de su buscador.

Google

La naturale conseguenza di un flop? Si sa che il traffico di content non vale quanto quello di search. Forse che a causa di scarsi risultati gli inserzionisti si sono dati alla macchia e quindi il servizio non aveva più motivo di esistere?

In realtà sembra che l'arcano si sveli con l'acquisizione, nel marzo scorso, di Performics da parte di big G: la società, a sua volta acquistata da DoubleClick tempo addietro, si occupa di affiliate marketing, e pare che a Mountain View vogliano sfruttarne l'infrastruttura per attecchire (e attaccare) anche in questo mercato.

La prova? Questa pagina, in cui è possibile iscriversi al Google Affiliate Network. E qui un'intervista al nuovo Group Product Manager.

Perhaps once technology is understood and the brands involved such as Phorm are familiar then the outcry will die down. The fact is that none of the brands that are involved break the law in any way, as long as behavioural data is anonymous then its legal (Doubleclick put this to the test in 2002 and lost). Behavioural targeting is the advertisers holy grail, being able to serve consumers ads based upon tangible data that we know about them and it's fast becoming a reality. All media owners are seeing it as a way of increasing the price they can charge for their advertising so Yahoo, AOL, The Guardian, The Times etc are all implementing this technology to some extent. One step further and those companies that provide the technology such as Doubleclick (Google), Atlas (Microsoft), Tacoda (AOL) and Blue Lithium (Yahoo!) have been snapped up for huge sums of money as the big players stake their claim for future revenues and make this particular future a fait accompli as a result.

What is interesting is where this goes next for the consumer. Steve Ballmer was interviewed by the Washinton Post (here) in June saying the next battle for users will be played out over privacy policies. As we become more savvy about internet companies using the data that we surrender to them to target advertising then we will start to realise there is a value attached to it. He suggests in the future companies will actually pay consumers for their data in the future.

The outcome? All roads lead to a behaviourally targeted future where ads are targeted to us based on behaviour we've displayed and are probably for something we actually want (is that such a bad thing?). However what must happen is that data is knowingly surrendered when it is used, this is something both companies and governments must think about in their policies as technology has been moving much faster than consumers can keep up with.

Sin embargo llevamos algunos días leyendo en Internet que el programa de publicidad on-line Google AdSense desaparece, y eso no es verdad, incluso he llegado a leer que es sustituido por Affiliate Network, el antiguo DoubleClick que Google compró recientemente.

Habrá que esperar a septiembre para saber si realmente Google AdSense pasa a mejor vida o no, pero recientemente se han molestado en mejorar el serivico AdSense para búsqueda.

En Eurodipity pensamos que todo seguirá igual, desaparecerán las Referencias y se incorporará la publicidad de Affiliate Network. ¿Tú que crees?

If you're a media planner at an ad agency, you know that planning an online display buy can be challenging, particularly in scaling your campaign's reach while keeping it relevant for your target audience. Plus, how do you keep track of the millions of sites out there that might be just right for your campaign?

Google Ad planner is designed for Ad planners only. Using Google Ad Planner, you can quickly create media plans and export to a .csv file, which can be opened in most spreadsheet applications. Or, you can export to DoubleClick's MediaVisor, which helps you manage all your other media planning, buying and campaign management activities.

check it out

http://adwords.blogspot.com/2008/06/introducing-google-ad-planner.html

Google Ad Planner: http://www.google.com/adplanner

Google Trends announced a week earlier.. is designed for all users.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-layer-to-google-trends.html

Google Trends: http://www.www.google.com/trends

Doublclick Mediavisor: http://www.doubleclick.com/products/mediavisor/index.aspx

Amazon, watch out. Earlier today, Google launched an affiliate ad network. Or, rather, it rebranded Performics, the affiliate ad network that came along with its purchase of DoubleClick, as the “Google Affiliate Network.” As with other affiliate networks such as Amazon’s, participating Website publishers get paid a fee for each referral that results in a sale. Existing advertisers include Bank of America, Barnes & Noble, Citi, Target, and Verizon. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/30/google-launches-affiliate-advertising-network-courtesy-of-doubleclick 6/30)

CBS announced the closing of its acquisition of CNET today. The deal, first announced last month, will bring CNET under the control of Quincy Smith’s CBS Interactive division, “the premier online content network for information and entertainment.” (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/30/cbs-finishes-acquisition-of-cnet-quincy-smith-addresses-the-troops 6/30)

Slide and Vh1 excel at making products geared towards America’s lowest common denominator. The first makes SuperPoke, a popular social network app that lets you send text messages saying you’ve done “stuff” to your friends. The latter produces reality show classics like “Flavor of Love”, “Rock of Love”, and “I Love New York”. And next week, their powers will combine to bring you VH1’s SuperPoke!Fest: a four day reality show marathon to promote a new show called “I Love Money” that will give users a chance to see their very own SuperPokes live, onscreen! (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/30/slide-and-vh1-team-up-to-annoy-the-hell-out-of-you 6/30)

Yahoo launched a suite of new Olympics-themed content including a new website from Yahoo Sports, a new mobile web site (m.yahoo.com/2008games) and a special search feature providing shortcuts to help users find Olympics schedules, news, metal tallies and scoring. (Cynopsis 7/2)

The luxury giant LVMH for the second time successfully challenged eBay in a French court, arguing that 90 percent of the Louis Vuitton bags and Dior perfumes sold on eBay are fakes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/technology/01ebay.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin 7/1)

Antoine Antoniol/Bloomberg News

Pierre Gode, an LVMH adviser, outside of court.

For most people on the Web, if Google or Yahoo cannot find something, it doesn’t exist. That has been one of the biggest drawbacks to creating a Website or application that displays itself as a Flash (SWF) file. Search engines could see the file, but they could not see what was in it. Until now. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/30/once-nearly-invisible-to-search-engines-flash-files-can-now-be-found-and-indexed 6/30)

Television viewers are turning to the internet for a variety of reasons - catching up on episodes they missed, reading up on their favorite personalities, even viewing a show's bloopers or deleted scenes - according to a survey jointly conducted by Nielsen and CTAM. But both groups wanted the industry to know online viewing is no way replacing linear TV viewing; 94% of cable or satellite subscribers surveyed said they still prefer watching shows the old fashioned way. Here some likes and dislikes that came up in the study, along with some general trends:

• About 35% of adult broadband users surveyed have watched a full episode online
• Of those who went online looking for TV content, 87% turned to a network website
• The most popular forms were movie trailers (53%), UGV (45%), music videos & news (37%), comedy (31%) and sports clips (31%)
• A small but growing percentage of users are watching shows on their desktop PCs (14%), laptops (9%), video-enabled mobile phones (6%) and other portable devices (5%)

Online ad spending will continue to grow at double-digit rates through 2013 despite economic conditions, according to a new report from JupiterResearch cited in CNET. Online ad spending is expected to increase 19% this year in the U.S. to $23.8 billion with search continuing to be the dominant category. Video advertising is projected to quadruple to $5.1 billion by 2013. (Cynopsis 7/2)

Comment les métiers de la pub vont-ils évoluer avec les nouvelles technologies ?

A. L. : [...] Dès qu'il y a un clic, il s'imprime sur l'écran. Pour un annonceur, cet outil est grisant : un clic, et le chiffre d'affaires s'implémente. On n'a pas besoin d'attendre le verdict des hommes de l'art. C'est là que mon père et moi avons un désaccord. Je pense qu'à terme les plus gros annonceurs vont vouloir maîtriser tout ce processus. Du coup, le métier de l'agence va se retrouver cantonné à l'aspect créatif, qui sera d'ailleurs très important puisque nous allons vers un modèle : une personne, un comportement, une "créa". La technologie va s'en mêler, donc Google va entrer sur ce marché.

La phrase "Une personne, un comportement, une créa" ouvre une perspective aussi intéressante qu' angoissante.
Imaginez une pub destinée à chacun d'entre nous.
En connaissant les attentes de chacun, les annonceurs cibleraient directement vos attentes en créant une pub qui VOUS ressemble.
Le but de ce genre de communication reviendrait à faire des frappes chirurgicales plutôt que des campagnes de masses.
En se renseignant un maximum sur vos goûts, vos envies (par le biais du tracking), les annonceurs seraient à même de vous orienter vos choix.

Comment ?
Voici un exemple récent.
Google a racheté DoubleClick en Mars 2008, faisant du groupe une machine de guerre. Google est le leader des moteurs de recherches sur Internet, et DoubleClick l'expert du marketing digital (Bannières, etc...).
Quoi de plus simples dès lors pour Google grâce à ses statistiques d'implenter les bonnes bannières aux bons endroits !!!

La publicité ne devra donc plus faire de pertes. Les objectifs seront de rentabiliser le produit au maximum.
Par le biais aussi de Buzz marketing.
Qu'on se le dise, le net augure la naissance d'une publicité active, pour ne pas dire aggressive (bien qu'elle l'était déjà hors de la toile).
Une publicité de technocrates et non plus d'artistes.

Quid donc de la forme ?

De mon point de vue (qui n'engage que moi d'ailleurs), je suis persuadé que nous plongeons dans une uniformisation massive.
Les formes, les couleurs et les thèmes "vendeurs" seront adaptés en série à différentes pubs. Rendant le paysage terriblement morne.
Ce qui est intéressant, c'est de constater que ce qui arrive avec Internet a déjà eu lieu lors du boom de l'industrie : production de masse, en série, dans l'optique de vendre.
La suite est connue.

Mais ne crions pas au loup tout de suite, contentons nous de veiller.

In testimony today before the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the Center for Technology and Democracy (CDT) called on Congress and the Executive Branch to work together on closing well-known gaps in the aging Privacy Act. Although the Act provides several privacy benefits, it has not kept pace with technology, CDT said.  In its testimony, CDT made several recommendations consistent with those outlined by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

On a side note, Google apparently supports a federal privacy law. As reported by Reuters and published today in eWeek.com,  Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to Google in May asking for details on the it's privacy practices after its merger with DoubleClick. Google responded,

"Google supports the adoption of a comprehensive federal privacy law that would accomplish several goals such as building consumer trust and protections; creating a uniform framework for privacy, which would create consistent levels of privacy from one jurisdiction to another; and putting penalties in place to punish and dissuade bad actors," the letter said. It was signed by Alan Davidson, Google's chief lobbyist. …

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, was skeptical of Google's endorsement of a federal privacy law. Rotenberg said that when companies push for a "comprehensive" law, they often want something that would preempt more stringent state laws.

"We do not want the states to have their hands tied," he said Rotenberg, citing California and New York as examples of states with tough privacy laws.

For more information, see EPIC's article Privacy? Proposed Google DoubleClick Deal, last updated June 3, 2008.

For Bob Schneier's call for a U.S. comprehensive privacy law, see posting on May 19, 2008.

But this new search strategy could be an example of how Microsoft are trying to convince advertisers that paid search ads (ie Google's) aren’t the be all and end all of search.

As well as the cash back search, it's also worth watching Microsoft’s efforts in tracking and 'engagement mapping' tools which they’re supposed to be rolling out.

These tools (which MS bought as part of the aQuantive / Avenue A Razorfish purchase) claim to give online retailers a better picture of what ads or web content a user saw before they purchased a product on their site. The value being that not all purchases are made via paid search ads - display ads and other web content could inspire that purchasing decision.

Of course Doubleclick has being doing this kind of thing for years (which Google owns). It’ll be interesting to see how Microsoft's product offer will improve on Doubleclick's offer.

Get free news and web content tips by email

Ad exchanges should be very attractive to advertisers and to the site owners.

Most large publishers have some areas of their site(s) that do not sell out. Up until now they have either had to use valuable sales team time to monetise this or to sell at less than the full value to a network who then mark it up when selling to advertisers.

The ad exchange should allow them to achieve the maximum market price for the inventory and as the process is automated it reduces admin costs.

The proposition to advertisers is that they can pay the absolute minimum necessary to achieve the inventory they need. This should reduce their media costs and therefore either their CPA or the price to reach a target audience.

The aspect that was most interesting to me (with my agency hat on) was the automation of the buying, reporting and invoicing process. Buying online media is very time consuming and agencies should welcome any opportunities to free up resource to spend on planning and client servicing. In the UK competing systems are being tested by agencies and publishers. On both the buy and sell side there are significant savings to be made and I expect systems to be in routine use within 18 months.

12.06.2008

http://nibarcom.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=2205

.

.....

Hablando sobre la operación Yahoo!-Google, en Cinco Días

Publicado en el Blog de Enrique Dans, sábado, Junio 14, 2008

Ayer respondí vía e-mail a algunas preguntas de mi amiga Marimar Jiménez, de Cinco Días, acerca de la operación de Yahoo! y Google, y algunas de las ideas aparecen hoy en este artículo, “Microsoft exige al regulador que impida la alianza en publicidad de Google y Yahoo“. El texto completo de mis respuestas a las preguntas de Marimar aparece a continuación:

P. ¿Qué valoración haces del acuerdo sellado entre Yahoo y Google?

R. El acuerdo entre Yahoo! y Google es, de entrada, una bofetada en la cara de Microsoft: pasa de intentar hacerse con la enorme audiencia e interesante portfolio de tecnologías de Yahoo!, a ver como sus movimientos han terminado provocando un beneficio precisamente al rival contra el que pretendía luchar. Y para muchos, el valor de Yahoo! como compañía a medio/largo plazo es mucho más elevado con esta operación, que preserva muchas de sus actividades y le permite concentrarse en ellas, que pasando a formar parte de Microsoft con todos los problemas inherentes a una adquisición hostil y sujeta a un fuerte choque cultural.

P. ¿No crees que es como si Yahoo estuviera vaciándose de alguno de sus negocios más estratégicos?

R. Una operación como ésta puede verse como un abandono de determinadas líneas de negocio, o como una concentración de recursos en otras. La operación, con todas las reservas debidas a la posible acción de las autoridades antimonopolio, parece devolver a Yahoo! a su época dorada, cuando era simplemente un proveedor de contenido enormemente exitoso que subcontrataba el motor de búsqueda a quien le parecía más adecuado: la propia Google fue, de hecho, el motor de búsqueda de Yahoo! entre 2000 y 2004. En muchos sentidos, Yahoo! vuelve a ser, tras el movimiento, una empresa más enfocada.

P. ¿cómo le beneficia no solo en cuanto ingresos (el dato ya lo ha dado Yang) sino desde el punto de vista estratégico y operativo?

R. Con respecto a la publicidad, es importante tener en cuenta que lo que hace Yahoo! con el acuerdo es una maximización de beneficios: no se compromete a servir publicidad de Google en todas sus páginas, sino que mantiene el poder de decisión sobre cuando servir publicidad suya y cuando la de Google. Eso permite a Yahoo! enfocarse en algunas de sus tecnologías más interesantes, como la publicidad comportamental o behavioral, mientras optimiza el rendimiento de la publicidad restante con el inventario de Google, con quien habrá negociado, sin duda, un acuerdo de importantes descuentos, dado el anterior ofrecimiento e interés de Google por ayudar a Yahoo! en la operación con Microsoft.

P. ¿Qué opciones reales le quedan ahora a Microsoft? ¿Es posible una Microsoft fuerte en Internet sin la alianza con Yahoo? ¿Crees que Microsoft ha expuesto sus debilidades al intentar opar a Yahoo, aunque parece, por otro lado, que el mercado financiero ha visto bien la ruptura…?

R. Microsoft es una empresa que nunca debe ser subestimada: es muy grande, con muchísimo talento interno que trabaja en condiciones de muy elevada motivación, y tiene recursos para hacer casi lo que quiera, lo que le confiere una enorme flexibilidad estratégica al menos en potencia. El intento de compra de Yahoo! significaba de alguna manera plantear un atajo, intentar hacerse con una de las propiedades más valiosas de Internet y con un conjunto de tecnologias interesantísimas, sujeto al riesgo que toda adquisición plantea. Pero el que Microsoft haya perdido un atajo no quiere decir que esté perdida sin él, ni mucho menos. El enemigo de Microsoft está dentro de Microsoft.

P. ¿Qué actitud pueden tener los accionistas de Yahoo, que pagaron bastante más por sus acciones de lo que están ahora tras el anuncio de anoche?

R. No creo que se pueda hablar de ningún proceso de destrucción intrínseca de valor para los accionistas. Este tipo de operaciones no pueden evaluarse en función de los movimientos inmediatos de las cotizaciones, sujetos a procesos de pura especulación: es evidente que había quien podría haberse enriquecido a manos llenas con la operación de Microsoft, pero no está ni mucho menos claro que eso hubiese representado la mejor manera de preservar el valor de la compañía a corto plazo.

http://www.enriquedans.com/2008/06/hablando-sobre-la-operacion-yahoo-google-en-cinco-dias.html

.

.....

Yahoo! rompe con Microsoft y sella un acuerdo con Google

Publicado por soitu.es (EFE), 12-06-2008

NUEVA YORK (ESTADOS UNIDOS).- No pasaron ni unas horas entre una cosa y la otra. Primero, Yahoo! dio por concluidas las negociaciones relativas a una posible adquisición total o parcial de la compañía Microsoft, y poco después hizo el nuevo anuncio. La empresa firmaba un acuerdo publicitario con Google. El nuevo pacto le permitirá la inserción de publicidad de Google en su portal.

(EFE)

Según las propias palabras del director general de Yahoo!, Jerry Yang, "el acuerdo con Google será una vía más rápida para la revalorización". De hecho, la empresa ha anunciado que la alianza con Google podría proporcionarles más de 800 millones de dólares al año y entre 250 y 450 millones de beneficios. Por lo de pronto, el pacto tendrá una duración de cuatro años aunque con la posibilidad de ampliarla seis más.

Poco tiempo antes de haber comunicado este anuncio, Yahoo! había anunciado su ruptura con la empresa de Bill Gates. En un comunicado de prensa explicaba que la decisión se producía después de numerosas reuniones y conversaciones con Microsoft sobre posibles alternativas para una transacción.

En esos contactos se incluye una reunión celebrada el pasado 8 de junio en la que participaron el presidente de Yahoo!, Roy Bostock y otros miembros independientes de su consejo de administración.

"En esa reunión, los representantes de Microsoft manifestaron de forma inequívoca que Microsoft no está interesada en buscar una adquisición total de Yahoo!, incluso en el rango de precio que había sugerido previamente".

En cuanto a la sugerencia de Microsoft de adquirir sólo el sistema de búsqueda de Yahoo!, el consejo de esta compañía determinó que eso "dejaría a la compañía sin su negocio de búsqueda independiente, lo que considera clave para su futuro estratégico y no sería en el mejor interés de los accionistas".

El portal de internet aseguró que sigue centrado en buscar el máximo valor para sus accionistas, ejecutando su estrategia de ser el "punto de arranque" para la mayoría de usuarios de internet y un reclamo para los anunciantes.

Microsoft, por su parte, emitió un comunicado en el que explicó que, después de haber retirado su oferta para adquirir Yahoo, las dos compañías habían seguido hablando acerca de una transacción alternativa que, en su opinión, "habría aportado más de 33 dólares por título a los accionistas de Yahoo!".

Esa operación, según Microsoft, "habría garantizado una competencia saludable en el mercado y aportaría más opciones e innovación a los anunciantes, a los medios y a los consumidores".

"Como manifestamos el 3 de mayo y reiteramos el 18 de ese mes, Microsoft no estaba interesada en volver a pujar por el total de Yahoo. Nuestra transacción alternativa sigue disponible a la negociación".

El 18 de mayo, Microsoft y Yahoo! habían reanudado las negociaciones para alcanzar algún tipo de alianza que no implicara la compra del portal de internet por parte del gigante informático.

Este anuncio se produjo apenas dos semanas después de que Microsoft se viera obligada a retirar la oferta de compra de Yahoo al considerar excesivo el precio que exigía el portal de internet.

Aunque Microsoft elevó oralmente su oferta inicial de 31 a 33 dólares por acción, ésta no alcanzó los 37 dólares exigidos por el portal de internet, por lo que gigante informático optó por retirar su propuesta.

Las negociaciones entre ambas compañías han seguido un camino tortuoso desde que Microsoft anunciara el 1 de febrero pasado y por sorpresa su intención de adquirir Yahoo y su disposición a abonar 44.600 millones de dólares (unos 30.000 millones de euros).

El consejero delegado de Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, dirigió una carta al consejo de administración de Yahoo en la que señalaba que su firma estaba dispuesta a pagar 31 dólares por acción (20,85 euros), lo que suponía entonces un 62% de incremento sobre el precio que tenían los títulos del motor de búsqueda por internet.

¿Resistirá Yahoo gracias a su nueva estrategia?

Publicado por JUAN VARELA en SOITU.ES, 13-06-2008

MADRID.- Yahoo ha llegado a un acuerdo con Google para incluir sus anuncios contextuales. ¿Es el fin de Yahoo? Sí tal como lo conocemos, pero su fundador, Jerry Yang, apuesta por mantener la independencia y convertir la compañía en una empresa de contenidos y servicios en internet sin renunciar al mercado de la publicidad contextual. Gana tiempo, dinero e independencia, pero entrega gran parte de la comercialización a su mayor enemigo.

Sigalakos (Flickr)

Yang no soportaba la idea de la compra por Microsoft. No es de extrañar. Microsoft nunca ha entendido internet y Yahoo es una empresa pionera de internet. Su fundador no renuncia a la independencia y con Microsoft se habría acabado. Prefiere un acuerdo con su gran rival para buscar otras fórmulas de vivir en la red.

La receta ya había sido anunciada: conversión social de Yahoo, apuesta por los contenidos y por convertirse en una gran plataforma de gestión de los anuncios gráficos.

Para eso lanzará su nueva plataforma, AMP, con la que quiere convertirse en el gran gestor de anuncios relevantes en la web, mientras continúa desarrollando Panamá, su sistema de anuncios contextuales.

Los responsables de Yahoo defienden que Google gana dinero en las búsquedas de nicho o larga cola debido a su gran volumen, mientras su compañía lo hace a través de las búsquedas más comunes y con la publicidad relevante gestionada en sus propias webs y en otras.

El acuerdo permitirá a Yahoo decidir en qué páginas (de Estados Unidos y Canadá) y para qué búsquedas incluye los Ad Sense de Google, mientras mantiene sus propios sistemas de publicidad y puede llegar a otros acuerdos con más compañías.

Pero, ¿quién acudirá a Yahoo pudiendo gestionar la publicidad con Google?

Google ya domina más del 60% de las búsquedas en Estados Unidos y el 80% en Europa. Concentra más del 70% de los anuncios contextuales y su compra de DoubleClick le sitúa como dominador en el mercado de gestión publicitaria.

Por eso quería Microsoft a Yahoo: para construir una alternativa en el mercado de la convergencia multimedia al dominio del Gran Ciberleviatán.

Yahoo prefiere seguir solo, no atarse a las prácticas tecnológicas y comerciales de Microsoft, que no comparte, y apostar por ser el "punto de partida" de una gran parte de los internautas y el soporte publicitario obligado para muchos anunciantes. Su estrategia puede fallar porque Google ya es la primera web del mundo, al llegar a un 70% de los usuarios frente a un 60% de Yahoo, y en abril pasado se convirtió por primera vez en la web más visitada en Estados Unidos. Yahoo retiene el segundo puesto como plataforma publicitaria detrás de las marcas de AOL y ligeramente por encima de Google.

¿Resistirá? Es la apuesta de Yang: aprovechar el dinero que los anuncios de Google reporten a la compañía para mantener su fortaleza como portal e innovar en búsquedas en vídeo y móviles mientras reinventa Yahoo para hacerlo más social, multimedia y multiplataforma.

Google le anima, promete ser bueno y no ahogarlo ni aumentar los precios de la publicidad. También al gran buscador le interesa evitar el crecimiento de Microsoft. Los nativos de internet contra el más grande de la era del PC, una empresa de la era industrial al fin y al cabo.

http://www.soitu.es/soitu/2008/06/13/sociedadcableada/1213355569_041539.html

.....