As the media planning cycle for 2010 kicks into high gear, I expect the arguments about performance between ad networks, portals, and "premium publishers" to heat up. Traditionally, each group owned a sizable slice of the overall digital advertising pie, but the 2009 prospect of being left with only crumbs resulted in an industry media blitz to demonstrate which approach was most effective.
This issue reached tantrum-level decibels last August when the Online Publishers Association - a trade group that represents creators of Web content such as ESPN.com, The Wall Street Journal, and New York Times Co. - released a study showing that content sites greatly outperformed portals and networks in terms of 'online ad awareness'. This study was covered with great fanfare by (surprise!) the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. ESPN.com editors no doubt slapped each other on the rear, as athletic types are known to do.
The debate that followed was akin to a session of British parliament, albeit with the words "purchase intent" and "accountability" in lieu of the traditional "poppycock" and "balderdash!"
From our perch at 1 Betawave Tower, we were surprised that all three groups focused on the performance of display ads, those adorable graphical banner things, as the primary vehicle to measure campaign success. Given that digital advertising budgets are also called "interactive budgets", wouldn't a more encompassing view of all the possible interactions with an advertiser give a better view on performance?
In our experience, yes, this is unequivocally true. We learn more about a target audience by observing their participation with branded content - material that the advertiser integrates into the site - than by simply monitoring impressions, click-through rates, and asking folks to take surveys. We learn about their perception of a brand by quantifying the amount of audience participation with branded content, how long each session lasts, and if they are willing to share it with others.
The challenge is evaluating and understanding the infinite combinations of data that result from measuring the entire spectrum of possible interactions on any given website. We marry advertiser objectives to interactivity data that best approximates the ultimate goal of the campaign. For example, if a brand is seeking maximum engagement through time and participation, we focus on immersive content like branded games. If an advertiser is seeking acquisitions on a social media platform, we activate blogging networks to form an editorial funnel leading to the brand's Facebook or Twitter page.
Each path includes a finite number of critical interactions that act as key performance indicators for a campaign. In the branded game approach, for example, the variance between "game started" and "game completed" is a crucial metric. And much like standard media, there are optimization strategies to improve these KPIs.
An additional piece of good news is that standard media serves as a consistent, reliable barometer within this maelstrom of data. We look at the traditional media performance metrics (impressions, CTR, post-click actions, etc.) in parallel with the more customized engagement metrics noted above. The positive correlation between participation with branded content and high levels of interaction with standard media are striking. In essence, the media works harder when the advertiser has also invested in the content that the audience already values.
Display ads will always be a key component in this media mix, but discussions about performance should go beyond the type of media vendor. Performance and effectiveness are not predetermined by using a network instead of a single site, or vice versa. What matters are the relevance, integration, and placement of your message within the content that your audience clearly values. Regardless of the type of vendor, thinking about branded content is crucial as decisions are made about how to apportion budgets this year.