Comments on: Enemy of the State: The IAB http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/ Digital media optimization news and discussion website. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:33:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob Hof http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/#comment-99 Rob Hof Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:45:23 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=539#comment-99 Yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing much on the reality of what's happening. Yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing much on the reality of what's happening.

]]> By: Ad Traders http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/#comment-97 Ad Traders Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:53:03 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=539#comment-97 Thanks again, Rob. WIth all due respect, I think ad nets are going to tell you they approved ... don't you think they want a BW article?... also, that's not what I heard in feedback about your article. Hey I'm glad you wrote it - feel better, now? :) - we're talking about interesting issues here. And, I absolutely agree with you about ad networks evolving into something different which is a part of the point of AdExchanger.com - they'll evolve into traders on the ad exchange. I see them using their expertise in the buy and sell side as well as their understanding of technology to take advantage of the next evolution of advertising - the exchange model. This model is in its infancy right now. It's going to move beyond remnant-only in the future, and a lot more remnant will become premium. Ultimately, the exchange brings transparency and efficiency by providing insight via technology to advertising and moves away from the black box of the network model. There's nothing wrong with the black box in my opinion. It's just an evolutionary step to the open transactional model of the exchange. To a degree, I understand the knee jerk reaction of the IAB, OPA, agencies and certain large publishers who feel like they're losing control . Of course, none of their online businesses meaningfully existed 5 years ago so their crying seems a little weak to me, too - they now have skin in the game due to technology. I argue, as do a few others, that the exchange levels the playing field and gives everyone control. Yield optimization companies, targeting technology are all examples of first steps in the tools of insight of the exchange (some may call it a platform.. it's an exchange, they just don't like the connotation right now.). Seems to me you might agree with some of this? Thanks again, Rob. WIth all due respect, I think ad nets are going to tell you they approved ... don't you think they want a BW article?... also, that's not what I heard in feedback about your article. Hey I'm glad you wrote it - feel better, now? :) - we're talking about interesting issues here.

And, I absolutely agree with you about ad networks evolving into something different which is a part of the point of AdExchanger.com - they'll evolve into traders on the ad exchange. I see them using their expertise in the buy and sell side as well as their understanding of technology to take advantage of the next evolution of advertising - the exchange model.

This model is in its infancy right now. It's going to move beyond remnant-only in the future, and a lot more remnant will become premium. Ultimately, the exchange brings transparency and efficiency by providing insight via technology to advertising and moves away from the black box of the network model. There's nothing wrong with the black box in my opinion. It's just an evolutionary step to the open transactional model of the exchange.

To a degree, I understand the knee jerk reaction of the IAB, OPA, agencies and certain large publishers who feel like they're losing control . Of course, none of their online businesses meaningfully existed 5 years ago so their crying seems a little weak to me, too - they now have skin in the game due to technology.

I argue, as do a few others, that the exchange levels the playing field and gives everyone control. Yield optimization companies, targeting technology are all examples of first steps in the tools of insight of the exchange (some may call it a platform.. it's an exchange, they just don't like the connotation right now.). Seems to me you might agree with some of this?

]]> By: Rob Hof http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/#comment-96 Rob Hof Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:46:31 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=539#comment-96 Thanks for the response, Joe. Interestingly, a number of ad networks said they liked the story because they felt in fact it highlighted their ascendance. (And I'd contend that outlet malls add a lot of value that went uncaptured before, so I don't see that as an inaccurate or negative analogy for many ad networks.) But I agree that many publishers, agencies, and even ad networks themselves are still in denial about the implications of that ascendance. Ad networks are here to stay, though they too will have to evolve into something rather different from what most of them are today, no? Thanks for the response, Joe. Interestingly, a number of ad networks said they liked the story because they felt in fact it highlighted their ascendance. (And I'd contend that outlet malls add a lot of value that went uncaptured before, so I don't see that as an inaccurate or negative analogy for many ad networks.) But I agree that many publishers, agencies, and even ad networks themselves are still in denial about the implications of that ascendance. Ad networks are here to stay, though they too will have to evolve into something rather different from what most of them are today, no?

]]> By: Ad Traders http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/#comment-93 Ad Traders Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:35:26 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=539#comment-93 Rob, your response is welcome and appreciated. To be clear, I never explicitly said that you called networks a ponzi scheme - I said that I thought you made it sound like one. Perhaps I was a bit too thin-skinned. But, I believe the opinions of ad networks and exchanges remain under-represented which is likely the function of the balance they must silently strike between two different customers - publishers and advertisers. As for the outlet mall comment, outlet malls do not add value - many ad networks and exchanges do with their technology and services. From here, Rothenberg and the IAB doesn't get it. (and now I will digress.) I see certain ad networks/exchanges/platforms going down a slippery slope and decrying the large number of ad networks to ingratiate themselves with potential or current clients who struggle with their ad network and exchange strategy (see David Moore, chairman of WPP's 24/7 Real Media in AdAge today who "worries" about ad networks who will do "irrational things to gain market share" - or Yahoo! Joanne Bradford's comment on the IAB blog today - Feb. 24 - "What doesn't matter? The majority of the ad networks, according to Joanne."). The point isn't the number of ad networks.. what's more important to drive home is that ad networks, exchanges and technology are here to stay and are providing an important function that will continue to grow, evolve and benefit all sides of the advertising world and, ultimately, the consumer who will receive more targeted and relevant advertising. Rob, your response is welcome and appreciated. To be clear, I never explicitly said that you called networks a ponzi scheme - I said that I thought you made it sound like one. Perhaps I was a bit too thin-skinned. But, I believe the opinions of ad networks and exchanges remain under-represented which is likely the function of the balance they must silently strike between two different customers - publishers and advertisers. As for the outlet mall comment, outlet malls do not add value - many ad networks and exchanges do with their technology and services. From here, Rothenberg and the IAB doesn't get it. (and now I will digress.) I see certain ad networks/exchanges/platforms going down a slippery slope and decrying the large number of ad networks to ingratiate themselves with potential or current clients who struggle with their ad network and exchange strategy (see David Moore, chairman of WPP's 24/7 Real Media in AdAge today who "worries" about ad networks who will do "irrational things to gain market share" - or Yahoo! Joanne Bradford's comment on the IAB blog today - Feb. 24 - "What doesn't matter? The majority of the ad networks, according to Joanne."). The point isn't the number of ad networks.. what's more important to drive home is that ad networks, exchanges and technology are here to stay and are providing an important function that will continue to grow, evolve and benefit all sides of the advertising world and, ultimately, the consumer who will receive more targeted and relevant advertising.

]]> By: Rob Hof http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/#comment-92 Rob Hof Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:55:11 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=539#comment-92 Ponzi scheme? Nothing like that was mentioned in my BusinessWeek article, whose conclusion was that ad networks are in fact evolving into what could constitute the next generation of media companies. I don't have a problem with ad networks personally--and at least specifically in his outlet mall analogy, I don't think Rothenberg did either. Both were created to serve real needs. It's just that the poor economy is accelerating trends that will have impacts on both publishers and networks, which some of them will see as positive and others will view as negative. Speaking for myself, I wasn't making a value judgment here on ad networks. I was just noting that things are changing faster than most people realize. Ponzi scheme? Nothing like that was mentioned in my BusinessWeek article, whose conclusion was that ad networks are in fact evolving into what could constitute the next generation of media companies. I don't have a problem with ad networks personally--and at least specifically in his outlet mall analogy, I don't think Rothenberg did either. Both were created to serve real needs. It's just that the poor economy is accelerating trends that will have impacts on both publishers and networks, which some of them will see as positive and others will view as negative. Speaking for myself, I wasn't making a value judgment here on ad networks. I was just noting that things are changing faster than most people realize.

]]> By: Div Bhansali http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/internet-advertising-bureau-iab/#comment-91 Div Bhansali Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:36:18 +0000 http://www.adexchanger.com/?p=539#comment-91 “We shouldn’t let marketing decisions be made by a technologist who has never met a CMO." Should we also not let technology decisions be influenced by marketing people? Because *every* online advertising solution is a result of a series of technology decisions, hopefully integrated with good marketing sense. Strong commentary, AdExchanger. I'm glad someone is standing up to these ridiculously divisive comments. Div BidPlace SB “We shouldn’t let marketing decisions be made by a technologist who has never met a CMO."

Should we also not let technology decisions be influenced by marketing people? Because *every* online advertising solution is a result of a series of technology decisions, hopefully integrated with good marketing sense.

Strong commentary, AdExchanger. I'm glad someone is standing up to these ridiculously divisive comments.

Div
BidPlace SB

]]>