Home Ad Exchange News Transparency Vs. Performance: Marketers Shouldn’t Have To Choose

Transparency Vs. Performance: Marketers Shouldn’t Have To Choose

SHARE:

sam-struq“Data Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Today’s column is by Sam Barnett, CEO at Struq. The piece is a response to our recent column, “DSPs Vs. Personalized Retargeters. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?” Read it

A recent AdExchanger column claimed that DSPs are becoming the “must have” for any serious direct response marketer, and that having separate relationships with personalized retargeting companies using opaque pricing models does not make sense.

I absolutely agree that transparency across the board is the future of this industry. However the thought that DSPs, with all of their admirable transparency and control functionality, can come close to replicating the post click performance of personalized retargeting is unrealistic. We’re talking performance that is often higher than search.

The next step for the industry is to provide a situation where marketers don’t have to choose, where they can get the performance of personalized retargeting as well as the transparency and control of a DSP. Below are some thoughts on how to get there.

The personalized retargeting sector needs to adopt a transparent model.
Of course marketers want transparency; they need to know what sites their ads run on for brand protection and other reasons. Likewise, some clients (especially agencies) want to work on a transparent commercial basis, for which the CPM metric is appropriate. That said, some marketers prefer a CPC because it’s a performance metric. I believe it’s about giving them options, making sure that they understand those options, and then letting them decide what’s best for their business.

Transparency is one thing, but marketers also need control over their campaigns so that they can manage their overall marketing objectives and their end customer experience. First and foremost, marketers require frequency-capping control so they can manage their customers’ experience — ensuring ads stay relevant and don’t become intrusive. Controls should also extend to enabling advertisers to alter ad content, including what products appear, and making changes to dynamic creative messaging and creative optimization processes in real time.

Marketers want transparency, but they also want technology that can deliver incremental performance at scale. Delivering post click performance at scale is about finding the right user in the right context and then showing them the right product. RTB inventory is growing at a rapid rate, but Forrester states that only 19% of display media was bought in 2012 through exchanges.

I’m sure this number will grow rapidly, but if you only buy RTB inventory, it means that you don’t have the maximum reach to distribute ads. The effect for marketers using a DSP is that you are not able to show the user ads on all the websites where they are likely to convert, resulting in a less efficient use of ad spend. Scale and optimization capabilities across both RTB and non-RTB environments is critical to deliver post click performance at scale for marketers.

Make buying display easier for marketers. While transparency is an extremely important issue for the industry, it is not the only factor a marketer has in the buying decision. In 2013 we should make transparency a non-issue, and let marketers focus on the things which actually add value (like incremental performance and exceptional creative that enhance brands and show uplift in other channels).

Personalized retargeting has become vital for marketers, especially those who value post-click performance. Instead of being in denial about its validity we should look at ways to make it better, so that marketers don’t have to choose between transparency and control, and performance and reach.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Follow Sam Barnett (@barnettsam) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

 

 

 

 

Must Read

Amazon Ads Is All In On Simplicity

“We just constantly hear how complex it is right now,” Kelly MacLean, Amazon Ads VP of engineering, science and product, tells AdExchanger. “So that’s really where we we’ve anchored a lot on hearing their feedback, [and] figuring out how we can drive even more simplicity.”

Betrayal, business, deal, greeting, competition concept. Lie deception and corporate dishonesty illustration. Businessmen leaders entrepreneurs making agreement holding concealing knives behind backs.

How PubMatic Countered A Big DSP’s Spending Dip In Q3 (And Our Theory On Who It Was)

In July, PubMatic saw a temporary drop in ad spend from a “large” unnamed DSP partner, which contributed to Q3 revenue of $68 million, a 5% YOY decline.

Paramount Skydance Merged Its Business – Now It’s Ready To Merge Its Tech Stack

Paramount Skydance, which officially turns 100 days old this week, released its first post-merger quarterly earnings report on Monday.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
The Arena Group's Stephanie Mazzamaro (left) chats with ad tech consultant Addy Atienza at AdMonsters' Sell Side Summit Austin.

For Publishers, AI Gives Monetizable Data Insight But Takes Away Traffic

Traffic-starved publishers are hopeful that their long-undervalued audience data will fuel advertising’s automated future – if only they can finally wrest control of the industry narrative away from ad tech middlemen.

Q3: The Trade Desk Delivers On Financials, But Is Its Vision Fact Or Fantasy?

The Trade Desk posted solid Q3 results on Thursday, with $739 million in revenue, up 18% year over year. But the main narrative for TTD this year is less about the numbers and more about optics and competitive dynamics.

Comic: He Sees You When You're Streaming

IP Address Match Rates Are a Joke – And It’s No Laughing Matter

According to a new report, IP-to-email matches are accurate just 16% of the time on average, while IP-to-postal matches are accurate only 13% of the time. (Oof.)