• by David L. Smith , January 6, 2003

Last time, before I disappeared with the family for several weeks in Thailand, I wrote about things that I had learned from articles in the first six months of 2002. Today I am completing the review with a look at learning from the second six months of 2002. As I said a the start of the last article, “The writing I do produces a lot of learning. And it does not always get the response I expect. (Which is good). When you write regularly, you think you have it down cold and then somebody comes in and levels you, trying to show you how stupid your position is. The two-way dialogue of the Web is a very humbling experience. But, it is also exhilarating. You also get to enjoy the kudos of your peers, make contact with folks that you may not have talked to in a long time, and most of all, learn. In the end, I am in the media business because it keeps my brain going. And the writing I have been doing over the past several years helps me to learn a tremendous amount.”

Also, as always, there was a ton of learning and comments in the articles from July on, so by definition, this will be a summary and cannot possibly include all comments and all views on every article.

Reach and Frequency/Optimization/Frequency Capping

I wrote more than several times about topics related to this and referred to R/F and performance of branding campaigns in other articles. One thing is clear. Not everybody is using the same definitions. Some folks believe that there are no industry standards for terminology so we cannot possibly agree or even discuss this. The ARF has done a good job of nailing down common nomenclature as it relates to the Internet and compares to traditional media. Sure, all of the work is not yet done on this but the work involved in a number of ARF initiatives is worth studying before one says that there are no standards happening. Joining can be surprisingly affordable, and they are always looking for involvement from new members.

Regarding frequency capping, I got more reader interaction, both on the Spin board and to me privately on this than most articles. Including a number of meetings in person, via the Web and over the phone with many who are trying to develop or believe that they already have a solution to this problem. But after six months of discussions, I am convinced that no current solution exists that can be globally deployed. Why do we want to cap frequency? Because a) we should be able to do it technologically and b) we have been told for some time that we can. So here is my conclusion based on more input that almost any other topic this year:

Tracking R/F accumulation while the campaign is running is felt to be especially important by many agency executives. This is partly due to the fact that the much-ballyhooed concept of frequency capping for a campaign has recently been uncovered to be undeliverable. Many of us have bought into the concept of frequency capping based on sales pitches by the third party ad serving companies. In fact, several of these companies apparently just read the headline of my frequency-capping article and wrote that they could frequency cap. But the reality is that their technology and that of others is based on frequency of exposure of a single ad or the ads served by their publisher affiliates, not a full campaign from an advertiser standpoint. This is better control than we have on other media but is not what it seems on the surface. Once that ad reaches its cap, another ad from the same advertiser must be substituted under the inventory control systems currently in place. Thus, the overall campaign can have no cap under the current system. Individual sites, networks or publisher side systems also can cap frequency for a specific advertiser’s campaign if they serve all of the ads for that campaign. But in order for frequency capping to be executed across a whole campaign of multiple sites, a universal cookie will need to be deployed. Companies like Tacoda are working on this concept but their “distribution” is not yet that of the third party ad servers. An alternative way for this concept to be executed would be if it had cooperation from all of the major vendors and carefully constructed so as to avoid any privacy issues.

Send Me Your Stories

Sorry, sorry, sorry. I will now do five pushups to indicate my displeasure with myself for not getting the follow up article to this out. I never anticipated the amount of built up angst over what I called “Tin Man” practices. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to organize the comments and do more on revealing shoddy practices that hold the Internet back. Even though you don’t all want to hear about them.

Pop-ups Are Here to Stay

As a build on a Jim Meskauskas column, I reported on an analyst’s rationale as to the long-term viability of pop-ups. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, everyone seems to have an opinion. This was another case where folks read the headline, thought I supported them and went off big time. Stating a fact I think is true—that they will be around—is different from “I love them.” Are they effective? Yes. Do I wish they were not around? Yes. But, they are. All the same, thanks. I’ve never been called nauseating before.

Sequential Liability

Mea culpa on this one. I blamed some of the media non-acceptance of sequential liability on the major agency non-adoption of this concept…

jensign wrote: “Sequential liability, not joint and several liability, has been the AAAA's formal position since 1991. Their stated policy is ‘The agency shall be solely liable for payment of all media invoices if the agency has been paid for those invoices by the advertiser. Prior to payment to the agency, the advertiser shall be solely liable.’"

I am looking forward to a lively continuation of all of our conversations on the Spin Board this year. Apologies if I did not answer every comment completely. You can always write me directly if you wish to continue a conversation off-line. Although it’s nice to do it on the Spin Board wherever possible.

Here’s to a great 2003!

David L. Smith is President and CEO of Mediasmith, Inc.