• by Tyler Loechner , Staff Writer @mp_tyler, November 10, 2014

The real currency of digital advertising -- data -- is a blessing and a curse for programmatic traders. It’s how marketers can feel differentiated, but it’s also where marketers can feel insufficient and overwhelmed.

Matt Westover, GM of Turn’s data management platform (DMP), Audience Suite, contends that brands are resting their data laurels on targeting and ad delivery, leaving opportunities on the table as a result. He believes brands are “wasting a ton of good data.”

Real-Time Daily caught up with Westover to see what he thinks brands are missing and what they can do to change that. He said in the past year, he has seen marketers using DMPs more effectively. Ten years ago, he said, the industry didn’t have the tools to solve cross-channel problems, but today’s DMPs allow marketers to do so.

As Westover noted, marketers are also able to use their data for more than targeting and delivery. For example, Kraft, a Turn client, is now rejecting 75% to 85% of the impressions it sees in real-time bidding (RTB) environments, according to Julie Fleischer, director of data, content and media and Kraft Foods Group. Fleischer revealed that information at the recentAd Age Data Conference in New York.

We’ll pick it up from there.

Real-Time Daily: Why is Kraft rejecting 75% to 85% of the impressions it sees viewed as a good thing?

Matt Westover: That doesn’t seem good, but it actually is because what they are able to do is be really selective.

To reject 75% to 85% of impressions, you better do a couple of things to make sure you can be selective: Onboarding as much of your audience data as possible, to be able to target the audiences you want to.

Kraft, for example, has 22,000 different data points and also pushed in their CRM data. They have this great road map of other things to push in: offline publications, tying in their email systems, etc.

RTD: How does the buyer reject impressions? One would assume the publisher rejects more impressions.

Westover: They’re creating an audience target in our platform -- a significant audience that they want to reach. Then they are saying: “All right, now when an impressions comes in on the Turn platform, and I’m targeting that audience, I want to do a couple of different business rule checks. I want to make sure that I’m on this type of content, with this viewability rate, etc.”

Our content partners can check the URL to see if it matches up with the types of content that [the buyer] want to be associated with, and our viewability partners can measure the viewability of the ad.

If it doesn’t meet those “business rules” or stopping points, then they aren’t going to accept the ad. If they want to accept the ad, the final check is: “How valuable is this potential impression?” We put together that predictive “value” and send it in.

So 75% to 85% of the time, Kraft is rejecting impressions based upon those three different basic business rules: Does it match my audience strategy? Does it match my content strategy? Does it match my viewability criteria?

RTD: Is Kraft unique here? Are they one of the only brands that’s doing it “right” by your measure?

Westover: They are, but if we would have spoken about them six months ago, we would have said they were really unique. There are more people that are realizing that they need to take control over their own data assets. Kraft made an internal person who was responsible for leveraging all of their data (Julie Fleischer). She is empowered internally to make sure they are getting all of the data assets they need.

We’re starting to see that with some of our other clients here as well. One in the cable/TV area, and there are several finance clients that have really opened up their data sources.

RTD: Are those companies assuming more “personal” responsibility over their data and campaigns? Are they appointing in-house people similar to what Kraft did?

Westover: They are. That’s been the tipping point in a lot of these. Oftentimes when we have a new partner that we’re working with, we dedicate somebody that we [essentially] insert into their organization -- as sort of a “project manager” if you will -- to be there and try to chase the various people that own these different data sets.

We actually see that it’s working very well when someone is internally appointed and empowered to make sure that they’re going to the person that owns the email campaign, going to the person that owns search, for example. A person going to all of those different areas and saying: “This data needs to come in to this system because it’s going to benefit the entire marketing organization as a whole.”

RTD: In the past six months, that’s the amount of time it’s taken for you to really see more brands use their data this way. Would you say that the majority of brands are still not using as much data as they could be, or you feel they should be?

Westover: Yeah, absolutely. Even if you look at the majority of brands that are out there, most of them haven’t selected a DMP yet. One -- they’re not leveraging that as a technology practice and two -- even the ones that have, they’re not leveraging as much data as they can.

RTD: Why is that?

Westover: I think it’s just traditionally how a lot of marketing departments have been set up. Take a multichannel retailer, for example. You’ve got someone that’s been responsible for decades for the catalogue model. You’ve got a very different person that’s in charge of all the email campaigns. You’ve got somebody else that’s responsible for search, and maybe search isn’t even in-house. You’ve got somebody else that’s responsible for digital marketing.

You’ve got data that’s living in different systems, owned by different people, some of which may not even be internal to the actual brand itself. The most successful brands we’ve seen are ones that appoint someone in-house to take control over their data.

RTD: Obviously, as the GM for Turn’s data management platform, you want brands to be working with a DMP because it gives you business. But does Turn have any interest in brands appointing someone in-house to oversee their own data, or is that really just your objective opinion?

Westover: It certainly helps us in that it makes it smoother for them to work with us; [but] I’ve seen the clients that have appointed people in-house to oversee data get better results. 

While it may sound self-serving to say “they need to do this" -- because then we don’t need to embed somebody in the company -- everything has been working so much better when the brand does have a person who has been appointed internally as the data czar or whatever you want to call it.

RTD: Data Czar, I like that. You know someone, somewhere has that title.

Westover: For sure, or at least they are lobbying for it.

RTD: You said the majority of brands still aren’t handling their data as well as they could. Why is that? Is it too overwhelming? Are they afraid they may set themselves back if they mess it up?

Westover: I think there’s potentially some fear. I think there’s probably fear of “this sounds complex.”

RTD: Have the floodgates opened, though? In terms of brands doing more to own their data? Or is there still an overarching sense of resistance? What will we see a year from now?

Westover: I wouldn’t define it as resistance, just apprehension around the size of the endeavor. We’re certainly seeing a lot of momentum, but it really depends on the marketer: the structure of their organization, the type of business they are running, etc.

Finance has been a big industry we’ve seen a lot of movement from. I think that’s because they have traditionally been extremely data-driven; it’s very important for them to use data to be selective. Retailers, finance and CPG are coming on strong now.