Rewarding The Best In Advanced-TV Audience Buying

What makes an advanced TV company great? According to Gabe Greenberg, CEO and Founder, GABBCON (Global Audience Based Buying Conference and Consultancy) it might be winning an ABBI (Audience-Based Buying innovation) Award.

“At a time when audience based buying is critical in the TV and video market, we think it is critical to recognize and award those who are leading the market with success and innovation.”

This year his organization received over 100 entries, and winners were selected by judges from such companies as Nestle, L’Oréal, Hershey’s, Columbia Sportswear and agency leaders from OMD, Ocean Media, RPA and Assembly.

I sat down with Greenberg and asked him the following questions:

Charlene Weisler: What makes a company the best in advanced TV and audience buying?

Gabe Greenberg: The judging for all our awards was done by brand and agency leaders, so I cannot speak for them and what they were looking for. For GABBCON this is also a hard question to answer because it will vary from local to national from broadcaster to adtech provider.
In my mind, what separates the wheat from the chaff is the sophistication of the data they apply, the level of automation they deliver and the inventory quality they offer — but that is my opinion, not that of the judges.  



Weisler: Have the criteria for the best changed over the past two years?

Greenberg: Yes, they certainly have. During last year’s awards, we judged on a combination of crowd-sourced industry voting with GABBCON voting. This year 100% of all voting was done by [brand and agency] executives… with a total of 12 judges.

Weisler: Where do you see advanced advertising right now in the marketplace?    

Greenberg: Advanced advertising is at a very exciting tipping point, where more and more companies are taking advantage of advanced data, technology and AI. TV itself is probably the best it has ever been and with the complement of advanced advertising may finally begin to see dollars move back from digital to TV….

As the ANA (Association of National Advertisers) and others put digital under the microscope, advanced advertising lends a nice alternative in a medium that has proven to deliver and is fraud-free and brand-safe….

Weisler: Where do you see it in five years?

Greenberg: In five years, I think we will no longer be calling it advanced. We will just be talking about TV and video.

Weisler: How can advanced TV buying improve — and who needs to be the change agent?

Greenberg: Just like brands and agencies led the wave to digital, they need to lead again. Fortunately, many are.
The move to advanced advertising has not been entirely because of its value and quality. Initially much of the interest and change was driven by necessity because of walled gardens who were improperly scoring their own homework, digital properties delivering non-human traffic and fraud or large players publishers delivering non-brand-safe impressions.

The market is improving every day and there are any number of leaders paving the way with the intent to harmonize data and technology. We still have a lot of work to do together.
However, some examples of progress, although early, are OpenAP, new addressable players like Spectrum Reach or expanded efforts from Comcast NBCUniversal and live solutions that allow for DAI from Hulu and Sony. Every month we have more scale and better solutions. It is a very exciting time for TV and video.

8 comments about "Rewarding The Best In Advanced-TV Audience Buying".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Gabe Greenberg from Gabbcon, November 6, 2017 at 4:38 p.m.

    Congrats to the 2017 Award Winners Lotame, dataxu, one2one Media, BMW, UM, Cadreon, Factual, R&R Partners, Las Vegas Visitors Bureau, Dodge, Cadreon, DISH Media Sales, WalMart, 605, Assembly, OMD USA, Wyeth, Infiniti, OMD Hong Kong, Hulu, Jamie Power, Crackle, Matt Bayer, Patrick Bevilacqua, Boeing and Hawaii Visitors & Bureau, OATH, Videology, AppNexus and TruOptik

  2. B Sass from U of C, November 6, 2017 at 5:38 p.m.

    Does anyone have any concrete numbers on how much TV inventory is transacting on data-driven metrics, via software stacks as opposed to just via media agencies using Nielsen C3/C7? I see a lot of talk about new advanced-TV but it is hard to guage whether or not there is just talk versus real traction. Thanks for any insights. 

  3. Gabe Greenberg from Gabbcon replied, November 6, 2017 at 6:22 p.m.

    Last number I saw was in the low billions of dollars

  4. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, November 7, 2017 at 5:16 a.m.

    As far as can be determined, there is no "linear TV" ad sales business being conducted by what is termed "audience buying" by digital ad sellers. The so-called "advanced" targeting is primarily an indexing profiling system, not one where specific ads are sent to specific consumers based on knowing what products they buy. This kind of indexing is not new. For some years the larger agencies have applied "engagement" indices to Nielsen ratings as a way of refining their buys. That said, the concept of product buyer/user targeting makes sense for a large number---though not all---TV advertisers, even if it is based on profiling, providing that you are getting a true picture of consumer viewing patterns and providing you are buying on a brand by brand basis, not corporately with many brands melded together. At present, a major share of national TV buying is done on a corporate not an individual brand basis. This greatly limits, but does not preclude smarter buying by brands who really care about better targeting.

  5. Gabe Greenberg from Gabbcon replied, November 7, 2017 at 5:57 a.m.

    This would not be an article without a comment from you Ed. 

    I suggest you take some time to learn about the real work being done in the market before continuing to comment on every article written by any writer on this topic. 

    You could not not be further from the truth. May I also suggest you attend the next GABBCON event. Just last week in Los Angeles several brands talked about real audience buying at scale and presented case studies with results. This was not index buying (I actually know the difference). Audience based campaigns are being sold by both digital and linear sellers (depends on the platform that is being sold).

    You are are however correct that index buying has been happening for some time. 

    Sorry to say Ed, but your incorrect and apparently out of touch when it comes to audience buying. Your continued rants on the topic are humorous. Reminds me of the folks that said addressable TV would never happen at scale in their lifetime (this was just a few years ago and they are all still very much alive). Or those who said the Ad pod, Ad length, etc., would not change. 

    I don’t want to do a tit for tat with you here online but would be happy to spend time with you on the myriad of real work being transacted.

  6. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics, November 7, 2017 at 7:50 a.m.

    Gabe, you are entitled to promote whatever cause you wish----after all this is still a free country. Instead of making snide remarks, however, why don't you explain why I'm out of touch and how exactly, it is possible to target "linear TV", not digital TV, ads specifically to particular consumers based on knowledge about the individual consumer's purchasing habits. I stand by my comments ---or as you say, "rants"-----and suggest that you provide answers instead of just labelling me as uninformed, then scurrying away into the underbrush. What I said and will keep saying until it changes is that so-called "advanced TV targeting", which you are promoting, does not exist as yet, in "linear TV". There is a distinction between "linear and digital TV" which I would assume you are well aware of. As for the OTT" breakthrough", I'm all for anyone who can actually target specific consumers with TV commercials and that includes Roku as well as anyone else. But "breakthrough" ---I'm sorry but that's a tad premature.

  7. B Sass from U of C, November 7, 2017 at 11:27 a.m.

    I'm sorry my question sparked a tit for tat, but this is exactly why I ask the question. There is no published information about this topic. Rather, we only see NBCU talk about the agencies dragging their feet because addressable TV theoreticlaly hurts media agencies' entrenched interests  (why buy through an agency when you can buy direclty through a software stack?). We also see lots of startups talking about advances in addressable TV, but the data points are disparate between Videology (see B&C article today), Simulmedia, etc. If anyone has actual facts, please point me in the right direction. I'm still uncertain how big this market is and could be over 5 years. Thanks! 

  8. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, November 7, 2017 at 12:48 p.m.

    Since NBCU has no "addressable TV" capability that I am aware of it's strange to hear that they are claiming that the agencies are dragging their feet on this as it works against their interests---namely their buying fees. Huh? One of the main reasons that agencies have major national TV AOR responsibilities is their expertise and skill at negotiations. Switch the buying function to machines and does one really expect the buys to be negotiated in the advertisers' interests? Will the sellers' supply side platforms really offer the lowest CPMs and free pick of any shows the buyers' machines choose? Not likely.

Next story loading loading..