Search by name, company, title, location, etc.

Maarten Albarda

Member since April 2002Contact Maarten

Global Citizen. Flying Dutchman. Dabbling in Integrated Marketing for clients anywhere they need me. http://about.me/malbarda

Meet Maarten at MediaPost Events

  • Maarten attended OMMA at SXSW, March 07, 2014
    3/7: AT&T Center | 3/8: Textile, 310 E 3rd St, Austin

Articles by Maarten All articles by Maarten

  • Has Anything Changed Since ANA's Report On Media Transparency? Why, Yes! in Media Insider on 06/16/2017

    Digital News Daily Editor Tobi Elkin wrote an article earlier this week asking if anything has changed in the marketing/ad world since the release of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA)'s Media Transparency Report about a year ago. She quotes from three ad-tech company players, whose reactions can be be summarized as: "Not too much has changed, and marketers should do more to retake control of their ad dollars in digital LaLaLand." While I agree that marketers probably could do more, I take issue with the tone of this and other industry reactions to the one-year anniversary that not much has changed. From working directly with some of the largest advertisers in the world, I can tell you that a LOT has changed.

  • A Little Media Island Called The USA in Media Insider on 06/12/2017

    I have been straddling the European and North American continents for most of my professional and personal life, and I have always had the benefit of exposure to both. Let's not forget: the U.S. has had advertising in general, including commercial TV advertising, far longer than most other nations on the planet. In fact, the U.S. has never NOT had commercial TV - it always was commercial. Most of Europe has had commercial TV since the 1960s to late 1980s (in The Netherlands and parts of former Soviet Eastern Europe, for instance). That's right. What you consider to be "normal" is still a relatively young phenomenon in many European countries (as well as parts of Asia).

  • Digital IS Mainstream Media, Agency World Adjusting in Media Insider on 06/05/2017

    Attentive readers will have noticed that today's column has a new name, and I guess we must talk about that first. We are now known as "Media Insider" versus our old name of "Online Spin." I think changing the name of a column is a minor event in the grand scheme of things. But the fact that we're dropping something called "Online" in the name of a column and replacing it with the word "Media" tells us a lot about the state and direction of the advertising and media industry.

  • The Reinvention Of TV in Online Spin on 05/22/2017

    We are just coming out of the annual ritual that is the TV upfronts. The news seems to be that ratings are down, prices are up and commitments to buy airtime have been brisk. This continues to baffle many who observe the TV ad sales market. How can something that delivers less cost more and sell out?

  • Back To The Future: What Marketers Want in Online Spin on 05/15/2017

    I spent last week at The Festival of Media Global in Rome. There were on-stage discussions with global leaders from P&G, VW, Burberry, Lastminute.com and many others. It was an excellent event, and it gave me the opportunity to talk to almost a dozen senior marketing and media leaders. Here's what I heard:

  • Blurred Lines in Online Spin on 05/08/2017

    Marketers are questioning the wisdom of sharing their confidential data, be it media, agency pricing or other proprietary content, with consultancies who are now themselves at the same time (digital) media management companies, data companies or creative agencies (or all of the above). While in the past the auditor or agency adviser was valued for its independence, for some these lines have become blurred, with their impartiality now in question.

  • Coke, P&G: Two Very Different Ways To Handle Crisis  in Online Spin on 05/01/2017

    Last week we saw quarterly results for various blue-chip companies. Pepsi, McDonald's, Domino's, Amazon, American Airlines, Chipotle, T-Mobile and even Twitter managed to delight shareholders with positive results, or at least results that were deemed a break from negativity in prior quarters (Twitter!). Sadly (if you're one of their shareholders), that was not the case for the Coca-Cola Company and Procter & Gamble. These two pillars of the S&P 500 were punished for less-than-stellar results. The interesting thing was that both announced significant marketing news in response to their poor Wall Street showing.

  • Working Vs. Non-Working Budgets: Outdated Metric in Online Spin on 04/24/2017

    A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there was a simple marketing world. Creative agencies created advertising, the media department and the media agency devised a media plan (read: TV plan with some ornamental other media), consumers saw said TV campaign and flocked to brick-and-mortar stores and bought the brand or service. If they weren't buying, then at the very least the consumers' perception of the brand or service was improving, as driven by those witty TV ads.

  • Storytelling And Research: Fumbling Around In The Dark in Online Spin on 04/17/2017

    I think it's fair to say that consumers have embraced the new "stories" platforms to express themselves to their friends, family members or hundreds of thousands of followers. I'm just not sure consumers appreciate or watch those same platforms with the same level of interest when the story comes from Gatorade, Mastercard or Ford. And why am I not sure? Because we have no standardized, publicly available data.

  • Let's Play Ball: Sports Sponsorship Hits And Misses in Online Spin on 04/10/2017

    Many of you know that I am a bit of a sport sponsorship snob. Having worked for two of the biggest global sports sponsors, and been closely involved in the negotiation for and implementation of some of the biggest sports platforms in the world does that to you.

Comments by Maarten All comments by Maarten

  • A Little Media Island Called The USA by Maarten Albarda (Media Insider on 06/12/2017)

    Hi Kevin: I am well aware of some of these limitations. Yet, the ANA exists, as does the 4A's and the IAB. And they collaborate and discuss issues of mutual concern (and/or fall out over issues of concern... "coughtransparencycough"). Limitations aside, I think the real point of my post is not to say that the US should seek more/better industry-wide collaboration. The point is that other parts of the world are innovating marketing and advertising at the speed of light just as much as the US is. And it pays to pay attention to some of those initiatives as they could be imported/adapted to the US just as easily as some of our stuff gets used over there.

  • How I Cleared A Room Full Of Marketing Techies by Gord Hotchkiss (Online Spin on 05/16/2017)

    Very much agree! The other weird thing: almost all of us in this industry are in a B2B role! We sell the capabilities and services we deliver as an individual or as part of a company TO ANOTHER COMPANY (i.e. agency/martech/production/media to an advertiser)! So if anything, we should be very interested in how to do this really well or how to do it better. B2B is advertising to the silver generation vs. millennials. B2B is coffee vs. a Unicorn Frappucino.Oh well...

  • Does Anyone Even Care About #BrandFails? by Dinah Alobeid (Marketing Daily on 04/24/2017)

    I wrote about the "SMFP" (social media faux pas) impact back in 2014. I included some consumer outrage examples from at that time. I think most if not all are usually totally forgotten, and sometimes even forgiven. Some tarnished names make a remarkable come-back a few years later. I think the shelf life impact of outrage flare-ups is getting shorter and shorter. Here is my original post from 2014: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/224480/short-term-vs-long-term-effects-of-a-smfp-social.html

  • Let's Play Ball: Sports Sponsorship Hits And Misses by Maarten Albarda (Online Spin on 04/10/2017)

    Hey Scott: thanks for commenting. I think what Coke did in sponsorship of the Legends event was exactly right. They could do a WHOLE lot more stuff like that had they not plonked down a boat load of cash into the MLB naming rights. "Buy what you need" does not apply to the MLB, especially if you already have the majority of the teams. And to be honest, I know a bit about the ROI on MLB naming rights and team sponsorship. I would venture that neither pays back.

  • I Mean, The Death Of Proper Storytelling Is Upon Us by Cory Treffiletti (Online Spin on 04/05/2017)

    I am with Bobby: can I make an empassioned plea to eradicate the word "So..." at the start of almost any answer/sentence. I. Hate. It.

  • For A Spectrum Cable Customer, Company's 'New Day' Is Elusive by Adam Buckman (TVBlog on 04/03/2017)

    We, too, are transitioning from TWC to Spectrum here in NC. A new day has not dawned on us either. A new logo has, though, so we've got that going for us. We had no other choice to go with the change anyway, as there is no choice where we live. Unless you want to go satellite or cut the chord. So there you have it: consumer choice is to buy Spectrum, or not buy cable at all. I don't think you need to launch a big branding effort if that is your market position.

  • Brands Need To Stop Shafting Agencies -- Right Now by Sean Hargrave (London Blog on 02/17/2017)

    Chris: consultants are often brought in by and paid from the budget of procurement so that argument does not hold.

  • Marketing AI: How Not To Make An A.R.S.E. Of It by Maarten Albarda (Online Spin on 01/16/2017)

    Thanks Joshua - does that include the data that informs the decisions? My thinking was that there needs to be a record of the actual data that helped inform the decision, especially to understand what the drivers of a decision were, and to ensure the decisions aren't influenced by data manipulation.

  • Marketing AI: How Not To Make An A.R.S.E. Of It by Maarten Albarda (Online Spin on 01/16/2017)

    John: Permission granted (with proper attribution of course!). Thanks!

  • Rigging And Transparency -- Brands Are Just Reaping What They Sow by Sean Hargrave (London Blog on 12/20/2016)

    "It's no surprise, then, that agencies try to claw some back through third-party tech deals and publisher rebates."Or, Sean... or agencies are so visibly raking in significant profits as demonstrated in their very public shareholder disclosures and quarterly reports, as well as their reported payments and bonuses for their top dogs, that procurement departments and marketers in general felt that there was a lot of "fat" in what they were paying the agencies and so THEY clawed some back.It is very hard to say what is the chicken and what is the egg in this debate. In your narrative, agencies got screwed out of so much income they simply had to find alternative income. OR... agencies were making so much money, and it was so blatantly on display that marketers knew they could probably dial some of what they were paying down.Both scenarios have validity. What does NOT have validity is that ,whether you are chicken or egg, you decide it is OK to run shady, complicated, made-to-obscure schemes. And THAT is what is at the heart of the trust debate.

About Edit

You haven't told us anything about yourself! Surely you've got something to say. Tell us a little something.