Forgot your password?
Any thoughts on what is going to happen over at Facebook re: ads? More costly and less effective? Small businesses are going to get the brunt of all this, and will have to find new ways to get exposure to their markets. If there are no new ways to find, they can only pay more and run more, which is going to hit them on the bottom line.We are looking at a certain form of personalized video ad that collects data like a landing page if people will opt-in, and if not, they'll give advertisers Facebook Pixel tracking as well, allowing them to generate custom audiences and look-alike audiences.We'll have this innovative technology ready within a week or so.
Maybe the vain visual self-immersion isn't totally bad. At least it offers one the opportunity to check for egregious errors in personal grooming.
another bias article. You are hopelessConservatives have one national new channel and one or two national newspapersLefties have all other print and television news media.
Do these firms ever hire people other than heads of some new department? They get paid tons of money and just delegate work to the staff. I'll bet there are over 200 global heads of something of CEO's of something. Meanwhile, they cut lower level people who do the actual work. I do not know Dave Rolphe. But I know 35 other global heads at Wpp and all they do is have meetings to see what they can claim credit for.
Sorry- not sorry. It is difficult to have any sympathy or empathy for individuals who knowingly inhale crap into their lungs after decades of warning of the ill effects smoking/vaping can have. It also creates a burden on the health care system for everyone. News Flash - Don't inhale crap into your lungs and you might live loinger. It's sad we can't prevent stupidity.
And, by leaving out those aged 65+ they stacked the deck as these are the most frequent "linear TV" consumers by a wide margin while being least likely to be SVOD users or even subscribers. I assume that this point applies to a lesser extent to CTV as well.
@Alan - if that's your only worry, you're lucky!
Bad enough the kiddos will be watching a TV screeen instead of being mesmerized by the beuaty of the Blue Ridge Parkway or the desert southwest. So sad!
It is critical that marketers maintain the abilty to target users based on how they are profiled. Google cannot fully control the ability of marketers to do this via direct deals and replaceent technologies that other AdTech leaders are working on. to the comment about losing targeting is OK since we can direct ads based on context, that is not a substitute! The work I did with the Mobile Marketing Association on targeting the Movable Middles shows that this segment delivers FIVE TIMES the ROAS of those not in that segment. There is no way that context-based ad placement can replace that benefit
Alice, I assume that it's just a case of a big shot spouting "information" that he doesn't fully understand the significance of---or lack of same.
Shit. Can you imagine a bunch of irresponsible drivers looking at their cell phones AND TV at the same time?
I wonder where they get their demos. Global? Maybe a subscriber study?? But if it's anything else I wonder if this is a data matching issue. Of course their content has appeal beyond kids, but 50%??
If history has taught us anything (besides that you can kill anyone), it's that advertisers/agencies will tolerate digital ad fraud, no matter how rampant.
Apologizes Ted for calling you Dave.
Dave, great job. I would say there is another category you might consider. This is ad distribution. Google controls in my opinion, the control of how all online ads are distributed. I want to see all ads made available in any reasonable distribution channel. Google is my biggest competitor and only because of they control the distribution channel. Otherwise on a fair playing field, I would crush them in sweepstakes advertising.
Well THAT is quite the opening parahgraph!
Joe, there is past ad recall evidence that gaming websites perform better than average in ad recall lift studies---most likely because their users are more involved and attentive than the norm.However I doubt that this applies to social media. Nevertheless, the missing link in this study is any evidence that these environments actually produce better awareness results for advertisers. The claim by a handful of respodents that they are in a "happy mood" when visiting various types of sites paints a very broad brush. Much more specific evidence is needed to prove the ad effectiveness point---if it is really true.
I wish Shaq the best of luck, but this "agency" has no chance of surviving.1. It is way too broad in its mission, so it will butt heads against highly specialized companies that could easily bet them at any one task.2. Diversity is important, inclusion is important, but the #1 worry for ad agencies today is simple: is the model still working? Is there a place for agencies? Having an agency sell its services on being "diverse and inclusive" is to fight for token money, not for real budgets. Real budgets are worried about being effective, getting results, figuring out who does what.The ego aspect of working or even shaking hands with the mythical Shaq Attack will surely get them into board rooms, but staying there requires much more than a nebulous mission and diversity.
This mob-as-platform has finally reached its ultimate nirvana state of "be as evil as you can" with this end-game power play for owning all access to audiences through their ecosystem of connected service APIs. The only ethical solution for we slave marketers and their agencies is to stop paying them for what will certainly be monopolistically high targeting tariffs and shift to a more organic, first and zero party fueled marketing. When they launched Chrome over 12 years ago their product manager warned us this was coming when he wrote, "Chrome is an OS". What they told us this week is that it now makes Alphabet the publisher of record for the western web. This level of criminal cynicism and hubris can only be repaid by a revolution of resistance. It's time for us - aka #EverybodyButGoogle - to fork the commercial web towards the true human + business commons it was meant to be.
My take on the cookie is different. First, is the flow of the information. Meaning, the advertisers create the interest of the individual to visit the website. Once this happens the individual's information creates the cookie. The advertiser has pretty basic information about the individual.However when the advertiser creates a sweepstakes or contest, the amount of collected is specific and exponentially. Further this information doesn't' end up in the hands of their competitors with the majority of the sweep sponsors. Which is in the individual best privacy interest.So when the cookie is removed, the basic information is removed from the individual's computer but is still collected in the cloud. So cookies will still exist but by the name is changed in the cloud by Google's choosing.
Addressing Mr. David Temkin, Google Manager, you have been placing my company into a group called: "Online Gambling" for years. As you may know, Sweepstakes Today LLC is the plaintiff against Google over a number of issues that are very real and legit. Google has not show any "Trust" as you say against my company in a very long time by labeling, putting me in a "Group" that suggest that ST is a "Gambling" website. See you in court.
A&E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetimve, FYI etc.) doesn't have a "big tent" streamer yet. They're half owned by Disney and I suspect Disney is preventing them from offering one so that A&E doesn't provide yet more competition. I know Disney+ offers some A&E content and I believe I've read articles about some agreements that A&E is licensing out other shows to Peacock and Viacom+ if my memory is correct. I suspect if Disney buys a competitor in a few years (everyone thinks there will have to be some sort of whittling down of major streamers- not all of them can suceed, right?) they can point to A&E's licensing deals (the fact that not all of A&E content is on Disney) as "proof" that they're not uncompetitive and out to squish everyone (or at least everyone who isn't Netflix...)Anyway, my two cents on A&E and why they don't have a "big tent" streaming service.
So how do they "group" my interests without violating my Privacy? Seems they already have, now they want to re-package their snooping so we think we all have a clean, virgin-pure slate. Sell that to your millennial partners in crime.