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.