advertising

The Insidious Power of Brand Content

Dassault Systemes is one of the French industry’s greatest successes. Everyday, unbeknownst to most of us, we use products designed using DS software: cars, gadgets, buildings and even clothes. This €2bn company provides all the necessary tools for what has become known as Product Lifecycle Management: starting from the initial design, moving to the software that runs the manufacturing process, then to distribution logistics and, at the end of its life, disposing of the product.

Hence a simple question: What could be the axis of communication for such a company? The performance of its latest release of CAD software? Its simulation capabilities?

No. Dassault Systemes opted to communicate on an science-fiction iceberg-related project. The pitch: a French engineer — the old-fashion type, a dreamer who barely speaks English — envisions capturing an iceberg from a Greenland glacier and tugging it down to the thirsty Canary Islands. The DS mission (should it choose to really accept it): devise all the relevant techniques for the job, minimize melting, maximize fuel-efficiency. The result is a remarkable and quite entertaining documentary, a 56 minutes high-tech festival of solutions for this daunting task’s numerous challenges. I watched it in HD on my iPad, in exchange for my email address (the one I’m dedicating to marketers). It’s a huge, multimillion video production, with scores of the helicopters shots, superb views of Greenland and, of course, spectacular 3D imaging, the core DS business. The budget is so high and the project so ambitious, that the documentary was co-produced by several large European TV channels such as France Televisions and the German ZDF. Quite frankly, it fits the standard of public TV — for such a genre.

But this is neither journalism nor National Geographic film-making. It’s a Brand Content operation.

In advertising, Brand Content is the new black. You can’t bump into an ad exec without hearing about it. It’s the new grail, the replacement for the other formats that failed and the latest hope for an ailing industry. But there are side effects.

Let’s have a closer look.

1/ What defines Brand Content as opposed to traditional advertising?

In a good BC product, the brand can be almost absent. It’s the content that’s front and center. In France, advertisers often quote a series made by the French Bank BNP-Paribas titled “Mes Colocs” (My roommates). The title says it all. Launched two years ago, it featured 20 shorts episodes, later supplemented by… 30 bonus ones, all broadcast on YouTube and DailyMotion. Mes Colocs became such a success that two cable TV channels picked it up. The brand name does not appear — except in the opening credits. But, far from being a philanthropic operation, its performance was carefully monitored. BNP-Paribas’ goal was obvious: raising its awareness among young people. And it seems to have worked: the operation translated into a 1.6% increase in accounts opening and a rise of 6.5% in the number of loans granted to young adults (details in this promotional parody produced by the agency.)

This dissociation between brand and content is essential. An historical French brand has been rightly celebrated for being the first to do brand content decades before the term was coined: Michelin with its eponymous guides provided a genuine service without promoting its tires (read Jean-Louis’ Monday Note Why Apple Should Follow Michelin.)

The following opposition can be drawn between traditional advertising and content-based message :

2 / Why the hype ?

First of all, medias are increasingly fragmented. Advertisers and marketers have a hard time targeting the right audience. BC is a good way to let the audience build itself — for instance through virality. It is much more subtle than relying on the heavily (and easily) corrupted blogosphere.

Second, most digital formats are faltering. Display advertising is spiraling down due to well-known factors: unlimited inventories, poor creativity, excessive discounts, bulk purchasing, cannibalization by value killing ad networks, etc. Behavioral targeting is technically spectacular but people get irritated by invasive tracking techniques (see my previous take: Pro (Advertising) Choice.)

Three, marketers have matured. The caricatural advertorial grossly extolling a product is long gone.  Today’s contents are much smarter, they provide information (real or a respectable imitation), and good entertainment. Everything is increasingly well-crafted. Why? Because — and that is reason #4 for growth in BC — there is a lot of available talent out there. As news media shrink, advertising agencies find an abundance of writers, producers, film-makers all eager to work for much more money they could hope to get in their former jobs. Coming in with a fresh mindset, not (yet) brain-washed by marketing, they will do their job professionally, accepting “minor” constraints in exchange for great working conditions — no penny pinching when you do a web series for a global brand.

Five, compared to traditional advertising messages, Brand Content is cheap. As an example, see the making of a recent and highly conceptual Air France commercial shot in Morocco; the cost ran into seven figures. Now, imagine how many brand content products can be done with the same investment. Brand content allows an advertiser to place multiple bets at the same time.

3/ The risks. (Here comes the newsman’s point of view)

Brand content is the advertiser’s dream come true. The downfall of the print press has opened floodgates: publishers become less and less scrupulous in their blurring of the line between editorial and promotion — which is precisely what ad agencies always shoot for. Most women magazines, the luxury press, and now mainstream glossies allocate between 30% and 70% to such “tainted” editorial: nice “journalistic” treatment in exchange for favors on the advertising side. I’m not blaming publishers who do their best to save their business, I’m just stating the facts.

The consequence is obvious: readers are not informed as they should about products. Less and less so. (Although islands of integrity like Consumer Reports remain.) That is not good for the print media as it feeds the public’s distrust. While many publications lose what’s left of their credibility by being too cosy with their advertisers, brands are becoming increasingly savvy at producing quality contents that mimic traditional editorial. As brands tend to become full blown medias, the public will get confused. Sooner or later, it will be difficult to distinguish between a genuine, editorially-driven prime-time TV show and another one sponsored by an advertiser. Call it the ever shrinking journalism.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Pro (Advertising) Choice

A couple of weeks ago, I came to a realization: I was becoming more and more reluctant to click on advertising banners because I feared I being digitally tailed for the next few months. When I mentioned this to friends, I noted that I was not alone. Everyone had their example of ads that, once clicked, become as sticky as the proverbial band aid. This could be the result of exploring a product (read my own experience testing an app), or occasional research on a subject… Your online behavior — queries you send, ads you click on — draws your marketing profile, enabling brands to deluge you with “targeted” ads. A shoe freak will be swamped by shoemakers ads, someone who intends to buy a car will be targeted by automakers and dealers. (I always wonder how the web page of someone afflicted with an embarrassing disease looked like…)

Once you’re caught in the behavioral targeting net, you’ll have a hard time cleaning up your surfing. I recently tested a utility for my computer — a poor quality product I quickly dumped — and ended up having to spend time removing the offending cookies with metaphorical tweezers. Now, I sacrifice a “polluted” browser (and a specific email account) which I use to click on ads, download products or marketing information, and do my best to keep my other browsers clean.

Why not flush the hundreds of cookies piled up inside my browsers, you might ask? Good question. In a file on my two computers, I keep almost 200 encrypted passwords, ranging from subscriptions to various publications, accounts to e-commerce sites or business online services. I don’t want to re-enter these codes each time I get rid of unwanted cookies. Hence the “dirty” browser.

The conclusion is obvious: behavioral advertising is backfiring. The more experienced users become, the more cautious they get in order to avoid aggressive tracking. For advertisers, this is the exact opposite of what they meant to achieve. And I take the trend will accelerate. Marketers have more sense of efficiency than of measure; they were quick to embrace these clever technologies without considering they might end up killing the golden goose. It is happening much earlier than anyone has anticipated.

The debate around the Do Not Track (DNT) system epitomizes this trend. The idea originated at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC): it devised a piece of software embedded in a browser or an application, able to send a signal instructing a web site not to inject a tracking cookie in the user’s computer. After that, it is up to the website to comply or not. Mozilla quickly included the feature in its version 9.0 of Firefox, and Twitter followed.

Early june, Microsoft added fuel to the fire by announcing the DNT feature will be turned “on” as a default on its new Internet Explorer 10 browser set to work with Windows 8. This is by no means unimportant: the vast majority of users do not change default settings in their software. As a result, a sizable percentage of web surfers could end up automatically asking web sites to forgo any tracking. A potential catastrophe for the advertising industry: while most ads are purchases in bulk, at heavy discounts, the industry relies on behavioral targeting to increase the efficiency of ads — and of their resulting margins.

Intense lobbying on behalf the ad community ensued.

First, the definition issue, As viewed by the FTC :

An effective Do Not Track system should go beyond simply opting consumers out of receiving targeted advertisements; it should opt them out of collection of behavioral data for all purposes other than those that would be consistent with the context of the interaction.

Naturally, marketers are in favor of a much narrower definition, excluding the data collection process. In other words, OK for not targeting users, but their personal data must be ours.

In this story, Atlantic’s senior editor Alexis Madrigal makes the following point:

No one understands the industry’s definition because it deviates so far from the standard english definition of the word ‘track.’
Stanford’s Aleecia McDonald found that 61 percent of people expect that clicking a Do Not Track button should shut off *all* data collection. Only 7 percent of people expected that websites could collect the same data before and after clicking a ‘Do Not Track’ button. That is to say, 93 percent of people do not understand the industry’s definition of DNT.

Eventually, Microsoft had to backtrack under pressure from the Digital Advertising Alliance. The DAA is a one-year old body that defines itself as the “Self-regulatory program for online behavioral advertising”; it lines up all the major players in the business, including Google, Apple and Microsoft. The DAA fired a first shot by saying that the “on” default setting envisioned by Microsoft was going way beyond FTC’s definition as well as the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)’s DNT recommendation. The DAA suggested DNT activation ought to be left to users — for instance, when they launch their browser for the first time. As a consequence, Microsoft’s IE10 featuring a DNT set to “on” as a ‘‘factory default’’ would be seen as “non-compliant” and the no-tracking signal sent to websites could be legally ignored.

The battle is just starting. It is unclear if Microsoft will fight the non-compliance issue and what kind of compromise will be reached. (The DAA’s final position will be disclosed in a few months.) In the meantime, digital kremlinologists will keep dissecting Microsoft true motives. After all, according to eMarketer, this year, in the US alone, the Redmond giant will make $700 million in advertising revenue:

This chart also clearly shows what’s at stake here. With DNT-as-a-default, Microsoft is obviously aiming Google and Facebook — and their higher advertising income. Both rely heavily on data-collection to serve relevant ads. It is even a crucial part of Facebook’s business model (see this previous Monday Note: Facebook’s Bet on Privacy) based on people giving up personal data in exchange for its service. A bet increasingly at risk.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Mobile Advertising:
The $20B Opportunity Mirage

There are a lot of questions left to be answered about Facebook’s IPO fiasco, but one thing we know is this: As consumers shift their use of Facebook from PCs to smartphones, investors worry about lower mobile advertising revenues. Is this a temporary situation that will be remedied when usage patterns settle, or do investors have a right to be concerned? Must the advertising industry learn to adapt to a permanently leaner income stream from smartphones?

Let’s start by taking another look at Mary Meeker’s latest Internet Trends presentation from last week’s All Things Digital conference. On slide 17, she projects a $20B opportunity for Mobile Advertising in the US:

When Meeker uses the word “opportunity”, she means “unfulfilled potential”: Mobile Ad Spend in the US alone should be $20B larger than it is. For reference, Google’s latest quarterly revenue was about $10B worldwide.

$20B is a big number, and it got me thinking. How is it possible that the industry’s richest and most sophisticated players are unable to grab such a big pile of money? They have the brains and the computers, they’re aware of the situation…Is there a deeper problem?

A too-easy answer is the market’s age: Mobile advertising is still in its infancy. But that’s an indefensible excuse: The first iPhones shipped in late June 2007, the Smartphone 2.0 era is now five years old. Both Android and iOS are prosperous platforms with bulging App Stores, they sell tens of millions of devices every month, close to half a billion this calendar year. Brand managers, advertising agencies, search engines, social networks, a myriad of vibrant startups keep trying, but mobile advertising barely moves the needle.

We get closer to the heart of the matter when we look at a common thought pattern, an age-old and dangerously misleading algorithm:

The [new thing] is like the [old thing] only [smaller | bigger]

We’ve seen this formula, and its abuse, before. Decades ago, incumbents had to finally admit that minicomputers weren’t simply small mainframes. Manufacturers, vendors, software makers had to adapt to the constraints and benefits of a new, different environment. A semi-generation later, we saw it again: Microcomputers weren’t diminutive minicomputers but truly personal machines that consumers could lift with their arms, minds, and credit cards.

The “Tech-savvy We” should know better by now; We should have learned, but the temptation — and the lazy easiness — of the “X=Y but for the form factor” algorithm continues to derail even Our most “different thinkers”. When the iPad was introduced, a former Apple Director described the offering thus: “It’s just a big iPod Touch” (which proves nothing more than that Steve Jobs didn’t burden his Board of Directors with loads of information).

At the D8 conference in 2010, in front of an iPad-toting audience, a bellowing CEO dismissed Apple’s tablet as just a PC, minus the keyboard and mouse. (And I’ll share the shame: On April 3rd 2010, I looked at my new iPad through PC goggles and lamented the Mac features that were “missing” from my new tablet.)

Now we have advertising on smartphones, and we’ve fallen into a comfortable, predictable rut: “It’s just like Web advertising on the PC, shrunk to fit.” We see the same methods, the same designs, the same business models, wedged onto a smaller screen.

PC advertising has successfully navigated different screen sizes. On a large screen you might see something like this:

Plenty of space for both advertising and content. Even on a smaller screen, the ads are unobtrusive:

But on a smartphone, this is the advertising that’s supposed to entice us:

…and this is the NY Times, one of the better mobile apps.

Mobile ads aren’t merely smaller, they have less expressive power, they don’t seduce…and they’re annoying.

Of course, there’s more to the smartphone misunderstanding than the fairly obvious screen size problem. There’s also a matter of how we use our computing devices.

When we sit down in front of a laptop or desktop screen, our attention is (somewhat) focused and our time is (reasonably) committed. We know where we are and what we’re doing.

With smartphones, we’re on the move, we’re surrounded by people, activities, real-world attractions and diversions. As yet another Mary Meeker presentation suggests, time spent on mobile devices is fragmented:

We’re not paying (a loaded word) the same type of attention as we do on a PC.

Business Insider features an InMobi report on mobile ads, with the following comment [emphasis mine]:

Those ads were served across 6 billion mobile devices. That’s less than $1 per device, per year—a tiny sum. That tells you how far mobile advertising has to go, and how massive it will become in the next five years.

The dollar-per-device statement is a fact, the assumption of “massive” growth is wishful thinking.

When I hear that there’s a mother lode of advertising revenue in location-based ads that are pushed to my mobile phone as I stroll down Main Street (with my permission…I hope), ads that offer succulent deals in the stores and restaurants I’m about to pass, I wonder: Do we want barkers on our devices? Is this the game changer for mobile advertising, yet another kind of spam? LBA may be a hot topic among marketers but the public is dubious, as this MobileMarketer article soberly explains:

The reality is that this scares consumers, rather than excites them. Mobile marketers need to realize that what gets them and their peers fired up does not necessarily move consumers in the same way.

And this…

According to [Rip Gerber, CEO of Locaid Technologies, San Francisco], marketers create their own privacy obstacles when they forget relationship, relevance and preferences in favor of short-sighted metrics.

If the industry hasn’t cracked the mobile advertising code after five years of energetic and skillful work it’s because there is no code to crack. Together, the small screen, the different attention modes, the growing concerns about privacy create an insurmountable obstacle.

The “$20B Opportunity” is a mirage.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Advertising: The trust Factor

The digital advertising equation is outlined in the Nielsen graph below. The Global Trust in Advertising survey released this month (summary on Nielsen site and PDF here) underlines one key finding: For the vast majority of digital users, trust lies first and foremost in recommendations and opinions from their peers. As for the bulk of formats found on web sites or on mobile (such as various flavors of display advertising), they fall to the bottom of the chart. Nielsen’s study, based on 26,000 respondents in 56 countries, was conducted in Q3 2011.

Here are the expanded results (click to enlarge):

By themselves, these figures provide the perfect explanation for the current state of the advertising industry and, more specifically, for the digital ads segment.

Then, superimposing the ad revenue structure of most news medias companies would show an alarmingly symmetry: these businesses derive most of their revenue, allocate most of their effort to the least trusted ad vectors: display banners of various forms (on web, mobile or social), online video ads, etc.

The survey also provides a grim view of what people trust: they put more of their faith in a branded website (58% positive), a brand sponsorship (47%) ad, or even a product placement in a TV series (40%) than in a display ad on a website or on mobile (33% each)!

Even worse is the general distrust of advertising: on this list of 19 ad vectors, only 5 are are trusted by 50% of the respondents.

Let’s focus on a few items:

Recommendation from people I know: Trusted: 92% Not Trusted: 8%
Consumer opinions posted online: Trusted: 70% Not Trusted: 30%
Problem is: traditional medias don’t own these two segments. Social networks and consumer websites do. It’s a key Facebook’s strength to have people engage in conversations around brands and products. (IMO: a pathetic waste of time). Interestingly enough, the social network environment doesn’t boost the despised banners that much: When served on a social network, banners gain a mere 3 percentage points (at 36%) against a plain website or a mobile context. This must be a matter of concern for Facebook’s revenue stream: its unparalleled ability to pinpoint a target doesn’t raise the level of trust.

Editorial content such as newspaper articles. Trusted: 58%, Not trusted: 42%
Not surprising, but worth a bit more thought. It pertains to the level of trust readers put in the medium of their choice — carbon or bits. As expected, a fair and balanced product review written by a non-corrupted journalist (every word in the sentence counts) will be trusted. That’s what I call the Consumer Reports syndrome. This organization deploys 100+ professionals testers — and no ads beyond the ones for its own paid-for services and extra publications. Among its enviable base of 7 million subscribers, half pay $6.95 a month (or, a much better deal, $30 dollars a year) to access ConsumerReports.org — this is good ARPU compared to other digital medias who only make a few bucks per year and per viewer in advertising revenue.

What does this mean for online outlets? They should consider beefing up the volume of product reviews, while preserving the reliability of their coverage. This also raises the question of the separation between journalism, advertorial and plain advertising. By no means should a publisher accept blurring the lines: beneficial on the short term but damaging on the long run. Having said this, when I see a growing number of anglo-saxons magazines making big money from high quality advertorials, I tend to believe online medias should consider sections of their websites or applications harboring such content. But two requirements need to be met: (again) no confusion whatsoever; and editorial standards for what will indeed carry commercial content, but in a well-designed, informative, visually attractive package. One important point to keep in mind: this type of service is typically out of reach for a Facebook, a Google or a Microsoft. But moving in such a direction requires unified thinking between publishers, the sales house (and the ad agencies they are dealing with) and the editorial team. A long way to go.

Ads served in search engine results:  Trusted: 40% Untrusted: 60%
Speaking of Google, here’s another interesting finding in the Nielsen survey: by and large, readers doesn’t trust search ads. To many viewers, text ads popping up on pages, on YouTube video or on emails, are seen as intrusive and irrelevant (to say the least: look at this hilarious site featuring inappropriate ad placements.) Still, search ads account for about 60% of online ad revenues. Why? Essentially because it provides a cheap, convenient, and totally disintermediated way of promoting a product. On this count, Google makes no mystery of its intention to vaporize the advertising middleman thanks to its superior technology.

The digital advertising party is just warming up. The business will continue its ongoing transformation. Currently, digital accounts for 16% of the global ad spending. It is likely to gain 10 more percentage points over the next five years. Not all markets nor products carry the same potential: According to the Financial Times, Unilever currently spends 35% of its US budget on digital, compared with 25% in Europe and only 4% in India. For news medias, the opportunity is that brands and agencies are still searching for the right formula. Brands face an incredibly complex challenge as they have to play with many dials at the same time: traditional ads, digital, web, mobile, apps, social, behavioral. And all are tightly intertwined, creating flurries of new metrics: ROI naturally, but also engagement, sentiment, feelings.

Like elsewhere in the digital world, the most successful players will be the genuine tinkerers. Software giant Adobe is said to spent 20% of its digital budget on experimental campaigns. They test, measure, adjust and iterate.

It is up to digital medias to go from passive to active in the quest for the right model. Their economics depend on it.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

RSS Lenin’s Rope

As I write this column, I wonder: Am I slipping into schizophrenia? My right brain is frying, overloaded by a never ending whirlwind of new digital tools, from hardware to internet applications. My left brain, which powers both my current daily job and this Monday Note, is cooler, skeptical. Both sides look on as the digital wave devastates professional journalism, shredding all value previously associated to it.

Take RSS feeds.

From a right brain perspective, RSS is an extraordinary invention. It provides all the ingredients of modern news consumption: unlimited choices, free access (including to otherwise paid-for sources), easy setup, inherently up-to-date, etc.

The first RSS iterations were rather crude. “Readers” (RSS client software) were spartan but extremely efficient. Now, we’re entering a new phase: RSS “arrangers” or “organizers” transform raw feeds into a rich reading experience, much closer to a newspaper or a magazine. The introductions of Flipboard and, last week, of Zite make Google Reader look like a Finnish psychiatric ward being replaced by a Norman Foster design.

Zite has generated a great deal of reviews (see Fast Company’s ). It’s a marked improvement over Flipboard. The latter is better designed, but offers not hierarchy to help arrange RSS feeds and other sources (such as Twitter, Flickr of Facebook feeds). Zite creates a magazine-like table of contents and, using a recommendation engine, appears to learn from your reading patterns. Further dissection is left to learned tech bloggers debating the pros and cons of the latest iterations of these multi-sources readers.

No matter how perfectible these personal readers are, they undoubtedly gestate the news publishing industry’s future. They successfully address two key factors in today’s media consumption:

- time allocation — I’ll tend to pick the service that helps me to be more productive
- the interface dimension, i.e. the increasing appetence for sleek and fluid designs.(Something Google still doesn’t get: instead of sticking to their Blue Cross Blue Shield-like, data-centric color code, they ought to go get their own Jonathan Ive).

Now, the left brain speaks up and asks two questions:

- what business model for the apps developers?
- how does this way of reading the news impact (positively or negatively) the business models of existing medias?

Advertising is the most likely answer to the first query. In theory, huge readership should yield nice revenue streams. At some point, B2B licensing could become feasible; large firms could fill bespoke versions of Flipboard with internal information, catalogs, manuals, etc.

The second issue is more tricky. Here are some examples.

Below is the Business home page in Zite. No ads, no nothing. In the red rectangle, a headline from Business Week:

Next is the Business Week article as it appears in Zite:

Look, Ma: No ads! No money!

Now, the original story as it appears on the BusinessWeek site:

As you can see, there are ads. Expensive ones, actually. According their official rate cards,  Bloomberg Business Week expects to charge a CPM (Cost Per Thousand) of respectively $115 for the banner and $144 for the square in the right column. OK. These are before-negotiation rates. But even after a 50% rebate, this is still huge: in Europe, rates for business sites are more likely to net a CPM in the $20-$30 range. Bloomberg Business week supports this price with its 12.9m unique visitors audience and its enviable  demographics. BBW brags it reaches 638,000 millionaires, which is half the Wall Street Journal’s purported score of 1.38m millionaires.

The wall Street Journal, precisely. As it appears in the Zite business page:

….Then, in a Zite full story page:

… and the original story, as you can see full loaded with ads (but, for some reason, not behind the paywall):

You get my point: by reinserting a story from an external source in its interface, Zite strips it of any value to the original publisher. Here, I refer to the ads sold in this particular editorial environment. And Zite isn’t even substituting its own value — thank God…

This could be fine for a Twitter feed, Facebook babbling, or any kind of user generated gruel. But it is not fine at all for professional publishers such as The Wall Street Journal Gigaom or Business Insider (I performed the test above for all three.) To a varying extent, these organizations line up writers and editors in order to produce their content. For them, this is the perfect lose-lose situation since their news material leaks into Zite, resulting into content they won’t be able to monetize. In return, they get nothing: no fee, no revenue share, zip.

The agent responsible of this economic absurdity is the RSS system. Medias are profusely generous with their RSS feeds. The New York Time offers no less than 167 streams of various natures. You can reconstruct an entire digital newspaper with those. In doing so, you remove all the value that was sold with this content by the NY Times ad sales people. And if you add feeds provided by great newspapers and magazines such as The Guardian, The Financial Times, The Economist (50 feeds!), The New York Review of Books and some good pure players and professional blogs like Slate, Poltico or TechCrunch…. You’ll end up making the best digital daily you can think of, because, you will end up to be the ultimate editor.

I cant’ help but consider the RSS  generosity shown by all medias (main street traditional as well as digital natives) as another iteration of Lenin’s rope: “Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them”…

At the risk of repeating myself, from a user’s perspective, I find this abundance of great content just fantastic. And as a journalism freak, I carry no nostalgia for the good old days. My concern is simply for the news business, for its ecosystem’s sustainability — i.e. the ability to collect and produce original information. That’ll be the subject for a next column.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Video will be the online advertising engine

Last week, Akamai quietly rerouted loads of its client’s traffic to deflect Wikileaks related attacks. The company, based in Cambridge (Massachusetts), had a surfeit of busy days fighting massive DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. These raids were directed at companies seen as too complacent with the US government (the so-called “Wikichickens”, as coined by the financial site Breaking Views). Akamai’s countermeasures involved quickly moving data from one server to another or, when the origin of a DDoS was detected, rerouting the flood of aggressive requests to decoy URLs.

Akamai Technologies Inc. is specialized in providing distributed computing platforms called CDN (Content Distribution Networks). Its business is mainly to reduce internet latency and to offload its customers’ servers. As its president David Kenny told me last week, Akamai runs on three main business drivers: Cloud Computing, e-commerce, and video delivery (with the associated advertising).
The first driver is very straightforward: as applications move away from the desktop, users need to feel they get about the same response time from the cloud as they do from their hard drive. The same is true for infrastructure-as-a service. All is built around the idea of elasticity: servers, storage capacity and networks dynamically adjusting to demand.
The second component of Akamai’s business stems from the need for e-commerce sites’ availability. On Thanksgiving, Akamai said it saved about $50m in sales for its e-commerce clients who came under a series of cyber attacks. On a routine basis, the technology company stores thousands of videos and other bandwidth intensive items on its servers.
The third pillar is the biggest, and the more challenging, not just for Akamai but for the commercial internet as a whole: the growth of video, and of its monetization, will become more bandwidth hungry as advertising migrates from contextual to behavioral.

A couple of weeks ago, David Kenny was in Paris at a gathering hosted by Weborama, the European specialist of behavioral targeting (described on a previous Monday Note How the Web talks to us). He presented stunning projections for the growth of internet video.
Here are the key numbers :
- Global IP traffic will quadruple between 2009 to 2014 as the number of internet users will grow from 1.7 billion today to 4 billion in 2020.
In 2014, the Internet will be four times larger than it was in 2009. By year-end 2014, the equivalent of 12 billion DVDs will cross the Internet each month.
- It would take over two years to watch the amount of video that will cross global IP networks every second in 2014.

Traffic evolution goes like this :

Let’s pause for a moment and look at the technical side. Akamai relies on a distributed infrastructure as opposed to a centralized one. It operates 77,000 servers, which is comparatively small to Google’s infrastructure (between 1m and 1.5m servers on 30 data centers). The difference is that Akamai’s strategy is to get as close as possible to the user thanks to agreements with local Internet Service Providers. There are 12,000 ISPs in the world, and Akamai says it has deals with the top 1,000. This results in multiple storage and caching capabilities in more the 700 biggest cities in the world.

This works for a page of the New York Times or for a popular iPhone application (Apple, like Facebook are big Akamai clients). In Paris, Cairo or Manilla, the first customer who requests an item gets it from the company — whether it is from NY Times or Apple’s servers — and also causes the page or the app to be “cached” by the ISP. This ISP could rely on storage leased from a university or a third party hosting facility. From there, the next user gets its content in a blink without triggering a much slower transcontinental request. That’s how distributed infrastructure works. Of course, companies such as Akamai have developed powerful algorithms to determine which pages, services, applications or video streams are the most likely to be much in demand at a given moment, and to adjust storage and network capacities accordingly.

Now, let’s look at the money side. What does advertising have to do with bandwidth issues? The answer is: behavioral vs. contextualization. Ads will shift from a delivery based on context (I’m watching a home improvement video, I’m getting Ikea ads), to targeted ads (regardless of what I’m watching, I’ve been spotted as a potential motorcycle buyer and I’m getting Harley Davidson ads). Such ads could be in the usual pre-roll format (15 sec before the start of the video) or inserted into the video or the stream, like in this example provided by Akamai.

As online advertising spending doubles over the next ten years, video is likely to capture a large chunk of it. It will require a increasing amount of technology, both to refine the behavioral / targeting component, and to deliver it in real-time to each individually targeted customer. This is quite a challenge for news media company. On one hand, they are well-placed to produce high value contents, on the other, they will have to learn how to pick up the right partner to address the new monetization complexities.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Expanding Into New Territories

In defining business strategies for modern medias such as online newspapers, the most difficult part is finding the right combination of revenue streams. Advertising, pay-per-view, flat fee… All are part of the new spectrum media companies now have to deal with.

The gamut looks like this:

As we can see, newspapers mostly consist of one product line, confined to the mainstream, value-added news category. By going digital, this segment is likely to lose most of its value (expect a 60% meltdown as expressed in revenue per reader). Therefore, for these companies, it becomes critical to expand into new territories already taken over by other players. For instance, big media outlets endowed with strong brands should go into commodity news and participatory/social contents. This doesn’t mean a frontal attack on Facebook or Twitter, obviously; instead, the new reality dictates using and monetizing through them (see last week’s Monday Note on Facebook monetization).

Ancillary publishing should also be considered a natural expansion: news outlets retain large editorial staffs that could be harnessed to produce high value digital books (see this earlier Monday Note on Profitable Long Form Journalism). The “Events” item, on the list/graph above, is more questionable, but it remains a significant source of potential income tied to the brand’s notoriety. I left aside the classifieds business: except for a few media groups (Schibsted all over Europe or Le Figaro Group in France) that boarded the train on time, positions are now too entrenched to justify an investment to gain a position in that segment.

Advertising is likely to remain the biggest money maker for the two dominant categories: Commodity/Participatory/Social Media and Mainstream Value-Added. Unfortunately, in its digital form, advertising has run in deflationary mode for the past decade due to flat (at best) CPMs, with huge inventories putting further pressure on prices.

Print doesn’t look great either as investments shift en masse to digital; this reflects the growing imbalance between time spent by users on print and advertising investments in the medium. According to Nielsen Media Research, the Internet now accounts for 38% of time spent but only for 8% of ad spending; newspapers are on a symmetrical trend as they captured 20% of advertising dollars for only 8% of users’ time. More

The Facebook Money Machine

An update to this column: According to the Wall Street Journal, any of Facebook’s most popular applications have been transmitting identifying information — in effect, providing access to people’s names and, in some cases, their friends’ names — to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies. See here (paywall).

This year, Facebook will make about $1.5bn in advertising revenue. On average, this is about three dollars per registered user, a figure that is significantly higher for the 50% of the social network’s population that logs in at least once a day. How does Facebook achieve such numbers? Last week, we looked at the architecture Facebook is building as a kind of internet overlay. Now, let’s take a closer look at the money side.

If Google is a one-cent-at-a-time advertising machine, Facebook is a one-user-at-a-time engine. The social network is putting the highest possible value on two things: a) user data, b) the social graph, e.g. the connections between users.
For a European or American media, one user in, say, Turkey (23m Facebook users) carries little or no value as far as advertising is concerned. To Facebook, this person’s connections will be the key metric of his/her value. Especially if she is connected to others living outside Turkey. According to Justin Smith from the research firm Inside Facebook, in any given new market, the social network’s membership really takes off once the number of connections to the outside world exceeds domestic-only connections. A Turkish person whose contacts are solely located within the country is less valuable than an educated individual chatting with people abroad; the latter is expected to travel, has a significant purchasing power and carries a serious consumer influence over her network. As a result, Facebook extracts much more value from a remote consumer than any other type of media does.

Advertisers rely on three main strategies on Facebook, as explained by Frederic Colas, chief strategic officer for FullSix Group, a Paris-based interactive agency. The first one is the fan page. The goal is to manage and optimize user engagement with a brand through community management. Numbers are impressive.
Here are the top 15 compiled by Facebakers:

Getting high traffic on a fan pages is still more art than science; interaction volume varies widely. In a recent study (here, in French), FullSix demonstrated that, within a same market segment such as fashion, the number of monthly interactions per 1000 fans will be 4 times more important for H&M (4.3m fans) than for Gap (0.75m fans) and 25 times higher for Victoria’s Secret (8m fans) than RayBan (1.4m fans).
The second approach uses social plugins (such as the “Like” button, recommendations, external login, etc.).
And the third strategy is more like classic advertising campaigns with an unparalleled degree of targeting: Facebook makes possible to combine precise parameters, ranging from location to company name and the precise timing of an ad with a high degree of precision (find the women above 40 who work for IBM, in northern New York state and deliver an ad every Friday between 18:00 and 22:00, for instance). This advertising resource is self-serve, totally automated, and accounts for half of Facebook’s commercial revenue. More

The lethal self-complacency of advertising

Is advertising the next casualty of the on-going digital tsunami’s? For now, advertising looks like the patient who developed an asymptomatic form of cancer without realizing how sick he is. Such behavior usually results from excessive confidence in one’s body past performance, mixed with a state of permanent denial and a deep sense of superiority, all aided by a complacent environment. The digital graveyard is filled with the carcasses of utterly confident people who all shared this sense of invincibility. The music industry or, to some extent, the news business built large mausoleums for themselves. Today, the advertising industry is working on its own funeral monument. Same mistakes….

Before performing media oncology tests and discussing possible treatments, let me describe which soapbox I’m standing on. Each time I raise the issue of advertising trailing behind the digital train, I get two responses: media execs nod sagely, and later explain how they intend to progressively circumvent the ad food chain; advertising people breezily dismiss my remarks: ‘Anyway, you don’t like us’. Untrue.

First, I’m in the same boat with many of my friends in the news media: a significant part of my income, past and future, rides on advertising. Therefore, my pragmatic self-interest is to see digital advertising thrive.

Second, over my 25-year career, I worked with ad people in many occasions. In the late 90′s, for a year, I even worked at a large ad agency, trying to evangelize multimedia. I met interesting people there, even though I quickly realized we had little in common. And my last job as a managing editor was at a free newspaper: 20 Minutes — 100% dependent on advertising.

I am way more open to this business than most of my journalist colleagues are. No ideological posture or agenda on my part. Today’s note is the result of two years of observations and conversations with digital editors and publishers I met in Europe, US or Asia.

Let’s face it. On digital medias, advertising hasn’t delivered. In the news business, we have a rule of thumb: an electronic reader brings 15 to 20 times less in advertising revenue than a print reader does. I’ll stop short of saying this dire state of affairs is only attributable to advertising. Between inadequate interfaces, poor marketing, and the certainty that, just by itself, intellectual superiority entitles to success, medias carry their share of responsibility in this situation. But, for the most part, it is the advertising community who missed the digital target.

Digital advertising sucks. Both on the web and on mobile. Two main reasons for this.

#1: Poor design. Where is the creative talent? Not in digital, that’s only too clear. Let’s face it: most of banners, skyscrapers, sliders, pop-ups, you name it, merely act as reader repellents. Judge by yourself.

.

These “creative works” end up as fodder for ad-blocking systems. Unfortunately, these defense mechanisms are thriving. A Google query for “ad block” yields 1.25 million pages which send to dozens of browser add-ons. On Firefox, AdBlockPlus is the most used extension with more than 80m downloads and more than 10m active users. The same goes for Chrome whose ad-blocking extension is downloaded at a rate of 100,000 times a week and now has over one million users. For Internet Explorer, there are simply too many add-ons to count.

I spotted this comment in an excellent Media Guardian ad blocking story.

“I work for a digital advertising agency. Along with microsites, iPhone apps and long-form digital content, I make banners. Shitloads of them. And I use Adblock Plus. I also advise my friends and colleagues to use it too. This is because most advertising, online or otherwise, is utter crap. And banners contain some of the worst of the crap. Flickering, squiriming, farting, buzzing crap”.

More

Data Schizophrenia

Let’s discuss a developing data management contradiction. People thinking in strategic terms about the monetization of digital medias, publishers, marketers, are unanimous. Collecting and poring over data has become more important than ever.
That’s one trend.

The other involves the gatekeepers. As I briefly explained last week, we now face a small club of high tech giants — Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo and Apple — who, over the years, acquired an unprecedented ability to gather and process data. As competition is heating up among them, the data they’ll be able to get will continue to increase in tactical and strategical value. As a corollary, they are increasingly inclined to keep such data close to the vest.

The latest example came up with the April 8th launch of Apple’s iAd initiative for the iPhone platform. As Steve Jobs delicately puts it, mobile ads “suck”, his own words for what we’ve been saying all along in the Monday Note (see The future of content navigation). Digital ads suffers from an inherent flaw: they are designed to take the viewer away from the content (again: see Jobs’ keynote speech for details, go directly to the 44 minutes mark to watch the ad chapter). Hence the solution envisioned by the Cupertino boys: embedding the ad within the application – which, in the process, becomes the commercial Trojan Horse of mobile computing. Next step: connecting the ad to a transaction system that will collect a 40% commission fee.

The data? Apple keeps them. Publisher, consider yourself lucky, you get the money and a set of basic numbers. As pointed out by Peter Kafka in The Wall Street Journal’s blog All Things D, contractually speaking, the terms are unambiguous.

Section 3.3.9 of the developer agreement, stipulates:

“Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Device Data may not be provided or disclosed to a third party without Apple’s prior written consent. Accordingly, the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.” More