In the past year, I have been busy preaching to advertisers and agencies to look at search and display as complementary channels and analyze their performance in a holistic manner (disclaimer: Eyeblaster offers a product called Channel Connect for Search designed to help agencies and advertisers in this type of holistic cross channel analysis). I have been pushing the mantra that display is an upper funnel channel, while search is a lower funnel channel and together they should complement and assist each other in driving conversions. Therefore, I have been saying that comparing the two channels is wrong and that the right approach is to analyze the entire path to conversion while focusing on the synergy created by using both channels together. Well, I still strongly stand behind my mantra but recently I have seen several cases where path to conversion and cross channel synergy analysis was not feasible since there was no overlap between search and display (i.e. only few users were exposed to both display ads and search ads). The main reason for the low overlap was poor cross channel planning and execution prior to the campaign launch, which led to lack of synchronization between the search and display campaigns. This made me realize that in my recommendations I did not emphasize enough the critical phase of the campaign pre-launch. The pre-launch phase, which includes planning and execution, is the underlying basis for successful analysis at the end of the campaign (or at any other stage) and therefore it is critical to apply the holistic approach during this stage as well. But what does this actually mean?


Here’s a list of best practices that I recommend for holistic cross channel campaign planning and execution:


1. Campaign objectives synch – to drive the desired results, the search and display campaigns must share the same objective. Whether it is selling a product, building brand awareness or simply driving traffic to the site, it is critical that both search and display campaigns share the exact same objective. This is the single most import aspect of the synchronization between search and display.


2. Target audience synch – this goes without saying. The same audience should be targeted across search and display and that requires synching display targeting tactics with keyword bidding strategy. For example, if you target your display ads to a specific geographic area (e.g. a new compact car geo-targeted to NYC and SF metros) then make sure that you bid on search keywords which include relevant geo terms (e.g. name of car + “NYC” or “SF”).


3. Creative synch – it is critical to make sure that the creative messages are synched across search and display to communicate a cohesive message throughout the consumer’s path which will lead to a conversion at the end of it. For example, if the display creative highlights a certain feature in your product, make sure that you bid on the relevant search keywords for this feature and that the search ad copy will highlight the same product feature.


4. Campaign set up synch – from an execution perspective it is critical to properly synch the landing pages and conversion tags across the search and display campaigns. The display and search campaigns should use the same landing pages and conversion tags to allow tracking the entire path to conversion and de-duplication of conversions between search and display.


5. Campaign periods synch – finally, it is important to properly plan the search and display campaigns launch and end dates. This is particularly critical in cases when the conversion/purchase funnel is short so the search and display campaigns should overlap in their start and end date. In these cases, if one of the campaigns launches too late, there will be missed opportunities to drive consumers to conversion.


This is it for a start. I am sure that as you dive into the small details of the campaign planning and execution, you will find some additional best practices. If you have any, then please feel free to share.


 

Ronnie Lavi | Manager, Product Planning and Business Development

This is a special time for Eyeblaster. Eyeblaster is unveiling MediaMind – the next generation campaign management platform. Usually we avoid writing about our products and services – we prefer to focus on strategic issues facing our clients. But I am writing about MediaMind because MediaMind is actually all about our clients. It is the first platform to be developed from the ground up for agencies, based on the wishes, ideas, and imagination of hundreds of agency insiders. MediaMind is the consummation of years of planning and development, millions of dollars in R&D investment and thousands of hours of user interviews.

This is also a special time because we are celebrating Eyeblaster’s 10^th birthday.

Over the course of this past decade, we have introduced many new products to the market, from rich media innovations to general campaign management tools. Over the past ten years we have learned a lot from our clients. Something very important that we learned was that while they appreciate the advanced creative-production, campaign-optimization and analytics solutions we provide, the reality of their everyday lives makes it extremely difficult for them to invest in analysis, strategy and innovation. We realized there was an enormous operational problem at the core of our clients’ business. The next logical step was inevitable – we realized that the ones responsible for this problem were above all technology vendors, ourselves included.

As we gathered, like we do every year, to discuss our development plans – our roadmap – it was clear to all of us that something had to be done to help our clients break free from their predicament. This is how MediaMind was born. In my recent blog entry titled “Doctor, I Have a Problem” I broke down the problem into three areas: dysfunctional campaign processes, analytic complexities and inflexible technology.

We built MediaMind on three main pillars in order to address these three problems head-on. We hope to eliminate the dysfunctional processes by introducing hundreds of innovative features, small and large, which add up to Streamlined Ad Serving. In order to avoid analytic complexities we invested in many tools that are focused on providing Actionable Analytics. In order to allow the flexibility so badly needed to create best-of-breed solutions we are committed to an Open Platform strategy. There’s much more to say about the three pillars of MediaMind, I plan to write about them soon.  You are also invited to read about MediaMind on Eyeblaster’s corporate website.

Indeed, MediaMind introduces many valuable solutions for our clients. But more important than the specific solutions are the client relationships that made them possible. MediaMind does not solve all problems; we know there’s much more work to do. As MediaMind is rolled out to our clients worldwide over the next few months, it is truly a time to celebrate. But even after the initial celebrations cease, we will continue to embrace the relationships behind MediaMind. We will continue to uphold our commitment to improving the lives of our clients and partners and help them achieve their grandest goals. Surely, if we manage that, we have many more special days ahead of us.

 Eldad Persky | Director, Product Planning & Business Development

About two years ago I was visiting a media agency to discuss some ideas for a new product.  After the meeting, one of the traffickers, let’s call her Abby, pulled me aside and asked to show me a huge Excel file she had to produce in order to traffic a campaign on one of the major campaign management platforms. She spent hours working on that file, compiling hundreds of small insignificant details. The end result allowed her to get her campaign live but did nothing beyond that to improve the results of her campaign. This was just one of the many frustrating aspects of Abby’s job, she said.

Something about this short conversation was surprising to me. It wasn’t the content – I already knew coming in how unfriendly and unforgiving some campaign management platforms were. It was actually the tone and intensity of this conversation that grabbed my attention.

Abby knew there was nothing I could have done to help her.  The agency she was working for was forced to continue to use that specific platform due to some existing client relationships. Nonetheless, Abby was eager to illustrate to me the senseless way she had been spending her days. As I was watching her get taken-over by her story,  it occurred to me that she just needed someone to talk to- someone to acknowledge her pain. It’s like when you go to see the doctor. Three minutes in to the visit he or she already knows what’s wrong with you. Yet, you spend the next twenty minutes just describing how much it hurts…

In the years that have passed since meeting Abby I have heard her frustration and pain echoed by traffickers, planners, designers, developers and media & creative directors. While the digital space has matured and grown more complicated, the supporting technology has by and large stagnated. Abby and her friends have been left hanging, struggling to get through their campaigns – one Excel at a time…

I believe that as a first step, all of us in this industry have to admit we have a problem. In fact, based on my observations, we actually have (at least) three problems:

First, we have dysfunctional campaign processes. There is not one aspect of the campaign management process that lives up to the promise of efficiency and automation worthy of this digital age. Traffickers like Abby are spending days trying to push media plans into awkward and unforgiving platforms, refreshing browsers to find live ad screen grabs one by one, endlessly exchanging tags with publishers while struggling to avoid looming catastrophes.

Second, we are facing immense analytic complexities. If you make it through the sisyphic effort of consolidating numerous separate data sources, you’re likely to end up with a vast collection of data that actually leaves you less intelligent. Cross channel analysis is often impossible – search and display are managed in silos while true path to conversion is often ignored.

Third, we are struggling with inflexible technology. Our universe includes numerous tools, platforms and databases that refuse to talk with each other. Trying to get the ad server to synch up with the billing platform is almost impossible. Integrating web analytics with campaign engagement and conversion data is excruciating. Selecting the right bid management solution for our “best of breed” platform remains a fantasy as we’re locked into inferior tools cross-sold to us by our legacy vendors.

Admitting we have a problem is the first step towards a solution. The second step is to define clearly what we are looking for. After spending the last two years listening to Abby and many of her friends – the true unsung heroes of this industry – I think their message is loud and clear. They are saying – DIGITAL SHOULD BE SIMPLE.

Eldad Persky | Director, Product Planning & Business Development

One of the biggest obstacles to increasing advertiser investment into online display advertising is that there still is little definitive proof that online branding campaigns have a positive impact on offline sales.  Everyone agrees that online display campaigns can drive sales online and all of the major digital ad campaign management companies have introduced analytical tools, such as Eyeblaster’s Channel Connect for Search, that enable advertisers to measure the impact of the branding elements of their online campaigns on online sales.  The problem is that most consumer purchases still occur offline.  This means that, if online display advertising is ever going to be taken seriously as a branding medium, there needs to be definitive proof that display ads can drive offline sales.

The good news is there are a number of strategies for measuring the impact of online branding campaigns on offline sales.  None of the methods are easy or cheap.  However this research is necessary to increase advertisers’ confidence in online display advertising.  Ultimately, the industry will reach a tipping point after which the value of online advertising for branding will be taken as a given just as is the case for TV.  Until then, the following are the best ways we can prove the value of online display advertising.

Database matching

Description: This technique involves comparing online impressions to offline purchases using a representative panel consisting of consumers whose online behavior and offline purchases are both tracked.

Pros: This is the most rigorous methodology since all the data is electronically recorded.

Cons: It’s expensive.

Vendors: comScore, Dynamic Logic, Nielsen, Platform-A, Yahoo!

Longitudinal surveys

Description: This method involves conducting surveys over time among a representative panel to gauge their purchasing patterns as well as the online ads they’ve seen to determine whether there is an association between the two.

Pros: This is the least expensive methodology.

Cons: It’s less rigorous since it depends on the panelists’ abilities to accurately recall which brands they’ve purchased and, more importantly, which ads they’ve seen.

Vendors: Dynamic Logic, InsightExpress

Geographic testing

Description: This strategy separates different DMAs into control and test groups which are exposed or not exposed to online ads accordingly.  Offline sales in the different DMAs are then compared to determine the impact of exposure or non-exposure to the online ads.

Pros: This is a fairly rigorous methodology.

Cons: It sacrifices reach for the campaign in question, and sales if the ads prove effective,  since certain DMAs are not exposed to online advertising.

Vendors: This is usually done in-house by the advertiser.

Marketing mix modeling

Description: This scheme uses sophisticated statistical analyses such as multivariate regressions on ad serving and offline sales data to estimate the impact of online advertising on offline sales.

Pros: This is a proven method for measuring the impact of TV ads.

Cons: It tends to focus heavily on short-term sales impact and may be less suited for online.

Vendors: MMA, Marketing Evolution, MarketShare Partners

If you’re aware of any advertisers who have completed studies like these, it’s a good idea to share the results and/or the insights.  comScore has done a great job of this recently, publicizing results of some of its studies and even publishing some of its latest research in the last issue of the Journal of Advertising Research*.  Pooling our efforts as an industry is necessary if we’re going to establish once and for all the value of digital as a marketing medium. 

*Fulgoni, G.M., & Mörn, M. P. (2009).  “Whither the Click? How Online Advertising Works.”  Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 134-142.

Sean Gelles, Product Planning Manager

It is not only the creative that counts, but also the content around it.  This is one of the conclusions of a new research published by the Online Publishers Association (OPA) in August.  The group, which represents large online publishers such as the New York Times, McGraw-Hill, CNN and many others, suggests that placing ads on content sites increases ads’ effectiveness, compared to placing them on portals and ad networks.

In the research, the OPA tracked five key effectiveness metrics:  Aided brand awareness, online brand awareness, message association, brand favorability and purchase intent.  By using Dynamic Logic’s MarketNorms database, the study tracked metrics on OPA member sites as a proxy for content sites, portals and ad networks.

Unsurprisingly, video remains one of the most effective mediums to convey marketing messages.  Video ads on content sites increased purchase intent by 163 percent compared to MarketNorms average and by 93 percent compared to portals.

The research indicates that content sites had significantly higher effectiveness in raising awareness, creating message association, generating brand favorability and driving purchase intent over portals, ad networks and the overall MarketNorms average.   Online ad awareness metrics were 21 percent greater for ads on content sites than overall MarketNorms and portals, and 50 percent more than ad networks.  Purchase intent was about two-thirds higher on content sites than portals, nine times that of ad networks and 50 percent greater than overall MarketNorms.

What is the reason for this increase in effectiveness?  While providing abundance of numbers and charts, the OPA’s only explanation for the higher effectiveness is that its members provide “quality content”. 

This portrays only a part of the picture.  A deeper look into the results suggests that content ebsites allows advertisers to reach a more targeted audience, compared with portals or ad networks, and to tailor their marketing message for this audience.  Relevant and tailored marketing messages in ads tend to be stickier.  For example, advertisers of a new action film may find it easier to reach their audience of young teenager males on sites with content that appeals directly to that group.

The conclusion of this research offers a broader message than the increased effectiveness of content websites.  It speaks to the importance of targeting and message tailoring to increase marketing effectiveness-getting the right message to the right ears.  To do that, the creative’s message should coincide with the content around it-and this research provides a quantifiable justification for that.

Ariel Geifman | Research Analyst