The AdTech Two Step

Step One: Honey, Not Those Shoes

This week in Adtech saw two sequential stories that followed a pattern that goes back, well, decades. Let's do the dance.

Step 1 -- An adtech company finds an issue that affects customers (in this case, billing). Said company reports the issue, offers a correction, and tries to get ahead of any possible PR blowback by being, well, proactive about the whole thing.

Step 2 -- Media begrudgingly admits that adtech company did the right thing in reporting the error and fixing the problem, but that Steps Must Be Taken to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again, because without some third party being around to protect clients, they are At Risk.

This time, it was Facebook with an ad impression correction. Clients were overcharged by a fraction of a percent, because the error was only on a limited series of platform and browsers. Since the whole thing was (a) not really a big deal on the numbers, (b) happening during an era where you can't go a single hour, let alone day, without some new attraction in the So Many Rings U.S. Political Circus distracting everyone, and (c) not really enough of a reason to step away from a dominant provider, it slipped by without much notice. (And yes, last month something similar happened with Google and YouTube. You get the point.)

But for me, it sticks in the craw... because it's part of what seems to be an eternal double standard when it comes to online advertising. To wit: has anyone ever called television ads that are skipped, muted by remote control, in close proximity to controversial content, or just ignored by the viewer... unviewable or worthless?

Because that what online ads that aren't seen by the viewer, no matter the reason why, are called.

Outdoor ads are placed in venue where a known number of cars will pass by, and priced accordingly. No one knows how many of those ads are seen now, especially with an ever-increasing amount of in-car options, but as an advertiser, you'll pay for those cars just the same. Radio, print, podcasts.. all of those ads, paid for on an impression count that's optimal and theoretical.

Only digital, with its relentless ability to quantify so many things that the non-quantifiable benefit is usually disregarded, tells you how much isn't optimal. For this, it's punished, in a process that promises to go away as the world matures and the market gradually takes over for other mediums, but in the interim, we're still doing this dance.

What isn't accepted, either then or now, is that you *can* add to your branding online, because those ads aren't worthless. (Which we can tell, naturally, with metrics, because nerds, we never stop trying). It's slow and arduous, and no one wants to do it without offline air cover, but brand awareness does rise for folks who see your work online. Especially if it's well-targeted, clever, with strong offers and good execution.

You know, the same way it works offline. Because the customer and prospect base is increasingly the same in both places.

So since we know how this dance ends -- more and more marketers using data to make more and more decisions, from an ever-rising level of accountability because digital doesn't really take steps backward...

Well, can't we just skip some steps? Maybe admit that digital has impact that isn't measured, that analog is subject to all kinds of issues that has always been more or less baked into the price, and that the world is more complex than an either/or answer?

Because, well, this dance is getting old. And it's pretty clear that the music's not stopping, and that, for the most part? We're calling the tune.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.