Putting Non-Viewable Toothpaste Back In A Viewable Tube

Note: Not Going Back In

On some level, you knew this was coming -- a backlash, in actual print, against the idea tha advertisers should only pay for viewabale ads. (No, not providing a link the column that inspired this, because rewarding idiocy with traffic is not on my list of things to do.)

Well, as you learn in political science, hear the other side. And there are problems with the sea change in ad campaigns, where KPIs go out the window for the single point about the display nature of the ad. If other performance metrics are being reached, what's the good in insisting on 100% viewability, right? Leave well enough alone! Viewability is a bogeyman! (Yes, this was said in a real live column, on a real live site I respect. And no, still not linking to it.)

Well, um, no... because knowing that any part of your ad buy is, on some level, fraud is intolerable. Has always been, should always have been. And fraud is just not something that any reasonable person can, or should, ignore. Just because it was how the industry did its business for a very long time doesn't mean that it was right then, or will be right now.

Does that mean you should only run a campaign if the ad impressions are 100% viewable? Well, that should be the goal... but there should also be a correction in rates, because 100% viewable online banner ads are intrinsically more valuable than other ad formats. Some non-viewable impressions are legitimate, because search bots are how the Web works, and just part of doing business. There is also no such thing as a 100% viewable outdoor or print ad. All radio and television spots have some aspect of non-delivery, because they are subject to channel surfing, inattentive viewers, second-screen distractions, and so on.

If you are only paying for 100% viewability on a million impressions today, you are getting a dramatically better list and deal than you were before. As well as something far more impactful than other mediums.

In the long run, the market will do what the market always does: correct itself. People who argue for the old standard of widespread malfeasance will be drummed out of the business by clients who are not willing to be victims, which is to say, they'll be drummed out of the business. After a significant period of make-good and adjustment to new performance standards, prices might even rise.

What will not happen, however, is toothpaste going back into the tube, or victims of fraud signing up for the same old con. That ship has sailed, never to return.

Now, if we could only get to the magical realm where increased traffic from viewers who saw an ad, but didn't click on it (because, well, other tabs and windows exist, and so does brand awareness, and all of the other aspects that marketing used to get credit for)...

Well, we might actually have a business that more accurately reflects the reality of an ad buy. Sounds like a great new day, doesn't it?

* * * * *

A great new day begins when you like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.

Ad Blocker Stockholm Syndrome

You Will Believe It's Fun

On my radar today, there's a piece in Ad Age (no, not linking) which talks about how the rise in ad blocking software shouldn't result in people trying to block the blockers... but to make ads better.

I'll give you all a moment to blink slowly at this spectacular embodiment of Stockholm Syndrome.

But getting back into the gist of the clickbait...

1) It's a big problem! Ad blocker usage has doubled since 2013!

Um, 2X of not a very meaningful amount is still not a very meaningful amount. Besides, if you really want to sound the alarm, talk about mobile, which is where the traffic growth is actually happening. Oh, and it might also be relevant to note how younger demographics are leaving TV in droves, which kind of means that the Web is winning, at least in comparison. Sky? Not falling.

2) People hate advertising!

Gosh, that's new. Imagine if online ads were actually intrusive, say, in 30-second unskippable audio and video chunks. Or printed on paper and placed in a mailbox that you had to clean, or on billboards that you can't help but look at, or... anyway. Online ads are certainly so uniquely onerous as to encourage scofflaw tech.

3) Let's focus on improving the advertising experience!

Shockingly, this is kind of what ad pros have been, well, trying to do all this time. We have to conform to a wide range of conditions, mostly based around brand standards for our clients, sizes and other restrictions... but I've never been in a creative meeting, in over 15 years in the field for an unspeakable number of clients, when anyone spoke to a desire to have a terrible advertising experience.

4) Because at the end of it all... advertising is a form of content!

By this logic, I am a form of NBA player, because I watch a fair amount of it.

Um, no. Advertising is adjacent to content. It may be, with targeting and relevance, something that is appreciated or valued by the user, but it is, well, trying to sell something, either directly or indirectly. That's not content.

5) We need to invest in creativity!

News that we haven't been doing that, actually.

I could go on, but you hopefully get the point. People who block ads are breaking a de facto social contract, and making everyone else pay more for their malfeasance. They do not need to celebrated or coddled. Advertising does not need to get better because of them; advertising needs to get better because it is advertising, and advertising always needs to get better, because there is no other way to beat a control, or improve how you are telling a brand's story.

Ad blocking is just another aspect of how tech exists that lets us do something that we really should not do. Blaming the tech, or the conditions that led to the tech, is bass ackwards. And that's all I've got to say about that.

* * * * *

If you've got something to say, let's continue the conversation. Please like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.

Five Suggestions For Twitter's Next CEO

Fail Whale At Night, Posters Delight

With speculation rising as to who the next person to fill the seat will be, I think we might be missing the point -- which is, making the site more usable to more people, so that it goes beyond its current dependency on its heaviest users. Let's get into the weeds, at more than 140 characters.

1) Put in daily post limits.

The single best point about Twitter is how expansive it can get when a topic gets in heavy rotation, with sudden flurries on topics far out-pacing the abilities of traditional journalism to compete. This is also Twitter's worst point.

A quick and simple way to fix this is to limit the number of Tweets that one account can issue in a day (I'd go for less than ten, myself, but I tend to be diligent about the editing). Do this, and your content providers will take more time crafting their words, and less time just reacting to what everyone else is reacting to.

2) Automate hashtags, but don't count that against the character count.

As much fun as it is to come up with your own hashtag words, this doesn't really make for a better platform, or easier search points for general users. What I'd like to see happen is for the service to start scanning works, then adding hashtags for the user to opt out of. I'm sure the v1 of this will be wonky, but in the long run, you'll save a declining asset from the tragedy of the commons.

3) Add micro-payment and bitcoin tip jars as a social option.

Favoriting Tweets and re-tweeting content to your followers is nice and all, but if Twitter is killing blogs (it is) in many categories, you really should try to do something to get back those penny-ante blog publisher CPMs. Twitter will likely take a cut of this action, which is only fair, and helps to tell a diversifying revenue strategy over time.

4) Get more local to get more competitive.

Why did Yelp grow in the age of Twitter? Because Twitter never conditioned its users to expect or even select content based on their local region. This should be relatively easy to engineer, and make the service more likely to pick up a bigger footprint in narrowcast advertising.

5) Video up.

As much as I'd like the world to stay with text, especially short and pithy amounts of it, it's not what the new to file users are very interested in. There's nothing that exists on Vine that shouldn't be on Twitter, and the fact that the former came on board with little in the way of response from Twitter is not a great moment for the old management. There is still time to get the horse back into the barn, but those doors swung wide.

* * * * *

While I'm being neither brief and pithy, let's continue the conversation with you. Please like or share this column, connect with me onLinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.