Month: January 2018

It’s been an up-and-down ride for Twitter’s Moments feature since its introduction in October 2015, but the social network’s latest ad product offering appears to indicate that it believes Moments are on their way back up. Twitter introduced a new in-stream sponsorship option last week, Sponsored Moments, that lets advertisers sponsor Moments from select premium…

By and large, there was lot of happy news in McDonald’s fourth quarter and full year 2017 results, but the stock took a beating on fears that the renewed focus on cheap eats will cannibalize sales of
pricier menu items.

Facebook announced it would begin to prioritize local news outlets in the feeds of its users, emphasizing that local communities benefit and trust the outlets closest to them. How do involved
executives see the move?

AdExchanger |

Kiehl’s, a high-end cosmetics brand and the country’s third-oldest retailer, has traditionally prioritized experiential branding over broadcast or online ad reach. While that preference isn’t changing, Kiehl’s is becoming a more digital, data-driven business. The brand started running programmatic campaigns in late 2016, and previously did little to no online media buying, said Julia Mavrodin,… Continue reading »

The post For Kiehl’s, More Data and More Business Hasn’t Meant More Advertising appeared first on AdExchanger.

AdExchanger |

Cross-device provider Tapad is offloading its media business with Brand Networks, a social marketing tech firm that serves large retail brands and enterprise clients. The deal, announced Tuesday, is structured like a partnership rather than an acquisition, said Tapad CEO Sigvart Voss Eriksen. Tapad’s managed media and creative teams will join Brand Networks to help… Continue reading »

The post Tapad Is Getting Out Of The Media Services Game appeared first on AdExchanger.

AdExchanger |

Here’s today’s AdExchanger.com news round-up… Want it by email? Sign up here. Casting For Data In December, Apple began providing podcast producers with iOS listener metrics – the number of people who stayed for a full program and when listeners dropped out. Some observers at the time were concerned podcasters would rue the day they asked… Continue reading »

The post Apple Metrics Pay Off For Podcasts; Sony Dissatisfied With Alexa Monetization appeared first on AdExchanger.

Brands’ initial relief after YouTube’s decision to cut the amount of channels it reviews is slowly being replaced by the realization among some that fewer channels to advertise against won’t make it a safer place.

YouTube wanted to reassure advertisers it had brand safety under control earlier this month when it said that creators with fewer than 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours of view time would be unable to earn ad revenue. The video site said the rules were “tough but necessary,” and most advertisers seemed to agree. Some marketers, however, question whether restricting their access to only the biggest influencers will do much to guarantee their brand safety, given YouTube has contended with popular but controversial influencers lately, like Logan Paul.

Clients of influencer marketing platform Social Circle have reacted to the news with “intrigue and interest,” and they will monitor whether the targeting power that comes with fewer channel choices and more generalist content is reduced, said Social Circle CEO Matt Donegan. “Really, it’s a question of whether [brands would] rather be listened to by 20 people or ignored by 1,000.”

For PizzaExpress, the prospect of fewer small creators on YouTube is already influencing its content plans. The changes could make it more difficult for the brand to find influencers that work at a local level, according to Tim Love, senior marketing manager at PizzaExpress. Love plans to invest more time and resources this year on developing guidelines that help his team find new YouTube talent. It’s always meant “so much more” working with someone who will create custom content for the brand, said Love.

The days of marketers being blinded by influencers’ follower counts and reach are passing, said Love. “What’s happened on YouTube recently does influence how I feel about whether or not we’d be willing to spend tons of money to partner with [an influencer] who may have a huge subscriber count but who comes with risk,” he explained.

Stopping small creators from monetizing their videos ignores YouTube’s bigger problem around brand safety versus brand appropriateness. “It’s going to be hard to control what channels ads appear on and whether or not the advertiser deems those placements suitable without having manually checked them,” Love said.

YouTube has argued that eliminating smaller channels from its review process will work in brands’ favor. The higher threshold for creators to earn ad revenue gives YouTube the time to “learn about channels before we monetize them,” said Nadav Perry, the head of products, solutions and innovation for YouTube in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, at an event The Exchange Lab hosted on Jan. 30. “If this higher threshold existed a year ago, then none of the articles that we’ve seen in the press would have come to light,” Perry claimed.

Influencers worry YouTube is creating an even more tangible divide between the large and small creators, making the video site less accessible. Beckii Cruel, YouTube star and creator community manager at Social Circle, said these changes won’t plunge anyone into unavoidable debt or stop them from paying their rent, but it’s a “symbolic change that I think will reduce the amount of young, talented people creating YouTube channels.” While other influencers voiced similar concerns following the changes earlier this month, the initial response from advertisers was less objective: Advertisers and agencies welcomed YouTube’s decision to secure top advertising content and squeeze smaller creators out.

“What really concerns me is the fact that YouTube is giving way too much power to advertisers and making the same mistake TV made for a long time in letting the advertisers dictate the content in order to increase revenue,” said YouTube star Felipe Neto, who runs a channel that ranks in the top 50 in the world in subscribers, according to social research firm SocialBlade. “Advertisers don’t understand content. They don’t understand audience, and if you give them the power to decide what goes up and what goes down in entertainment, you will eventually kill this entertainment.”

The post Advertisers rethink YouTube influencer strategies after YouTube cuts small creators appeared first on Digiday.

At the Digiday Marketing Summit in December, we sat down with over 30 industry executives from major brands across the U.S. to discuss developing trends such as making branded content work. Check out our earlier research on how confident brands are about branded content’s efficacy here. Learn more about our upcoming events here.

Top findings:

• Only 16 percent of brands think brand safety is a major issue.
• The majority of brands believe campaign performance is the only major issue brands face in digital advertising.
• Brand marketers are most likely to believe brands themselves are ultimately responsible for ensuring brand safety.

Disaster strikes. A brand’s ad is found next to objectionable content, whether it’s an extremist video, a so-called alt-right news site or a Logan Paul video. Brands have a predictable and well-rehearsed response: Public relations executives will make generic statements about how their company is “deeply upset” and “concerned” about being associated with something so contrarian to its values, promising to “ensure all necessary steps are taken” so it doesn’t happen again.

The post Digiday Research: Only 16 percent of brands say brand safety is a major concern appeared first on Digiday.

Thirty seconds. $5 million-plus.

Why do it?

First, a bit of background (sorry). Before 1984 and Apple’s “1984,” the Super Bowl ad phenomenon didn’t exist. The much-hailed, sometimes-maligned commercial aired before likes, shares and engagement became important. But the ad went “viral” — it was replayed on newscasts around the world for weeks.

The spot showed no product, tested terribly and Apple’s board of directors hated it. (Steve Jobs, however, loved it.) Though the ad only aired once, it directly led to the sale of about $150 million worth of Macs in three months. That got marketers’ attention.

Fast forward to the present. Remember any great ads from last year’s game? How about from the last 10 games? One ad sticks in my mind: Mountain Dew’s “Puppymonkeybaby” ad from 2016, not because it was great, but because it was so astoundingly stupid. Do you remember the message? (It’s three things in one drink.) Or remember the drink name? Be honest.

Looking at this year’s spots, I see no ads even as “good” as “Puppymonkeybaby” (so far). What I see is the same repeated creative and strategic mistakes that have been made over and over in recent years.

Gratuitous use of celebrities in advertising doesn’t work
For years, studies have proven this. Sure, you’ll get some quick social “buzz,” but what you won’t get is increased sales: Just because Bill Hader is stacking Pringles, it doesn’t make me or you want to buy them, especially since the ad is solidly unfunny. We should expect this from a brand with the tagline: “You Don’t Just Eat ‘Em.” (Uh, yes you do.)

About half the spots pre-released or teased are celebrity-driven. At least Danny DeVito is shaped like, and is unhealthy as, an M&M (still won’t increase sales, bank it).

‘Purpose-driven’ ads don’t work if your brand isn’t directly tied to the purpose
Budweiser is trumpeting that it used some of its production lines to package water instead of beer, which was then sent to needy areas. It’s a good public relations move, but it won’t do jack shit for sales. Stella Artois, another AB InBev brand, is also doing some goody-goody-water-thing spot delivered by Matt Damon — ouch, bad timing, another big problem with using celebs as linchpins.

Kraft, in a continuation of its “Family Greatly” campaign, will use consumer-submitted “real family” photos and videos in an in-game commercial. The deal here: “Real” parents (no coaching, I’m sure) whine and even cry because they’re not perfect parents, and children respond that they’re perfect just the way they are. Aww. What do Kraft products do, exactly, to help us “family greatly”? It should be noted that among many other brands, Kraft, which is over 100 years old, has contributed greatly to the deeply ingrained, unhealthy TV image of the “perfect family” (eating mostly unhealthy food). Hey, at least there’s a connection!

You want to see a good “purpose” ad? Check out this new powerfully emotional spot by Huggies via Ogilvy Toronto.

Even Skittles (via DDB Chicago) is whiffing this year with its pointless, awkward “we’re making an in-game ad for just one person” stunt. We’ll of course get to see the ad almost simultaneously online, but I’m just going to go ahead and predict it won’t be anywhere near as funny as the old insane TBWAChiatDay spots (which increased sales).

What makes a good Super Bowl spot? Here are two examples off the very top of my head (as in, they’re still fresh in my deteriorating 57-year-old brain).

1999: Monster ‘When I Grow Up’

Simple, brilliant and it hit — hard — a lot of nerves of a lot of unhappily employed people, and it made Monster an instant job-search player. Agency: MullenLowe, Boston.

1997: Tabasco ‘Mosquito’

No voice-over (OK, a bit of a contrived product shot, but clients always be clienting), minimal production cost, unforgettable product “demonstration.” Agency: DDB Needham, Dallas.

What made these ads great Super Bowl commercials is simple: They were very simple but smart — they didn’t insult the viewer’s intelligence. They both had crackling creative “tension.” They both were “big-impact” ads. And they both, engagingly, sold the goddamn product.

You want a big social media Super Bowl reaction? Create a great, big idea commercial. It’s that simple.

The post Copyranter on Super Bowl ads: You’re doing it wrong appeared first on Digiday.