Tag Archives: programmatic

A crucial moment for premium video publishers

SpotX UHS Report FiguresSince SpotX released their findings with IHS last week there has been a lot of excitement about the adoption and growth of programmatic video, in particular in the UK. The report, “found that revenue across Europe from online video jumped from €22 million in 2012 to €375 million in 2015. IHS forecasts that €2 billion, which is over half of all online video advertising revenue, will be generated programmatically by 2020.”
These numbers are definitely exciting. However, I think they raise a secondary question and point to an important moment for suppliers of premium video inventory. Even at current levels of spend supply of premium, broadcast-quality video content is extremely constrained and that is the video inventory that marketers are after. For the first time, well, ever, as far as I can remember this is a first for online. We have always suffered from the double-edged sword of an effectively infinite pool of supply. Now, however, in this extraordinarily hot space, publishers may have some leverage.
Some ideas and observations:

Opportunity to move to a first-price auction

IPONWEB Optimal Auction PriceA lot of money has been left on the table by suppliers because of the second-price auction. Suppliers of quality video inventory can’t afford this anymore. There is a liquid market for their supply. The first publishers to INSIST on a top-bid-wins marketplace will reap significant benefits. PubMatic, SpotX, Tremor and others have the ability to deliver a lot of value to publishers. Of course there could be nuanced approaches here such as providing publishers the option to turn on and off first or second bid or creating a blended win rate, similar to what IPONWEB has suggested.

Because of fraud no one knows how much REAL inventory is out there

The blatant fraud exposed in Rob Leathern’s and then Mike Nolet’s pieces over the last fortnight have really kicked the hornet’s nest when it comes to video ad fraud, even on premium sites. According the Mike’s piece:

One fraudulent ad-unit shows so many ads that in 25-minutes I tracked:

  • 5359 HTTP calls. Yes, five thousand three hundred and fifty nine individual HTTP calls.

  • 70.19 MB of traffic. SEVENTY MEGABYTES. Thankfully I loaded this on my laptop as this one single ad unit would have used 7% of my monthly cell phone data allowance!

While the growth numbers projected by SpotX and IHS are exciting, I fear that as the ripples of these findings spread, they could be negatively impacted. Buyers do NOT want to be pumping cash into an ecosystem this dodgy. AppNexus’s recent revelation that 65% of their impressions vanished when they began filtering for fraud further underscores the scope of the issue.

Where will the growth come from

Where will this 5x growth in programmatic video spend come from? The inventory is constrained and largely sold out. Marketers are less interested in long-tail, short-format video and the jury is still very much out on the value of out-feed solutions like Teads (especially for desktop) and other ‘new video’ sources of supply.

Of course inventory is only half the equation. Price is the other. I do think there is probably quite a bit of upside to be achieved by switching to first-price auctions as mentioned above. This would at least create a real marketplace with real price signalling. Obviously though, not all this growth will come simply from better pricing the supply we’ve got.

There will be continued organic growth in the supply of premium video inventory as audiences continue to shift viewing habits but as far as we’ve seen to date this shift has lagged behind advertiser demand for those eyeballs.

The mobile issue

Users are quickly adopting mobile devices for video consumption. However, video on mobile can be a tricky issue. The screens are much smaller, user behaviour is very different (think fast scrolling), audio is often muted, there’s less screen real estate for gutters and out of page advertising, and data is frequently metered and expensive. What happens to video programmatic should we see a sudden, rapid shift to the majority of video being consumed on portable devices?

Redefining programmatic video

As far as I see it the only way that these numbers can be achieved but only with a few fundamental issues being addresses first. In addition to the fixes, what will have to happen is that “television” advertising will need to become “video” advertising. It’s like in Chinatown when Jake Gittes is told, “either you bring the water to LA or you bring LA to the water.”

There is a vast pool of supply sitting in set top boxes and televisions that is currently being classified as “television” ad spend. What will (and must) happen is that this inventory needs to be made addressable through programmatic means. The convergence  of offline tv and online video will create a huge pool of inventory for buyers to purchase and by layering on data, targeting, and programmatic delivery the efficiencies of online can be applied to the most valuable advertising supply resource in history.

In summary

  • The incredible growth numbers in programmatic video face significant hurdles
  • The supply of the valuable inventory buyers want is severely constrained and largely sold out
  • Publishers have the upper hand from a pricing perspective and need to aggressively embrace this fact. It’s a very liquid market.
  • SSPs for video inventory should move to first-price auctions to drive incremental revenue for publishers (or at least offer the option to do so)
  • It’s currently unclear where the 500% growth in the next 5 years will come from given the lack of inventory available
  • Some growth can come from increasing yields and organic growth of inventory supplies
  • The consumer shift to mobile exacerbates the issue of quality supply not being available
  • A huge opportunity exists by converging traditional tv and online ‘video’ advertising and seems to be the only viable way that this growth can be achieved.

Top 5 Things to Know about Audio Advertising

Most of the time, when we talk about advertising platforms, we think of ads with displayed content, whether that’s text, images, or perhaps video. One area that’s often overlooked is audio advertising, which is important in the world of music and radio where the attention of customers is sought through ears, not eyes.

So what do you need to know about audio advertising? Here are the essentials.

The same principles apply

What does a platform for audio advertising look like? In essence, the same as it does for other kinds of ads. Advertisers buy access to the users of multiple radio and music services through a single advertising platform, just as they would normally purchase target audiences through advertising on multiple websites and apps.

It has huge reach

Such an advertising platform is a good fit for the radio and digital music industries because of the ways in which these things are consumed—which is to say, mainly via mobile devices, with the ever-increasing ability to listen to digital audio anywhere at any time. This includes AM/FM radio, online radio (streamed and on-demand) and podcasts, which means access to huge audiences.

It’s targeted

The nature of digital audio also means the ability to target very specific audiences. Podcasts and radio come in many flavours, including music, news, sports and politics. Digital audio is also consumed in different contexts, such as in the car, at home or in the office. All of this means that audiences can be segmented accordingly.

It’s not limited to audio

While audio advertising refers mainly to the transmission of audio, music streaming services and platforms—on mobile apps and on the web—typically have interfaces where visual components can be used, such as banner ads that can be used in conjunction with audio ads. On Spotify, for example, a synchronised banner ad replaces the usual square album cover image whenever an audio ad plays.

The platform exists

Last year, Global Radio launched a new advertising platform they call the Digital Audio Exchange, which gives advertisers access to an impressive list of digital radio brands, music streaming services and audio social networks, including Spotify, Blinkbox, Capital, and Classic FM. Advertising partners already include giants such as Vodafone, Virgin Media, Lexus, eBay and 20th Century Fox.

Like many publishers, Global Radio is particularly well-positioned to sell inventory because they can offer their own rich, ‘premium’ audience data, as well as that of reputable partners who can expand their reach.
It’s easy to overlook audio advertising, but in fact digital audio is now more relevant than ever, an increasingly omnipresent fixture in the consumer landscape. This makes digital audio one of the best ways to reach consumers today.

How does a biddable media team work

The online advertising world has seen the rise of biddable media, programmatic bidding where automated auction platforms are used to purchase ad impressions. In essence, the advertiser who is willing to pay the highest price for an individual impression wins that impression.

In some ways, this has simplified how purchasing online ads works. It’s an efficient, transparent and precise means of ad buying that cuts out a lot of the manual input, allows for more specific targeting, and makes the ad-buying economy more organised.

However, while biddable media platforms have all of these advantages, media and marketing agencies frequently fail to integrate the needs of biddable media properly into their agency structure, resulting in a fragmented media team whose priorities can conflict.

So what should a biddable media team look like, what should it do and how should it be structured?

Search versus display

The responsibilities of purchasing ads are traditionally split between:

The search team — responsible for search ads, typically Paid Search where they show up alongside search results.

The display team — responsible for display ads that appear on websites.

However, thanks to the evolution of online advertising where both kinds of ads have grown in complexity, these two sides have merged such that the distinction no longer entirely makes sense.

Search ads include increasingly rich media and social extensions that aren’t fully accounted for by the responsibilities of the search team. At the same time, display ads have also adopted elements of search; for example, targeted native ads that reflect a user’s recent searches.

Biddable media, where advertisers purchase audiences via ad impressions, has grown in popularity because the ability of ads to collect and exploit contextual user data has become more universal, allowing the attention of specific target audiences to be purchased for all kinds of ads–while previously, search ads would ignore the audience data layer, looking only at the immediate context of, for example, search keywords.

So when putting together a biddable media team, it becomes a question of ownership: who should own biddable media when the traditional priorities of the search team are no longer sufficient?

What does biddable media need?

A biddable media advertising strategy needs to incorporate the following stages:

Planning — the team develops plans according to a branding strategy and business objectives.
Buying — real-time bidding for ad impressions, purchasing targeted audiences.
Optimisation — making ongoing changes to the ads according to their performance.
Reporting — evaluating the success of campaigns and citing where they could be improved.
Analysing tech landscape — keeping an eye on current developments in the online advertising world.

This is a process that needs to be at the centre of marketing operations. Programmatic buying should be treated as an integral part of the wider strategy and communications plan, and as such the different teams should be brought in line so that they both serve each of these stages of the process.

Team culture

The aim of a biddable media team should be to foster an approach to the campaign that is adopted by both search and display teams and reflects the process required by today’s biddable media. And there are key attributes to look for in the team.

Experimental — willingness to test, look at results, and experiment with changes.
Analytical — the ability to interpret data and campaign results using analytics tools.
Quantitative — crunching the numbers, being aware of costs, clicks and audience reach.
All-round data nerd — (said with love, obviously!) understanding the overall precedence of data, and looking not only at search data but display data (e.g. which images or videos are effective) and social media reach.

Each team should retain its core expertise and be able to bring that to the table, but with some understanding of the other side of the process. An effective biddable media team requires ‘cross-pollination’, each team learning from the other to synthesise their practises.

This means that team members are likely to need some training in each other’s disciplines. The search team will need greater awareness of audience and brand, while the display team will need to fully understand the implications of targeted ads ruled by data and algorithms.

The result should be a dynamic culture of constant testing and experimenting, with continuous review and improvement of workflow processes. Each member of the biddable media team should be multi-skilled specialists with a full understanding of ad requirements.

In Brief: 4 takeaways from Boston Consulting Group’s recent programmatic survey

Boston Consulting GroupIn their recent report on the profitability of programmatic advertising sales, Boston Consulting Group identified four ways in which the publishers are outperforming all rivals. The most successful publishers:

  • Use cross-channel, data-driven strategies
  • Segment and match inventory with the right buyers
  • Assemble the right technology
  • Build strong go-to-market and analytic capabilities.

The report argues that many publishers fail to incorporate programmatic sales as a core element of their strategy, or to properly manage their programmatic teams. In the worst cases, programmatic specialists are spending less than a quarter of their time creating value. As the programmatic market continues to grow, these firms risk eroding their market share, thus revenue, thus long-term profitability.

According to BCG, programmatic advertising is a $9 billion market and growing rapidly. Programmatic buying automates the process of identifying where you want to advertise (based on consumer traffic, browsing preferences and network reach) and buying advertising space at auction (up to a set maximum bid).

It’s the optimal way to keep pace when opportunities to advertise and consumer behavioural trends are emerging and being sold in real time, and shifts some of the data management burden from human staff onto automated systems. However, the systems need to be properly selected, constructed and deployed in order to achieve their full potential. BCG identified the following key elements in doing so..

Cross-channel, data-driven strategy


Successful publishers have a cohesive and well-formed data strategy. Their management and monetisation of first-party (i.e. data about their own audiences) governs the strategic choices these publishers make. Marketing strategies and pricing structures are based on concrete successes evidenced and supported by data.

A data-centric approach demands rigorous and clear planning, establishing the extent to which programmatic advertising will supplement or replace direct sales. Take eBay’s recent ‘Programmatic Only Week’ for instance. The experiment—where 100% of the online giant’s UK advertising was booked and executed programmatically— was opened to all media buying outlets and allowed the team to collect vital data for future campaigns.

Anna Stoyanova, head of programmatic EMEA for Essence said:

eBay’s ‘programmatic-only week’ focused on buying through auction. During the week we saw a massive increase in supply relevant to demand, but we haven’t seen a devaluation of the inventory, which is really encouraging for publishers and brands.

This is the kind of data that only comes through planning and testing.

Right inventory, right buyer

Building a body of reliable data also means that publishers can match advertisers more accurately with the audiences they want to reach. A publisher who knows their advertisers’ needs in great detail, and who can refresh and extend their inventory when an opportunity arises, can provide accurate targeting of consumers.

Staying close to buyers and customising programmatic sales of targeted inventory can yield six times the CPM of conventional direct sales.

Assembling the technology

The technology involved in programmatic buying requires careful choices to create the right ‘stack’ of software and user choices. The stack is based on ad-serving technology which delivers the sales. Decisions in which sales to deliver are supported by programmatic demand sources and tools. Both delivery and decision-making software must be configured to maximise CPM and fill rates, and these configurations must be specific to each channel and platform in which the publisher operates; one size does not fit all.

Finally, the stack is topped off by data management/output tools which check the effectiveness of the stack as a whole. In general, discrete stacks will need to be built for each area of a publisher’s inventory, although some ad servers and programmatic buying tools work across platforms and provide integrated input and output for different stacks.

Strong capabilities

Technology is useless without the skills to configure it, assess its output and make the decisions it recommends. Hiring programmatic sales specialists and data scientists is a start; integrating them into an existing team is better, since it gives the specialists access to your existing client relationships and thus offers more developed insights into your advertisers’ needs. The human factor is vital: data will not analyse itself, nor will new methods sell themselves to advertisers.

The bottom line

As trends emerge and platforms proliferate, automated identification and selling of advertising opportunities will become essential to keep track of opportunities and trends, and therefore compete in the market. The gap between direct and programmatic sales will gradually close, and publishers who want to stay in the game will be well-positioned for the predicted explosion in programmatic sales – up to 83% of the online market over the next two years.

The Basics: Audience Buying

Last week we looked at how publishers can take control of their own first party data in order to keep control of the sales process, extend their audiences, and offer additional value to marketers..

This week, let’s take a step back and revisit the path from buying media as a proxy for an audience, to being able to buy that audience itself.

Audience by proxy

RocketFuel's Audience Extension
Graphic from RocketFuel’s Audience Extension report.

Traditionally, advertisers were only able to target their audience indirectly, by trying to estimate who would be interested in a particular product or service based on a generalised demographic. This has supposedly helped advertisers to determine when and where to advertise—which publications, which venues, and what kinds of ads.

For example, want to advertise house cleaning products? Advertise on daytime TV or in women’s lifestyle magazines. Want to sell a Rolex? Target a wealthy and ‘masculine’ demographic in publications such as Forbes, or via outdoor on Wall Street and in the City of London. These may be somewhat dated examples but what they exemplify, apart from the reinforcement of age-old stereotypes, is a form of advertising based on certain assumptions about different kinds of people.

The idea is that, since you can’t directly buy the attention of a particular individual, you buy ad space where that audience is statistically more likely to be. And in many people’s minds, that is Advertising 101.

The rise of audience buying

The promise of digital for marketers has always been the increased ability to focus advertising messages to reach ‘the right person at the right time’, and over time this has indeed become more precise. But for a long time, digital marketing never fully managed to live up to this promise. Advertisers have still had to rely on publishers to reach audience segments that they deem statistically more likely to buy.

In recent years, though, things have started to change. We’ve seen the rise of ‘audience buying’: purchasing access to these audience segments directly rather than buying proxies for audiences. Thanks to the shift to digital and the increasingly sophisticated ability to track and store user behaviour, we have the ability to detect users’ activities, and to predict their interests based on patterns of behaviour.

In theory, this fulfils the promise of right time, right place, right person, right everything. The hyper-specific targeting of audience buying is more precise and more cost-effective, ensuring that consumers see ads that are far more relevant to them, and reducing wastage on ad spend for marketers. It also allows for a far more accurate attribution of ad spend, by making it clear which ad placements are truly driving engagement. In other words, it gives marketers full transparency, letting them see where their spend is going and with whom their message is resonating.

Fragmented industry

Audience TargetsThis shift has turned a hundred-year-old advertising industry on its head. It means that advertisers aren’t necessarily reliant on measurement and ratings companies to present them with their approximate audience segments, because they can create their own, collecting data from multiple sources and advertising anywhere that users can be detected and tracked. As we explored with the advent of publisher trading desks, publishers are also striving to reframe their own worth in this new context by exploiting their own rich user data, which they can sell within the audience buying model.

In some ways, though, this has led to such a fractured advertising landscape that we might wish for simpler times. The biggest problem is that the new and old models aren’t necessarily compatible, and yet many advertisers still try to use the old one and think audience buying can simply be tacked on.

For example, traditional TV advertising still mainly follows the old model while digital TV allows for much more direct audience targeting based on metrics like impressions and time spent with ads.

“The cost of using such different methodologies of buying selling and measuring TV and video is catching up to media companies that straddle both worlds,” says Lorne Brown, CEO of Operative. Brown continues:

Buyers and sellers often have separate media planning teams, technology stacks, sales teams, contracts and billing processes for the two worlds. As digital grows, it will not be sustainable to have two parallel processes. It also won’t be effective for advertisers, which will increase their expectations of measurable and effective cross-screen campaigns.

A cohesive model

At the same time, it might not be wise to ditch contextual targeting altogether because it can serve a different purpose. While audience buying is focused on the pre-existing behaviours of users whose data and habits have been tracked, marketers may still want to throw a wider net for growth on a larger scale.

Malcolm Coles of The Telegraph (UK) puts this in terms of ‘driving scale or becoming niche’:

a publisher has to choose between wanting to drive general engagement with their site and their brand, seeking growth over time, versus attending to the pre-existing audiences they have for, say, Telegraph Sport, or even a dedicated Arsenal FC page.

According to a white paper from Xaxis titled Harnessing Big Data for Audience Buying, a cohesive advertising model should have several ‘audience tiers’, ranging from ‘demonstrated affinity’ at one end (‘the consumers who have demonstrated through action a predisposition for the brand’), to ‘inferred affinity’ at the other end (‘the consumers who have not yet expressed affinity through direct action, but may gravitate towards the brand based on broader data such as demographics’).

The stronger the affinity with a brand, the smaller the size of a group, which means that targeting only users with proven affinity—in other words, only direct audience buying—may be insufficient for growth on its own. A good marketing plan, therefore, needs a cohesive model that encompasses both a hyper-targeted audience and a broader contextual reach.

The Basics: Publisher Trading Desks

In the traditional advertising model advertisers and their agencies buy advertising space from media owners and networks. They do this in order to reach an audience they think will be interested in buying their products and services. Simple. Increasingly, however, these relationships are becoming increasingly murky as advertisers morph into media owners and media owners become buyers. One way the latter is taking shape is through the formation of so-called Publisher Trading Desks.

As the advertising and marketing market shifts from trading on media properties as a proxy for audience and toward a more audience-centric trading paradigm, publishers are finding new ways to leverage first party data. By doing so publishers can capitalise on their own audiences, to give them the competitive edge. The premise is simple: publishers can leverage the rich data from their own pre-existing audiences to advertise more effectively, and not just on their own sites, but on third-party sites too.

As such, they can charge a premium for the use of their proprietary data, something to which most advertising companies simply don’t have access. So clients come directly to the publisher and pay the premium to have their product or service advertised across the publisher’s trusted affiliate network.

So how does it work?

PTD Simplified Model
On the left is the traditional buying model. On the right, the publisher moves up the chain, closer to the buyer, to trade the publisher’s own audience across both their own sites as well as on the open exchanges.

A publisher sets up a trading desk using what was traditionaly buy-side technology like MediaMath, DataXu, AppNexus or one of the other Demand Side Platforms (DSPs). This tech allows them to better manage and monetise their audience data. Previously, this would have required advertising middlemen, who would have taken a chunk of the revenue, but the publisher having their own trading desk makes this unnecessary. The actual purchasing of inventory is still done through real-time bidding, but the publisher leverages their proprietary data to target their ads.

This works particularly well for vertical or trade publications. For example, a publisher such as The Guardian, which has its own trading desk, will have rich data on its own readership, segmented into different interest groups. They will be able to look at the data for their travel section or their business section, and can analyse user behaviour to determine which campaigns their readership has been attracted to, which devices they tend to use and other demographic data.

This data then informs the publisher’s advertising on third-party sites—determining the nature of the ads, who to target, and on which of these third-party sites it would be most appropriate to advertise. It can also help to determine which devices to optimise for, such as smartphones and tablets.

But it doesn’t end there. When the publisher buys inventory on these third-party sites, these advertisements then collect their own data through cookies, which in aggregate creates an even richer pool of data.

A better proposition

This audience extension creates a much better advertising proposition overall, by not limiting publishers to the ad space of their own websites, and by allowing them to build on their already rich datasets. It also allows publishers to build mobile advertising even if they have no mobile inventory of their own, or video advertising if they have no video inventory.

For advertisers, there’s an element of brand safety guaranteed, as publishers can bank on their own reputations and those of trusted affiliates. Publishers themselves have the opportunity to work with their internal marketing teams to promote to their own audience beyond their website and across their network, increasing the reach of campaigns and promotional events.

However, a publisher trading desk is not without its challenges. The publisher will first have to prove their value to advertisers and other buyers. Publishers will be required to take on all the usual responsibilities of advertisers, which means that they will need to be savvy with their data, build in-house trading expertise where there is none, and source and train on new platforms where they have limited experience.

In other words, while there are many apparent advantages to publishers setting up their own trading desks in order to regain control of their own advertising and boost their own revenue, publishers will still require a thorough, fully-baked data strategy for it to work effectively.

Unmet demand for scalable branded content abundant

It’s been a crazy week so far and it’s only Tuesday at 9:30 AM. Part of this craziness is that there is so much interest in the DistroScale solution. Publishers, especially top-tier, multi-title publishers, are chomping at the bit for a scalable solution for branded content that plugs directly into demand streams on the buy side. I had suspected that there might be some pent-up demand for services like these, services that don’t require a big commitment — or any commitment at all — from publishers, yet offers them monthly paychecks of purely incremental revenue. I’ve seen this before in the early days of RTB when Admeld was building a stable of top-tier premium publishers, offering them a check every month, and solving both their remnant inventory and multi-network management problems at the same time. In the end, that model and their strategy worked out pretty well for them, I’d say. It’s a great business to be in, both providing a solution to a problem and being able to pay people for the privilege.

One thing that has become abundantly clear as I’ve been holding these meetings is that the scope of confusion and misunderstanding of ‘native’ is rife in the online industry, even amongst those who have been in it for ages. I include myself in this pool and each day I get a clearer picture of what we, as an industry, actually mean by the term. However, it’s such a wide catchall right now, it’s not surprising people are so confused. I found this beautifully produced matrix/chart from TripleLift and I’m using it as a cheat sheet for myself and as an asset for clients. I suspect it’ll require nearly weekly updates:

A visual categorization of the major players involved from TripleLift.
A visual categorization of the major players involved from TripleLift.

It’s crystal clear that the industry wants scalable, programmatic solutions for branded content (i.e. native) and there will probably be a few winners in the space. I don’t think it’s a one-size-fits-all problem and I don’t necessarily think it’s going to lend itself to one dominant player. Again, I look at the RTB world, which spawned at least three extremely successful companies on the publisher side: Admeld, PubMatic, and Rubicon. On the demand side it spawned, and continues to spawn, many many more. I’m looking forward to being on the ground and in the trenches for this latest (r)evolution in ad tech.

With Its “Demand Fusion” Tech, OpenX Helps Publishers Take A Smarter Approach To Real-Time Bidding | TechCrunch

My news feed this morning was topped with not one, not two, but three headlines heralding the launch of OpenX’s new RTB + Networks solution, "Demand Fusion".

OpenX Display FusionThe key development here is adding in an additional supply query to the networks, which may be offering a higher price for the impression and therefore delivery higher value to the publisher (supplier). In addition to the incremental revenue, Demand Fusion helps to reduce or eliminate daisy chaining on the ops side — a burdensome task for ops teams.

As described an OpenX press release earlier this week:

It’s rather simple. If a network accepts an impression at a price that is higher than the RTB bid, then by all means, give that impression to the network. But if that network defaults and the next highest price is an RTB bid, then sell it to the RTB bidder rather than simply passing it to another network without regard for the RTB bid.

From Tech Crunch:

SSPs will usually compare the ad network with the highest CPM to the highest bid from RTB. The approach seems to make sense, but the problem, as explained by Pranay Gupta, OpenX’s director of sales engineering, is that ad networks can say no to a publisher. At that point, however, the SSP is committed to the ad network route, so they’re forced to “daisy chain” through ever-cheaper ad networks until they find a taker — which means that they might make significantly less money than if they’d gone with the bid from RTB. “Daisy chaining is the bane of any ad operations person,” Gupta said.

While Demand Fusion sounds like a positive development, I’m not convinced it’s a ‘game changer’ as some people are claiming. However, it’s certainly picking up a lot off buzz this morning!

With Its “Demand Fusion” Tech, OpenX Helps Publishers Take A Smarter Approach To Real-Time Bidding | TechCrunch.

5 takeaways from the Digiday Publishing Summit in Barcelona | Digiday

W BCNEarlier this week I was lucky enough to attend and speak at Digiday’s inaugural European event, the Digital Publisher Forum. The event was a valuable snapshot of the state of the European online ad market in the summer of 2014. Lots of consistent messaging: Native; Programmatic; Mobile; Eroding Publisher Power; ‘Tech Tax’ and other topics that are on everyone’s lips at the moment.

The team was kind enough to prepare a tidy summary of the key themes and takeaways.

I presented on the state and future of Programmatic Trading, with an eye toward risks and opportunities for publishers. One stat I cited was the lack of understanding from CMOs about this type of advertising planning and delivery:

Just 23 percent of CMOs understand programmatic advertising enough to use it in campaigns, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Still, Audra Martin, vp of advertising at the Economist Group, gave a compelling case study. When deployed well, programmatic can allow for premium efficiency at scale.

5 things we learned at the Digiday Publishing Summit in Barcelona | Digiday.