Google is expanding its tool for publishers to combat ad blocking.
"Funding Choices comes at a cost; publishers have to meet the Coalition for Better Ads’ Better Ads standards, which Google’s Chrome ad filter enforces and which some consider another way Google is dictating the rules of the web. Publishers also have to share the revenue with Google if they get readers to pay. Finally, few publishers are able to get people to pay for online access in the first place."
It should be noted that Google has (at least previously) paid two of the most popular ad blockers to have Google's ads whitelisted; effectively Google's revenue helps fund the development of ad blockers. Google then develops a tool for publishers to deal with adblocking...taking 10% (of monetised viewing) to do so.
While Google may be virtue signalling an intent to solve the ad blocking issue, it fully intends on capitalising on the revenue opportunity it represents.
This move (combined with their News Initiative to monetise new subs and GDPR requests to be 'controller') is aimed at making Google the gatekeeper to the content consumption experience for a large portion of the population.
Any other takes/perspectives?
The internet is predicated on the notion of it being free. But what if this predilection was found to be the root cause of most of our media and societal ails; filter bubbles, 'fake news', misinformation and the spread of conspiracy theories, privacy breaches et al.
Our technological and in some ways societal future depends on what happens next.
Jaron Lanier, a scientist, musician and writer is known for his work in virtual reality and his advocacy of humanism and sustainable economics in a digital context, and contends that when free digital systems and great tech entrepreneurs exploded there was a 'globally tragic, astoundingly ridiculous mistake, rather than a wave of evil where behaviour modification empires (we know them as social networks) sprouted and effectively 'broke' the internet'. He believes 'we simply just need to remake the decision'.
Lanier suggests, that born of this period (in the late 1990s) was a 'mythical power which produced two different passions; for making everything free and for the almost supernatural power of the tech entrepreneur. (But) How do you celebrate entrepreneurship when everything's free?' These two things are at odds with each other and this decision for predominantly 'free' has resulted in systems which modifies users' behaviour in the process of allowing them to seek information and communicate with others via the internet.
The only solution back then was the advertising model and just like users, the likes of Google and Facebook are hooked; unable to diversify from the proposition of cost centres to profit centres.
His most notable thought; "I don't think our species can survive unless we fix this. We cannot have a society in which if two people wish to communicate the only way that can happen is if it’s financed by a third person who wishes to manipulate them.”
Would/will users ever be able to be weaned from the 'free' model. Would we make a different decision if we knew back then? Would we being willing to remake the decision now?
A comprehensive and contextualised account can be read via New York Mag
Worth watching the TEDTalk in full.
There’s only one broadcaster winning the (long term) strategic game here.
For Nine this now isn’t a ‘must have’. Even the revised Nine Entertainment Co. & Network Ten offer $900m ($150m pa over 6 years) to keep cricket on FTA, would see Ten retain the Big Bash League while Nine would keep the Test matches...but importantly international Twenty20 & 50 over matches would switch from Nine to Ten.
Nine has already won the Australian Open Tennis Tournament & entering the Cricket negotiations with Ten means it shifts a significant portion of its cost base, freeing it up for more diversification & greater margins & still receive summer sport revenue.
Foxtel's aggressive bid estimated between $160 to $170 million per year for every game (or $800-850 million) may be viewed by Cricket Australia as a financial lifeline as SMH points out, but unless Foxtel & Seven West Media can deliver something (questionable & arguably detrimental to CA brand) like a knock out news lock out (Comm Games style), I’d question the long term strategy. Even if the bid wins, they ‘win’ the rights but inherit the largest cost base for a summer sport with no additional benefit for users and no significant audience gains for Cricket Australia. Right now, CA need an outcome which delivers improvement/stability for the brand. Taking cricket from FTA is a risk.
As News Corp play hard ball, Nine’s patience, holistic view of rights & willingness to collaborate should pay off here.
Blockchain will affect the practice of marketing and the media industry in ways not yet entirely obvious but is it over-hyped?
No. It will be both inevitable and transformative.
Blockchain has been made possible with the convergence of scaled audiences, connectivity and computation power and provides a new data structure enabling what is known as crypto economic protocols. Blockchain is technology which decentralises the way we do business. Blockchain can create new network designs and supply chains and reduce the friction from many processes.
What this means for media and marketing is the way in which content is distributed and indeed the ownership, management and use of personal information and therefore the ability for marketers to reach consumers as they have done previously will be up-ended. Existing distribution models for both editorial and advertising content will be impacted by disintermediation and many AdTech and MarTech businesses will be under threat.
Plain and simple; if you're a media middle-man and you've read anything about Blockchain, you're likely to be a little nervous or amidst a period of heavy innovation.
We have reached a time right now where we're questioning how the tech giants ended up with too much power. Blockchain will be their likely usurper and from this, peer-to-peer for everything will become (the most likely) reality. How we never thought of this rather than allowing the rise of large networked empires will amuse future generations.
Blockchain is less about how the technology works itself and more about how it will be utilised and what the implications or impacts are.
As Jeremy Epstein from Never Stop Marketing discusses on the EchoJunction* podcast, with Blockchain we 'now have technology which allows for the transfer of items of value as opposed to simply information (like the internet delivered) without the need for third party intermediaries which add time and risk'. That is, we are seeing the distinction between the internet of 'Information' and the Internet of 'Value'.
Most significantly, it allows consensus about the state and ownership of assets at particular times and has strong security guarantees to ensure that 'history' cannot be altered by bad actors. This means this innovation enables or liberates all types of value (including content) as the owners and recipients are protected through verification.
According to Singtel's APAC Associate Director for Financial Services Industry Innovation, Cindy Nicholson, 2018 will be the breakthrough year for Blockchain and the technology will mature by 2025^.
This is what we will start to see:
The most significant change will be in the space where consumers themselves make money from their own data...but more on that later.
Waiting to see how it plays out is likely to see players 'left out' or 'left behind'. Education, preparedness and early experimentation (or partnerships) is key.
Update (April 10, 2018): Found this explainer on Blockchain which might be useful - A Beginner's Guide to Blockchain - Steve Sammartino
* The EchoJunction Podcast with Adam Fraser; Jeremy Epstein talks Blockchain
^ AdNews; In Depth - Can blockchain revolutionise how media is traded? and Blockchain Summit 2017
Here's another acronym to add to your marketing bible.
CDPs or "Customer Data Platforms's focus on 1st-party data and known identities and an ability to connect with common marketing systems for input and output. It facilitates data collection, unification around a persistent ID, flexible storage and easy access from outside. Caution: solving cross-device requires something that CDPs do not have (yet)."
A CDP could be visualised like this as suggested by Martin Kihn:
Gartner's, Martin Kihn's observations:
1. CDP is not a system of record – it's a system of innovation
2. Failures won't be caused by the tech – they'll be caused by you
3. You probably don't know how messy your data is now
4. You will overestimate your team’s technical skill
5. You want short-term results but use long-term evaluation metrics
The temptation will be to think the CDP replaces the DMP (Data Management Platform), but "The DMP negotiates...programmatic advertising, while the CDP – by definition – is grounded in individuals known by name, email, customer number or another personal ID." The DMP operates on massive audiences; the CDP, on a manageable number of individuals. They do different things but are complementary.
Here's a great summary from Martin Kihn in AdExchanger
Your comments are welcome and you are encouraged to express your views in a positive and productive manner in line with our Code of Conduct.