The first study of BVDW for online audio shows the impact of digital audio advertising.
Campaign parameters
You can read or download the study below.
[slideshare id=62846921&doc=bvdwonlineaudioadvertisingeffectsstudy2015-160608100458]
An analysis of ROI and sales performance of online advertising on the basis of individual marketing mix modeling and database analysis.
Background and motivation
Advertising market: Uncertainty regarding sales effect and with it efficiency (ROI) of online advertising.
OVK, Circle of Online Marketers: Analysis of the offline sales effect of online advertising in general and in particular online display.
Focus for evaluating: Gross online ROI based on the sales performance.
You can read or download the study below.
At Interact 2016, IAB Europe announced the winners of its 2016 Research Awards. BBC won the Consumer Attitudes and Behaviour category and was highly commended in the Brand Advertising Effectiveness one for their research project entitled The Science of Engagement, which looks at answering two pivotal questions for boosting content-led marketing effectiveness:
How do consumers engage with content-led marketing?
What does this engagement mean for the brands involved?
To browse through the research, check the slideshare or download the document below!
At Interact 2016, IAB Europe announced the winners of its 2016 Research Awards, notably comScore as the winner of the Research and Data Innovation category with their research project: Project Footprint - Exploring Consumers’ Online & Offline Behaviours.
The new research study from comScore and their partners aims to quantify the correlation between what people read and their subsequent online behaviour, offline conversations and purchases to holistically understand the impact of advertising
To browse through the research, check the slideshare or download the document below!
At Interact 2016, IAB Europe announced the winners of its 2016 Research Awards, notably The Guardian as the winner of the Best Use of Research Budget category with their research project: The Guardian Guide to Context.
The research project focuses on the impact of context on ad effectiveness from a plethora of perspectives with intriguing findings.
To browse through the research, download it below.
At Interact 2016, IAB Europe announced the winners of its 2016 Research Awards, notably IAB UK as the winner of the Consumer Devices category with their research project: Real_Living: How devices compete for attention in the living room.
The widely media touted research project generated a series of groundbreaking findings, such as data that showed for the first time that ad breaks during TV broadcasts don't necessarily correlate with device usage, effectively dethroning the TV as the dominant living room screen.
To browse through the research, click the document below to download it.
At Interact 2016, IAB Europe announced the winners of its 2016 Research Awards. Millward Brown received the "Highly Commended" accolades in the Digital Advertising Formats category with their research project: AdReaction: Video Creative in a Digital World.
AdReaction: Video Creative in a Digital World addresses key questions facing marketers, including:
• How are videos viewed by screen – and for how long?
• What do people think of video ads by screen?
• How can I create ads that consumers won’t skip?
Click below to download the document.
IAB Europe has issued guidance to EU-based publishers on ad blocking detection following reports that such detection without the consent of users is illegal under the ePrivacy Directive (better known as the “Cookie Directive”).
We believe that publishers should be allowed to ask for compensation for their work and choose the form of their business model, e.g. advertising funded, subscription based, or both. We also believe that publishers are entitled to take reasonable measures to ensure that their audiences understand the implicit deal that takes place when they view advertising funded content online. The deal being that users don’t have to pay for access to content in exchange for seeing advertising. We are convinced that EU privacy rules should not be interpreted as meaning that publishers are required to ask for permission from users before ascertaining whether the latter are indeed holding up their end of the bargain in this value exchange.
Nevertheless, to attenuate the risk that a publisher could be liable for breaching even an exceedingly strict interpretation of the directive, our guidance describes how user consent for ad blocking detection can be obtained. The guidance is intended to support publishers as long as the legal situation remains unclear. Our hope is that the forthcoming ePrivacy Directive review will lead to deletion of the relevant article in light of the recent adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), thereby addressing the problem definitively.
Universal scope. Huge implications.
The ePrivacy Directive requires that storage or access of information on a user’s device only take place with the informed consent of the user concerned, irrespective of whether there is an impact on user privacy or not.
A strict interpretation of the law would mean that, in principle, a user’s consent is required for almost any provision of content or services over the internet. Even where information is not persistently stored on a device, but merely temporarily stored in the Random Access Memory (RAM) of a user’s device for real time processing of that information. It follows that any code, such as HTML or JavaScript, in principle, would require the user's consent before it may be legally executed.
Likewise, consent would be required when information stored on the device is accessed. This, according to some, includes information actively shared by the device itself, or even where a mere inference is made about the device.
As ad blocker detection requires both running JavaScript, and making an educated guess about (inferring) the presence of an ad blocker, some argue that this means that users must give their consent before ad blocker detection may take place.
IAB Europe questions such a strict interpretation, which would essentially regulate every single activity taking place over the Internet with huge implications for Europe’s digital economy.
Ad blocking detection should benefit from an exemption. Maybe.
The ePrivacy Directive provides for two narrow exceptions to this consent requirement:
Where one of these exemptions applies, storage and access do not require the informed consent of the user. The Article 29 Working Party, the group of all EU data protection authorities, has issued an opinion on the application of the ePrivacy Directive to device fingerprinting, and in it considers the applicability of the two exemptions to certain cases.
The group argues that ascertaining the technical capabilities of a browser, such as detecting which video formats are supported, does not require the consent of the user, considering it strictly necessary. Notably, the opinion states that “the media types supported by a browser are often the same amongst many other users utilizing the same browser version. Therefore, when processed in isolation, these non-unique information elements do not generally present a data protection risk.”
IAB Europe believes that the expansion of the notion of strict necessity to the above scenario is arbitrary but applies the law in a more practical way. The same practicality must be applied to ascertaining the technical capability of a browser to display ads, which form part of the content, to adapt the content displayed based on that knowledge. Failing to do so would mean that the regulator deliberately and arbitrarily discriminates in how the notion of strict necessity is defined to benefit users but not the services they visit -- even though inferring non-unique information such as the presence of an ad blocker would not present a data protection risk by the regulator’s own admission.
Clean up this mess. Please.
The ePrivacy Directive is under formal review at the moment. IAB Europe urges the European Commission to critically assess this provision and consider its repeal or alignment with the lawfulness of processing under general data protection law. Particularly in light of its potential universal scope and the arbitrary interpretation and enforcement it lends itself to, even where there is an objective lack of risk for user privacy.
Bonus trivia
The consent banner, which data protection authorities advise publishers to use to request and obtain consent for the use of cookies, is built on JavaScript, the running of which would require consent under the strict interpretation above. As there is no exemption for storage or access for the sole purpose of complying with legal obligations, and compliance with the law is not strictly necessary for technical delivery of a service, the same interpretation of the law would mean that a website is breaking the law by asking for consent without having already obtained consent.
IAB Europe has issued guidance to EU-based publishers on ad blocking detection following reports that such detection without the consent of users is illegal under the ePrivacy Directive (better known as the “Cookie Directive”).
We believe that publishers should be allowed to ask for compensation for their work and choose the form of their business model, e.g. advertising funded, subscription based, or both. We also believe that publishers are entitled to take reasonable measures to ensure that their audiences understand the implicit deal that takes place when they view advertising funded content online. The deal being that users do not have to pay for access to content in exchange for seeing advertising. We are convinced that EU privacy rules should not be interpreted as meaning that publishers are required to ask for permission from users before ascertaining whether the latter are indeed holding up their end of the bargain in this value exchange.
Nevertheless, to attenuate the risk that a publisher could be liable for breaching even an exceedingly strict interpretation of the directive, our guidance describes how user consent for ad blocking detection can be obtained. The guidance is intended to support publishers as long as the legal situation remains unclear.
As 2016 marketing strategies kick into high gear, there’s one word on everyone’s mind: programmatic. Global programmatic ad spend is expected to reach $21.6B in 2016, and account for 67% of all digital display ad sales(1).
Programmatic advertising allows brands to reach their audiences with messages tailored to their interests and mindsets in the crucial moments when decisions are made. As such, it’s not just changing how we buy and sell media—it’s also transforming the way we strategize, design, and develop creative.
Transitioning to a data-driven creative process has real rewards. For marketers, it can improve the effectiveness of their campaigns. Media agencies can offer a greater breadth of services to clients, while creative and production agencies can produce higher-quality creative and build more efficiencies into their creative process.
Yet how do we actually make the transition? At DoubleClick, we saw a need to define best practices for developing and implementing creative strategies for programmatic campaigns. In partnership with the digital creative studio, Fancy Pants Group, and the management consulting company, Accenture, we tested several approaches with three brands: Gilt Groupe, L’Oreal Vichy, and Royal Bank of Canada.
Over the course of these tests, we identified a more effective creative process for programmatic campaigns. Today, we’re unveiling that process and the research behind it in a comprehensive guide for marketers.
We identified three key mental shifts that can help marketers make the transition to data-driven creative:
Marketers may already be using data from CRM tools or market research to fuel campaigns. But a wealth of additional data signals are also available, from first-party analytics on company websites to third-party audience data to contextual inputs about device, location, or media type.
For instance, when we worked with L’Oreal on their programmatic campaign for their Vichy sunscreen products, we used location data, audience lists, and weather information as the data signals that informed the creative and gave us a solid basis for testing.
Too often, the creative agency and production shop are brought into the process after the big decisions have already been made. Instead, marketers need to work with agencies to build creative strategies that are based on data from the beginning of the project.
When developing a programmatic campaign with Royal Bank of Canada, we worked with the brand to gather all teams into a single room to build the creative brief. Together, we mapped out a strategy that resulted in a cross-agency team that was invested in the process and outcome from the start.
In today’s campaign creation process, each party completes their portion and hands it off to the next with little feedback. This prevents communication and transparency between media and creative. To ensure success, marketers should involve all agencies throughout the campaign process and ensure everyone is talking to one another.
When we worked with Gilt.com on a programmatic campaign to drive membership, we not only involved everyone from the beginning, but also continued to work together after the initial campaign ended. By doing so, the brand was able to tap the analytical capabilities of multiple stakeholders.
For a quick glimpse of the five phases in the campaign process and the roles and responsibilities of each party across that process, check out The creative process for programmatic infographic.
IAB Europe agrees that consumers may indeed participate in a value exchange when they access online services that are free at the point of consumption and that consumer protections need to be operative in the context of such exchange. However, in IAB Europe’s view, the paradigm of data as such as a counter-performance analogous to money is inappropriate, and would likely have unintended consequences that would disserve both consumers and suppliers if pursued in the current proposal. In addition, although the proposed Directive is intended to align to the GDPR, we note that with respect to the obligation on suppliers to return data to users in case of termination of a contract (an obligation that is analogous to the data portability right in the GDPR), the proposed directive goes much further than the GDPR, laying down requirements that would be disproportionately onerous for suppliers without providing any concomitant benefit to users.
